Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vlad Tepes 002.gif

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vlad Tepes 002.gif

edit

Template is wrong, it's also a derivative by an unknown person (it's an animated gif - the eyes move after a while!). Serves no encylcopaedic purpose.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the animated version with a non-animated copy of the jpg version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until I came here and saw BMK's message, I wondered if the nomination were a joke; I spent several minutes watching the current revision for movement :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The non-animated version is larger than the jpg, so I doubt it is useful. The animated version is at least an education example of how to freak people out with gif. Regarding the copyright tag, the uploader was probably intending to assert no copyright over their modification of the work in the public domain. I say keep animated version unless someone puts forward some evidence that it is not public domain. (e.g. if the uploader isnt the creator and therefore did not have the right to upload the work in question) John Vandenberg (chat) 03:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image was created for the purposes of stealth vandalism (I have to admit, very funny - well played, user) - see this edit to en.wp. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the most entertaining and innovative approaches to educating the public that I have come across on any encyclopedia. It is an absolute work of genius and such efforts needs to be commended and expanded throughout the stodgy and decrepit old halls of Wackipedia. WAKE UP and smell the camomile, you stiff hard-asses!--87.6.32.181 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vlad Tepes 002.gif

edit

This is a joke image - the eyes move - which has been deleted once before. I'm going to replace it with the non-animated, non-joke version, but Currently iould be deleted agpicture Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keepWait a second, this was a new image I created (not the creator of the previous version) for use as userpage image. I'm annoyed you've already removed the animation as that's out of scope for my (or whoever else's) userpage, and will be reverting ASAP but whilst it remains as userpage image the animated version is definitely in scope. It could be and has already been argued that it could be used as an example of creepy/frightening animations and I'm happy to explore those options. -- Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. Also serves no encyclopedic purpose. feydey (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not recreation, different image from the original(my first animation for it was far more complex than deleted file), and above has no consensus 3 keeps 1delete yet deleted anyway. Currently in scope userpage pic is for userpage purposes and policy does not require them to be encyclopedic. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no need for this image in any way shape or form, whether it's the same as the previous image, or a slightly altered one, because it's a joke which abuses an actual historical image, and, as noted above, outside the scope of this collection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the project scope allows a user to upload "small numbers of images [...] for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project". I have uploaded one image for use on two of my userpages, here and on en wiki. Do you have a good policy based reason why I am not allowed to have this on my user-page whilst numerous other editors are allowed to have animated/edited joke images on their user-pages, because you haven't presented one beyond the fact you don't like it and clearly have never liked it? "abuses an actual historical image" I'm sorry are you implying the picture has feelings or it's six centuries dead creator will be offended in whatever state he is currently in? Clearly that's nonsense, the work is in the public domain and I can alter it in any manner I see fit to use for my personal purpose on my userpage. Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are their joke images alterations of actual historical images which can be mistaken for the original by an unsuspecting user? If joke images get in the way of the actual business of this collection, then it's easy to see that the joke must go, as your joke images was deleted earlier (and despite your attempt to differentiate between them, they are essentially the same, and the arguments above apply to this image precisely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the image File:Vlad Tepes 002 (joke version - eyes move).gif Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they've sat there for years without being deleted or rename "Joke Version" but somehow you feel that without presenting evidence that such confusion has happened or is overwhelmingly likely to happen in the future this example has to be deleted or renamed. Nor have you attempted to gain consensus for such file moving, so I'm not likely to share the locations of other such files for you to take similar unilateral action there. I note you still haven't presented any policy to back your position so I'm guessing there actually isn't any. (besides which I've found an educational use in an existing article about internet images designed to scare through unexpected movement) Petty and officious behavior is not an excuse for the edit warring you are demonstrating here. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken the time to read our renaming policy, I see that this was not a valid reason for a file move without consensus - do you intend to restore it or should I be approaching an admin to get your edit reverted? --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Reason #3: "Correct misleading names into accurate ones" applies here, since the new name more accurately describes the image, so I will not be reverting it. The only conceivable reason for you to object to the renaming is that you want people to accidentally use it, mistaking it for a legitimate image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, your stated reason for uploading the image is to use it on your user pages, and yet you added it the article en:Internet Screamer and rewrote the article to make it apply to the image, changing the meaning of the article entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason #3 Specifically gives examples of images whose names identify different subjects from their contents - had the image been named something like "Bill Clinton 002.gif" that might have been a justification but file names that look a "bit" better should not be renamed and #3 does not apply here. My objection is as my objection to your changing the image to an unanimated version that you are doing so without discussion and doing so in a manner to depreciate it, I would be willing to discuss a new name but there is no grounds for unilateral action - it should also be noted that renaming during deletion discussions is discouraged as there is no point in renaming a file that gets deleted. As for my re-writing of Internet Screamer, I did so to harmonise it with en:Screamer (disambiguation es:Screamer and wikt:screamer nothing to do with changing the meaning to apply to the picture - the meaning of that article already didn't match with other descriptions of the meaning. If reasonable sources can be found to further improve that meaning so that the image doesn't apply then so be it. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is even worse Penyulap ☏

I found some other pitiful examples, I think this is the worst offender, both the eyes AND the moustache move. I've also found a rabbit with a twitchy ear here, what passes for eternal vigilance these days astonishes me. Penyulap ☏ 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one isn't animated
I like this one even though it's not animated, great use of color particularly red and white. Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Why was this deleted for not being of "encyclopedic" scope? We're not an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have no problem with the animated version. The problems with wikimedia projects is not one of having too many images, but one of not retaining enough editors. If an editor wishes to maintain their sanity by using a bit of humour, then that's great. Put it to use on your userpage and get on with some useful work. I have no great problem with the renaming, but as I've said before, filenames are fairly irrelevant on a multilingual project anyway. Keeping it under the new name would seem to be a reasonable compromise for both sides of the discussion. Lets stop wasting time and harrassing editors. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask at the copyright board but I'm certain it's De Minimis. That said, I'm thinking a version with a waldo like character painted in rather than pasted would improve the work. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, considering how many people of Christian religions feel about the crucifixion, you'll never find me helping or supporting the image. But I'll leave it alone on the other hand, other people can work it out. Penyulap ☏ 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kept: --Alan (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Vlad_Tepes_002.gif&oldid=98007303"