More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Although we very much need every set of eyes we can get to review the 8,000 new images Commons gets every day and find the 2,000 that need to be deleted, we need that work to be done in accordance with Commons policies -- otherwise it just wastes editors' time - both yours and others.
I have just finished going through all of your recent DRs. In all cases you objected to the subject matter, file name, description, or quality, not the copyright status.
In most cases the files were in use. Please remember that policy forbids deletion of a file that is in use except for a problem with its copyright status. The fact that it could easily be replaced, as you said several times, is irrelevant -- until it actually is replaced in all of its WMF uses, a DR is inappropriate. Even then, we rarely delete files for quality reasons unless we have several similar images.
You also nominated several files showing equipment that was obsolete. Commons is a repository to which we hope people will come when they are looking for precisely that kind of file -- images of things that are no longer in general use. "Obsolete" makes a file more valuable, not less.
Please the time to read Commons:Deletion policy. If you have questions, you may ask them at the Village Pump in any of 42 languages or on my talk page. I will also watch for questions here on your talk page for at least a week. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking as the person who processed those images (though I'm *not* the original photographer(s)), no offence taken, but... the "poor usage of what looks like a Photoshop filter" was (IMHO) actually reasonable use of a Photoshop filter to improve a somewhat mediocre original. :-)
- You have to judge it against the unfiltered original, which was considerably out of focus. At that time, it was the only close-up of a 5200 controller on Commons, and the processing (which sharpened the image, but also led to some patterning) was a tradeoff.
- I generally agree with the anti-deletion policy, unless there's a clear glut of virtually identical images. Note that there's still only one other dedicated photo of a 5200 controller on Commons (though it's obviously *miles* better technically).
- However, despite what's been said above, there are *some* cases where egregiously bad images can- and should- be deleted. Namely if an image is *so* technically bad that it can't possibly fulfil any educationally illustrative/informative purpose (e.g. blurred beyond retrieval or uselessly dark) *and* is clearly beyond any hope of improvement or retrieval via Photoshop... it might warrant deletion. I've actually nominated some such images myself- and had them deleted- but those were *really* bad, far worse than the ones above!