Erm, my response wasn't intended to be an attack on you in the least; I apologize if it came across that way.
Maybe I'm on edge today, but it came off that way. When you come under as much onslaught as I do on a regular day-to-day basis in dealing with this stuff, it's all too easy to read stuff as an attack.
The point I'm trying to make in regard to the rationales is that what you're asking for is not actually what you want, and the difference is *really* upsetting people.
We need to stop talking about "fair use" images, stop labeling things as "fair use", and stop asking people to justify "fair use". We do not, as a project, care about "fair use", except insofar as it underlies what we *do* care about: the NFCC (which are rather stricter than what's ordinarily regarded as "fair use").
You're essentially going around and asking people to explain why an image is fair use, and then deleting it anyways because it fails the stricter portions of the NFCC. I don't understand why anyone is surprised that this is causing intense resentment; the image uploaders are being sent on a wild goose chase because the widely publicized requirement for their images to be retained -- "fair use" -- is insufficient, and the *actual* requirement -- the NFCC -- is poorly written and buried under ten layers of policy.
Asking the Foundation for clearer criteria isn't the answer. We already have clear criteria. We just need to start actually publicizing *those* criteria rather than a liberal buzz-word version of them.
I don't have the skill to fix the situation. I'm asking for help. You seem qualified. So help. :)
-Durin