User talk:QazyQazyQazaqstan

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, QazyQazyQazaqstan!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to add category[edit]

Hello. I suggest you add Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases/pending to the Kazakh FOP cases that you are making. This prevents the incidence of uncategorized FOP case pages that make file restorations harder to achieve. You add the category with the addition of "noinclude" tag to prevent collateral categorization of the daily listing (where the case page is transcluded) to the FOP case categories:

<noinclude>[[Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>

Of course you should not add this to cases in which the involved photo is a copyright violation itself (like stolen photo). Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please categorize your Kazakhstani FOP deletion requests accordingly. You are giving unnecessary burden to other editors like me in adding such categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not burdening anyone. I am saving other editors from having to file deletion requests by doing it for them.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that categorization is very important. Uncategorized deletion requests make finding deleted images harder in case these are going to be undeleted or restored if the works fall out of copyright or if a commercial freedom of panorama is introduced. That's why it is very important to add such categorization, and all editors or users are encouraged to add FOP categories as much as possible, especially those who started the deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please provide evidence that this specific logo, the logo of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, was banned by the Constitutional Court of Germany?

The reality is that en:Strafgesetzbuch section 86a explicitly bans symbols of unconstitutional organizations, and there is a list of symbols banned which starts in 1952. There is no evidence that this specific symbol ever fell under this ban, nor that OUN was ever declared an unconstitutional organisation in Germany. There is extensive evidence that OUN was active in Germany well after 1952, and (West) German authorities did not in any way ban it.

The only available evidence is that this symbol is indeed banned in Russia. But the template for it is separate ({{Extremist symbol in Russia}}), and it should be used instead of inferring this symbol is somehow banned in Germany. Please do not return this template without evidence that this symbol was banned in Germany. Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a specific court case, not every single of thousands of Nazi-adjacent symbols has been the subject of a court case. Carefully read the full sentence in the template that Nazi symbols AND symbols of an organization closely associated to it are banned. The OUN certainly had ties to the Nazis, receiving help from the Nazis and aiding and abbetting them. I am well aware that Russia is emphasizing the Nazi past of Eastern European countries, but we cannot allow ourself to engage in historical revisionism and holocaust denialism just to trigger Russia. This is a huge problem in Wikipedia. Until recently the article about Herbert Cukurs in Latvian Wikipedia had an external link to a website that claimed that the accusations of warcrimes against him were part of an anti-Latvian Jewish conspiracy. I'm putting my foot down. We shouldn't give Nazis slack just because Russia says Nazis are bad. A broken clock is right twice a day and saying that the Waffen SS and Nazi-alligned groups aren't war criminals is Holocaust denialism. Holocaust denialism is illegal in Germany.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither mainstream historians nor German courts prove your arguments. If OUN were an organisation associated with Nazis, how could it openly operate for years in the Germany itself while Nazi organisations in Germany were outlawed? And it was not a random fan club, the worldwide leadership of OUN including Stepan Bandera himself were based and openly working in Germany while § 86a was already applied. There is an extensive amount of research on OUN relationship with the Nazis, and mainstream historians do not consider OUN Nazi-adjusacent or closely associated. This review summarises that Nazis were overall hostile to OUN, while this conference by US Holocaust Memorial Museum shows that at some points of time there were some mutual interests and Nazis at most tolerated OUN activities. This has strictly nothing to do with Holocaust denial. None of this is even connected with File:УССД Герб.svg which is a part of propaganda for an independent united Ukrainian state (Українська Самостійна Соборна держава) which has nothing to do with Nazism at all — NickK (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "organization closely associated to it [the Nazi party]" do you not understand? Just because something is not physically part of a party doesn't mean that it isn't close. And as far as I am aware it is very broad to call the OUN Ukrainian anyway since so many of them weren't Ukrainian at all but lots of Greeks and Slovaks.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask you to explain the phrase, I understand it. I asked you to provide evidence that OUN is considered an organisation closely associated to the Nazi Party in Germany, because this is the reason for putting a template. You fail to provide such evidence. I provide evidence that it was not closely associated (but at best sporadically interacting), which you don't disprove. I don't even know how to qualify your statement about lots of Greeks and Slovaks because this is both completely factually wrong and irrelevant — NickK (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed that English Wikipedia was correct about the organization getting help from Nazi Germany, ergo, meets a threshold for being closely associated with it. I said that a German court case wasn't nessesary, we have the article in English Wikipedia that says there were ties of the organization to the Nazis. If you think that the English Wikipedia article is wrong then you can write about it on the talkpage there - if you think that the article should say it was "sporadically interacting" then suggest the article be changed and provide sources that downplay the connections. But I feel like this whole argument is moot anyway since we've all agreed on the extremist symbol legal disclaimer. I am a teeny bit worried about the copyright status of the symbol though, but logos aren't my area of expertise so someone else can look into it.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please categorize your FOP nominations[edit]

Again, for the second time, please add categories. As much as possible, add categories manually and not through HotCat so you can add "noinclude" tags. Without "noinclude" tags, the daily listings where the nomination pages are transcluded to get categrized in the FOP categories.

Not categorizing the deletion requests only adds more "orphaned" deletion requests, making undeletion or restoration attempts harder to achieve. Remember, there is a possibility of liberalizing FOP just like what Belgian Wikimedians achieved in 2016 (with the deleted files restored to public view afterwards). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Russia in 2014. After the consultation with Wikimedia Russia, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was amended and allow works of architecture in the country. The community then restored those works of architecture using these categories. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the request to categorize FOP deletion requests and when you do, please include "noinclude" tags like this <noinclude>[[Category: Ukrainian FOP cases/pending]] (example)</noinclude> Abzeronow (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion[edit]

Hi. You can use this tool Help:VisualFileChange.js to create mutiple files deletion in one go. 0x0a (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please categorize your FOP nominations[edit]

Again, for the 3rd time, please add categories to your FoP and DW nominations. Doing so will allow to us easily find these DRs and undelete these files when they will enter in PD. Юрий Д.К 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Юрий Д.К. not only if a public artwork enters PD, but also if a country introduces some sort of commercial FOP, whether in a complete manner like Belgium in July 2016, or partial (for architecture) only like Russia in October 2014. QazyQazyQazaqstan, for your information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Юрий Д.К. and JWilz12345: QazyQazyQazaqstan was globally locked due to socking. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kanysh Satpayev from Kazakhstanskaya Pravda 18 January 1946.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!

Yann (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]