User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 January

Hi Andy Dingley. Regarding the above DR, in the future I ask that you point to a relevant policy. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of project scope does this fuzzy blob fall under?

I agree that being in use on a WP FA will probably stop it being deleted, but that's a problem with FA, not a reason to reduce Commons to this kind of quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I am asking is that instead of saying "is this a joke?" you use a more policy rich rational, such as "falls outside of commons scope given that it is very blurry and out of focus." Stating that it is part of an FA on en.wiki 1) holds no weight here (this is commons, not the English Wikipedia) and 2) seems to suggest you came here simply because it is part of an FA. Tiptoety ^talk 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have sufficient faith in Commons editors that I don't feel I need to spell out why an image quite this bad is indeed bad.

Of course I'm here because of en:Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_feedback, much as I presume you're here because you were WP:CANVASSed to by another editor from that FA work-up. I don't see either of these as making a jot of difference.

This began because what I consider to have been a genuine effort to encourage the editors in Montana to achieve some better photographs worthy of an otherwise really good article was reacted to so badly by PumpkinSky. If they hadn't done that, then I wouldn't have nom'ed this. Yet if this image hadn't been so bad, I wouldn't have nom'ed it either - I don't believe the other images (i.e. PumpkinSky's) are as good as they ought to be for FA, but I certainly wouldn't seek to delete them.

I'm genuinely sorry to have dragged one of another editor's images into this. Especially as they seem to have had the best reason of all for its quality, that it was a "photograph of opportunity" and that was just the only camera they had with them (bytes are cheap, so why not upload it anyway?). I'm inclined to withdraw the DR, just in deference to them as a person, but this sort of continued comment from PumpkinSky doesn't really encourage any sense of compromise. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Andrew, and if you think you're innocent in all this, hardly. You should read this if you haven't already.PumpkinSky talk 01:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate what I said on another page: I couldn't take a photo this poor if I tried. And if I did, I wouldn't upload it to Commons. We do have some standards here, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:William_Ball.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Leyo 14:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the claim for authorship of the files in Category:Scans of correspondence from West Gloucestershire Power Company, 1940s. For example in the case of File:Account, face (West Gloucestershire Power Company).jpg, the contained photographs might inhibit the file from being in the PD. --Leyo 14:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]