Commons:Deletion requests/File:CowDefecating.jpg
"Not educationally useful". I uploaded this in 2005, when I was like 15. It serves no real purpose, and falls under the criteria of "Not educationally useful". I also don't really want my name associated with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheA (talk • contribs)
- The author has every right (attribution and moral) to not have his/her name associated with the file, but the file is in use so is within scope. I'm not sure how we handle this, but presumably we can change the upload to anonymous, and have no attribution (but the authorship is available to admins should anyone ever dispute it). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Clearly serves a real purpose and is educationally useful, as it is in use. Author's name may be deleted from image history if they wish, but that is a non-deletion issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus and in use Ezarateesteban 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I previously requested that this image be deleted because it contains my full name (I uploaded it when I was a minor). The solution was just to remove my name from the file description, which I did; however, my name still shows up on the metadata file history and thus, search results, revealing my personal name. I know that the image is in use, which is why deletion was rejected, so I thus propose that I would like the image deleted, and then I will just reupload it, so that my name is fully erased from it. I have already redownloaded the image, and will rename it with the same file name. Thank you. --MosheA (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment If there's a personal name in anything viewable, I don't see it. Still, I have no objection to removing metadata/history if we still have the useful free-licensed photo. A thought - perhaps go ahead and upload a copy, perhaps as "File:Cow Defecating" (with space) or some other similar but not identical name, and usage can then be switched to that version, after which the old version can be deleted as redundant? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, name is still on the page and will show up in Google. That's also a good idea, although I think I'll upload the new file (whether it uses a space or keeps the old name) not from this Wiki account, but just from an IP, so I'll do it when I'm out of town in a few days. Laissez les bon temps rouler!
- Alternatively, I have no real dog in this fight if someone else wants to upload the file as well. -- MosheA (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: personal info from version history hidden without needing to delete the file. --Pitke (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
License paradox, no longer needed. When this photo was uploaded in 2006, it was useful as a then unique illustration of animal biological function. Uploader requested deletion in 2012, at which time I voted keep as the image was useful. In the 15 years since this was uploaded, Commons has amassed a fair number of images in Category:Cattle defecating - image is still in use, but other images could be substituted. Uploader's user name has been removed from the image, creating a paradox - attribution is specifically called for in the license; yet attribution is impossible. Last year I suggested that the uploader could fix this by changing the license to not require attribution, but that was never done. I find the current inherently contradictory licensing troublesome - I think Commons would be better without this image than keeping it under a bizarre license of attribution simultaneously required and prohibited. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use on one or more Wikimedia projects in main namespace. First have it be removed from all such articles, since Commons don't make editorial decisions for Wikipedia's, on what they wish to use as illustrations or not. Or nominate for deletion for copyright reasons if applicable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
