"

Image use
Hello, concerning the pictures that have been deleted, I'd like to say that I support their inclusion here. They are not in any way sub-standard and for me they enhance the article. I am surprised by the claim that these were not agreed by other editors. Wiki publications encourage collaborative editing and nothing has to be agreed up front in this way.   

This image is clearly a photograph of another photograph, or poster, or leaflet.  Not only that, but its a badly framed snapshot, and is obviously the work of an amateur.  The image description is missing, and I do not believe that ""own work"" is satisfactory for the source field given my concerns about the image.
MacRusgail you'd have a much easier time if you didn't sling insults and accusations around.  of Doom 
I agree that that's a poor quality image and shouldn't be included in the article.   
Parrot, you still need to inform the image author on commons that you have nominated the image for deletion, also it would help the deletion debate if you could give any reasons for your suspicions.   

Regarding the other two images (right), the County Hall one seems reasonable enough, but the festival one is badly framed. The lens is too zoomed in for my liking.   

The 'Oss picture conveys the feeling of the festival to me, crowded, almost claustrophobic. Would be nice if the editors who originally objectd came here themselves to give their reasons.   
Note that there's also an alternative photo of the festival at File:Red obby oss party 20050502.jpg.   
Which doesn't include an 'Oss.   
No, and I sense that may be important.   

I still fail to see what's so terrible about these pictures. By the way, if you're going to remove pictures, please substitute better ones. That way the article is improved, rather than depleted. 

Going through them:
 The Cornish language one is maybe the worst of the lot, but the reflection on the image is clearly on the ""Rooms"" banner, not on the photograph. It is difficult to find better images of Cornish language use on Wikimedia. Otherwise we're reduced to road signs which use Cornish place names - and they're really loans into English, rather than proper Cornish language use. Two other options to replace first image are on the right.
 There is no way to frame the ""Obby Oss"". It takes place amongst large crowds of people, often on old streets. Other than that, I can't see what the big deal is here.
 The County Hall picture is fine as far as I'm concerned. (However, if you wish a better one, there may well be one on Geograph which can be transferred onto Wikimedia.) It's a non-partisan image, and can't be accused of pandering to any political tendency.

""MacRusgail you'd have a much easier time if you didn't sling insults and accusations around."" - If I wished to insult people, I'd use much stronger language! What I object to is the use of deliberately obscure (and dubious)  abbreviations to justify edits, without a decent explanation as to why. Personally I would have preferred some kind of reasoning. At least that seems to be happening just now.

""obviously the work of an amateur."" - Most of the images on Wikipedia are amateur by definition. The professionals get paid for their images, and they don't give them away for everyone to use. A bit mean, but that's how things go. Since I live s