Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/09/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 5th, 2020
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:Suomenlinna-Viapori 2.jpg

[edit]

Tallensin sen vahingossa Tatu Korhonen (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: File page with no file. --Achim (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (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:Suomenlinna-Viapori 2.jpg

[edit]

Tallensin sen vahingossa Tatu Korhonen (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: File page with no file. --Achim (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (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:Kirche in Radweg bei feldkirchen (9556).jpg

[edit]

Not published under CC licensing. The uploader explicitly excludes all use except on the German Wikipedia. ("nur offiziell für die deutsche Wikipedia Seite zugelassen / oly (sic) for the German site") 217.239.12.146 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If user:Gailtal Nassfeld Venedig line wishes the image to be restricted to deWP then they had better request the deletion, and upload the image to deWP. At this stage this restriction on the image is not valid for an upload to Commons, and your nomination does not appear to be a valid reason for deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I can follow your reasoning, but never mind, the image also seems to be a copyvio, and there are three deletion/ permission lacking templates in the file by this time.
Also, there are much better images of this church on Commons already; it has been replaced by a sharp image in the article by now. --217.239.12.146 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: Cropped from https://www.kath-kirche-kaernten.at/pfarren/detail/C2947/kirche_radweg. --Achim (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (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.

Files in Category:Pictures by Hedda Morrison

[edit]

Photographs taken by German photographer Hedda Morrison (1908 – 1991). The term of copyright for Germany is life + 70 years. Not PD until 2062.

Wcam (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:27, 5 September 2020 (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.

Files in Category:Pictures by Hedda Morrison

[edit]

Photographs taken by German photographer Hedda Morrison (1908 – 1991). The term of copyright for Germany is life + 70 years. Not PD until 2062.

Wcam (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 20:18, 5 September 2020 (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:VBRamashastry.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Adelfrank as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F1 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --MB-one (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2020 (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:Tranquil kashmir! (49704141416).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by RTG as no license (No license since) ~ R.T.G 01:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this image is part of a series of hundreds of images released by the uploader under various forms of free licenses, CC and public domain. Four uploaded had the "identified as" public domain mark, all from the same camera, bearing the uploaders signature automatically in the EXIF data, and posted by their account as public domain. The identifier is either the license holder or the camera owner of the work and have posted it as identifiably public domain. ~ R.T.G 01:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The problem is the "license" on Flickr is PDMark. That license causes some problems. Will perhaps be fixed later. For now I reviewed the file and closed this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Kiagus Muhammad Hanif Sirua (talk · contribs)

[edit]

It is doubted that the files are user's own work as no EXIF is available in each image, low resolution image, and some of the photographs are believed copyvio, such as File:Bupati2020.jpg, File:Bupati AT.jpg, and other portrait photographs.

··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:55, 7 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Kiagus Muhammad Hanif Sirua (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:56, 7 September 2020 (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:Clinton (21312252705).jpg

[edit]

duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:CSD#F8. --CptViraj (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2020 (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:Nic15 (5838610691).jpg

[edit]

duplicate image SecretName101 (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:CSD#F8. --CptViraj (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2020 (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:AbdulRahmanAl-Qamar.jpg

[edit]

No within project's scope. Appears to be a photo of someone who's not notable Infogapp1 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I blocked the uploader for 2 weeks due to copyvios and will delete all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (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:Hamdy Abdel Tawab 2.jpg

[edit]

Promotional image is someone who's not notable. AR page was deleted: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%89_%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8 Infogapp1 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I blocked the uploader for 2 weeks due to copyvios and will delete all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2020 (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:Hamdy Abdel Tawab.jpg

[edit]

Not notable. AR page was deleted: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%89_%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8 Infogapp1 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I blocked the uploader for 2 weeks due to copyvios and will delete all his/her uploads. Taivo (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2020 (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:Male exposing his anus.gif

[edit]

Woefully unencyclopaedic, used for vandalism. Guy 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Sterry ks (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: photos of non-notable person, used for cross-wiki spam. Pages on this person were speedily deleted on enwiki and enwikinews.

Spicy (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. F10. --Minoraxtalk 07:03, 10 September 2020 (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:Generalsecretary01.jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. Calistemon (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:22, 11 September 2020 (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:Liny.PNG

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. Calistemon (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:22, 11 September 2020 (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:Mark 3 (8461491670).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. Calistemon (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:22, 11 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Kiran Burnsed (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:24, 11 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Rupturac1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope.

Cjp24 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:23, 11 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Nigamananda Manna (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not a personal photo album. Out of scope.

Minoraxtalk 06:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:15, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Mohammmadakib (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Used for self promo.

Minoraxtalk 06:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:15, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by GreedyPDF (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope.

Minoraxtalk 06:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:15, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Darsh patel.368 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not a personal photo album. Out of scope.

Minoraxtalk 13:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:15, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Imdiwakar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not a personal photo album. Out of scope.

Minoraxtalk 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:17, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Nelica86 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:17, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Jack ok (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:19, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Anui Sainyiu (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:18, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files in Category:Dolphy Monument at the Museo Pambata

[edit]

Subject of these photos is a statue of Dolphy created by Jonas Roces (who is still alive) and unveiled only in 2013. (source) Copyright protection for sculptures in the Philippines last until 50 years following the sculptor's death. There is also no FoP in the country.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:40, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by たんさんさん (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files were initially tagged by たんさんさん as Speedy (即時削除) and the most recent rationale was: 本人希望

Converting to DR as uploader request >7 days.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:28, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files found with Special:Search/Enrique Martínez Cubells

[edit]

Theses are all non-free in their home country until 2028.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:32, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files in Category:Smartisan

[edit]

Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO China.

Wcam (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:32, 12 September 2020 (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:Sggs21.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 12 September 2020 (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:Sggs31.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 12 September 2020 (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:Sggs11.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 12 September 2020 (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:Rggs31.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:36, 12 September 2020 (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:Rggs21.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Rggs11.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Gs311.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Gs211.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Gs111.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Ggs31.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 12 September 2020 (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:Ggs11.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:38, 12 September 2020 (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:Ggs21.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:38, 12 September 2020 (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:Dgs21.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:38, 12 September 2020 (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:Dgs11.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:38, 12 September 2020 (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:Dgs31.svg

[edit]

incorect Stingers1 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Up-loaders request. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:38, 12 September 2020 (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:Логотип торгової марки Magic Food™.png

[edit]

Out of scope promotional material. Glorious 93 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:39, 12 September 2020 (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:AliPay logo.svg

[edit]

Above COM:TOO China Minoraxtalk 13:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:39, 12 September 2020 (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:Sinohydro logo 2.png

[edit]

Above COM:TOO China Minoraxtalk 13:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:39, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-стпр-к.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:41, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-ст-на.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:41, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-пр-к.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-стс-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-с-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:Фссп-млс-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:Yuvabharathi Public School new logo.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:MOHAMMED KAGAJWALA.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 12 September 2020 (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:Claro the 3rd.jpg

[edit]

EXIF data suggests that the photo is not the uploader's "own work" and was taken from FB Infogapp1 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:43, 12 September 2020 (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:डॉ. सविता बहिरट-Korona.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:43, 12 September 2020 (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:الصواعق النارية الجزء الأول.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:43, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by AK36182 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:43, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Yenny yulieth (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of scope

Estopedist1 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:44, 12 September 2020 (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.

Files uploaded by Shelikesme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope (COM:NOTUSED, COM:NOTHOST, possibly COM:SPAM)

Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per nomination. The user’s sole contributions are photographs of a non-notable Instagram model. No apparent encyclopedic use for any of the photographs. 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:45, 12 September 2020 (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:Nueba Iglesia Bautista Perú.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2020 (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:Silvina pefil.jpg

[edit]

Small file with transmission code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:06, 12 September 2020 (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:Silvi 31.jpg

[edit]

Small file with transmission code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:06, 12 September 2020 (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:Aria Bedmar.jpg

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:07, 12 September 2020 (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:Ashbibi509.jpg

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. Scope? E4024 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:07, 12 September 2020 (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:Arpita Mukherjee Bengali.jpg

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:07, 12 September 2020 (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:Arleth Terán.jpg

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:07, 12 September 2020 (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:Audery miriam.png

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:07, 12 September 2020 (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:Coralie thrin Thi.jpg

[edit]

Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:08, 12 September 2020 (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:Wearing kynodesme 05.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2020 (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:Hypospadias Penis Pee Cock 02.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2020 (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:View of Male Testicles and Buttocks from Below.jpg

[edit]

out of scope 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 18:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (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:Kynodesme 1.jpg

[edit]

duplicate image 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 18:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2020 (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:The SpongeBob Movie Sponge on the Run logo.png

[edit]

"It is unclear if the photo meets Com:ToO and is truly PD-Textlogo" Rodney Araujo (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Design (flowers/corals?) pushes this over TOO. --Minoraxtalk 06:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of  Delete textures are not a problem for PD-textlogo. However, the design seems to cross ToO, though one should not ToO in US is set high.
Acagastya (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (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:Error within Lockstitch Animation.png

[edit]

Outside COM:SCOPE, also a false claim of authorship. This is a derivative of File:Lockstitch.gif, which the uploader is trying to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (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:Cornpop.png

[edit]

There is no licensing, no proof of who this is or when/how it was taken. It was uploaded specifically for a Wikipedia stub now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. “Corn Pop” Morris. Also, this was uploaded by User Number9060862 who had previously uploaded a number of files with copyvio issues. Maile66 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (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:Ayatollah Hossein Mazaheri.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded by user with a history of copyright violations. Available here[1] three years before upload here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (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:DLP PiratesoftheCaribbean JackSparrow.jpg

[edit]

COM:DW of a copyrighted sculpture. No FoP in France. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (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:Remington Model 1863.jpg

[edit]

Low resolution, no metadata, alleged own work, poor quality. not in use, probable copyvio like all the uploader's other uploads.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (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:Mask of Mufasa (8501323857).jpg

[edit]

COM:DW of a copyrighted work. No FoP in US for 3D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Triplecaña (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (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:Shk. Ahmed bin Khaled Al Juffali.jpg

[edit]

My work, want to delete ASAP because considered breach of private photo Johndoe1971 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (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:Manneken Pis at Iyakei.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ぷりぷり娘 as Speedy (SpeedyDelete) and the most recent rationale was: jawpで屋外美術

No FOP for artistic works in Japan: COM:FOP Japan AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2020 (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:Priyanshu-Ratnakar.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Rockpeterson as Speedy (QD) and the most recent rationale was: Self Promotional AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, unused, out of scope. --Thibaut (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2020 (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:Cam Cole.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal photo. Out of project scope‎. OTRS closed as unsuccessful. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry from what I can see, the OTRS is awaiting processing and it’s used on his article on English Wikipedia. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I have checked OTRS Ticket:2020082910004818 was closed unsuccessful. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:15, 12 September 2020 (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:شمیم بقولی.jpg

[edit]

copyright Mojtaba2361 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No indication of a free release. --4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2020 (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:روستای برکی زواره.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag)

License template removed by uploader without comment. File is in use, and it's >7 days since the upload. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2020 (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:White logo dark background.jpg

[edit]

Unused logo, uploader has no other global contributions. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 20:29, 12 September 2020 (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:Tetrabromoauric-acid-3D-vdW.png

[edit]

No evidence of this being correct structure (geometry of [AuBr4]– might be square–planar, or some coordinates of an octahedral; compare to tetrachloro analog, and digging links there to en:Potassium tetrachloroplatinate; also doi:10.1515/znb-1987-1211--all of which indicate square–planar. DMacks (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2020 (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:Dtpa structure.png

[edit]

Unused & low-quality chemical structure with opaque (white) background & pixelated bonds. Have File:Diethylentriaminpentaessigsäure.svg as superior alternative. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 17:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2020 (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:Chynice.jpg

[edit]

Old photo Chvu73 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2020 (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:Chynice.jpg

[edit]

{{speedydelete|1=privacy}} 185.91.165.26 12:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2021 (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:Misslopez-1.gif

[edit]

Unused logo, uploader has only one other global contribution and it's promotion in userspace. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (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:Alex Logo.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope material. Glorious 93 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 03:44, 17 September 2020 (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:Amish Devgan.jpg

[edit]

Invalid license; taken from subjects Twitter account (attribution noted here: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/fir-against-tv-anchor-amish-devgan-for-using-derogatory-terms-against-sufi-saint/article31857191.ece) Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:19, 17 September 2020 (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:Amish Devgan with Atal Bihari Vajpayee.jpg

[edit]

Invalid license claim, photo taken from subjects Twitter feed Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:19, 17 September 2020 (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:Літары беларускай арабіцы.svg

[edit]

This is a fake! (see the discussion) 195.114.146.14 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The Belarusian Arabic alphabet was brought into use in the 16th (possibly 15th) century by the (Lipka) Tatars, who had been invited (by Grand Duke Vitaŭt due to his treaty with khan Tokhtamysh) to settle in Belarusan territory, at the time part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.-UeArtemis (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<<Why?>> --- See the discussion. "The chart pretends to represend the orthography of the Kitabs by Lipka-Tatars. But it doesn't."195.114.148.206 13:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read Antonovich's "Belarusian texts written in Arabic script and their graphic and spelling system". Can you cite text that deals with false information on this info-graphic?--UeArtemis (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[2][3](see the second link) 195.114.148.206 13:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this graphic is really strange, because there we have non-Belarusian readings for symbols - I see Arabic sounds and only two Belarusian "IPAs": [dzj], [tsj].--UeArtemis (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but I don't see tz' there either...195.114.147.191 10:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--UeArtemis (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think UeArtemis did it on purpose. To make us 'understand' that þe ONLY RIGHT spelling is "maFematics"(no joke[4][5]) or something like this... He also said that masters pronounced "th" as [f] but slaves as [t], so (as UeArtemis said) if we wanted to be 'white people' we should pronounce "th" as [f]. Typical rhetoric of UeArtemis is to claim that black is not white as if you don't know it and say at the same time that black is white meaning that you don't understand "the Processes"[6] 195.114.147.191 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? White masters? LOL.--UeArtemis (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ми ніґери-раби чи білі плантатори? :) Ким хочете бути ви, панове? :)(Are we N-word(!) slaves or white planters? Whom will you be, sirs?) -- UeArtemis/DarkMax2 uses exactly English N-word(transliterated into Ukrainian). It is rude in Ukrainian too in contrast to Ukrainian word "негр" which is normal (as opposed to English to call people "чорний"(black) is rude as well). Also UeArtemis cites wiki as to pronounciation of "th" in the sense I have mentioned above. To pronunce "th" as [f] is UeArtemis' idée fixe because it is usual Russian pronounciation. But if Russians have exceptions, UeArtemis says that everybody else must have such exceptions because of usus, tradition and so on and so on. UeArtemis uses N-word exactly in the racist sense, but he as well considers the Ukrainian word "Жид"(Jew) as antisemitic in any case. You are right: Russians thinks so[7]! (as opposed to other languages "жид" is really extremely rude in Russian since "Russian revolution", so Russians insist that everybody who says it is antisemite, despite Judaism was forbidden by the Russians in soviet time, learning of Hebrew was criminalised(sic!), Juwish establishment was terrorised(as well as others') and there were number of restrictions for Jews since WWII... ("Hebrew Antifascistic Committee" was executed(sic!)) BTW According to UeArtemis we cannot even use Ukrainian word for "Hebrew"(гебрей): it must be exact Russian one(єврей).)195.114.148.50 08:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an old joke of 2011 is definitely applies to this discussion.--UeArtemis (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seveleu-Dubrovnik: what you can answer?--UeArtemis (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://arabica.teksty.seveleu.com/ is not available. I think, this is his answer...195.114.147.191 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Kazimier Lachnovič, Don Alessandro, and Shelest1985: please, join to the conversation.--UeArtemis (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: What is the official status of that "Federative Institute"?

 Keep As explained in COM:NPOV, Commons generally doesn't delete files that are in use on other projects merely because they're inaccurate. This file is widely used on other projects and not obviously in bad faith, so I think Commons should keep it until such time as it's removed from those other projects. --bjh21 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Hi, I had previously noticed the difficulties the topicstarter mentions and an amended version of the file was created in 2019. Unfortunately, because of administrative difficulties it was not possible to publish it earlier, but now it's an accomplished deed.
The idea behind this image is to show the hierarchic character of the evolution "Arabic script" → "Belarusian Arabic". The design is chosen intentionally to show the autonomy of different arabographic traditions (Arabic, Persian etc), it uses three hierarchically embedded frames with their proper titles each. That's why the IPA correspondences are given in their respective languages (Arabic, Persian, Belarusian). The "Perso-Arabic" frame containing the letter, say, Gaf (گ‎) /ɡ/ means that this phoneme and letter were known to the Perso-Arabic script by the 10th century and existed as a concept by that time. Seveleu-Dubrovnik (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per COM:INUSE. --clpo13(talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (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:اربیل در سال 2018 از سوی نشریه دیلی میل به عنوان پنجمین شهر امن دنیا انتخاب شد.jpg

[edit]

unlike own work, image has a watermark. Larryasou (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2020 (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:Fr-Afrique.wav

[edit]

Created by someone with very poor French; sounds terrible. Much better audio files by native speakers already exist, e.g. File:LL-Q150 (fra)-Fhala.K-Afrique.wav. Metaknowledge (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same person also created other audio files in languages they didn't speak, with similarly poor results. Would it be possible to delete those as well, even if they don't have a replacement? I would think that no audio would be better than inaccurate audio. Metaknowledge (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not educationally useful due to the pronunciation. Even as a non-French speaker, I can tell that the file sounds... weird. I can attest that File:En-Africa.wav, another of this user's creations, doesn't sound like any English accent I'm aware of. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading at best, harmful at worst. Ovinus Real (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete AryamanA (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Smashhoof (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: This file is currently used on cs:Afrika. Under COM:INUSE, commons should not delete a used file just for being of poor quality. Or to put it another way, if you want this file deleted from Commons, replace it on Czech Wikipedia first. --bjh21 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21 and Gestumblindi: I can't remove it, because the page is protected. You are therefore putting me in a patently silly Catch-22: we can't delete it because it's in use, and we can't remove it from the page because it isn't getting deleted yet. Metaknowledge (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably soemone who speaks Czech should make an edit request there. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete after someone with editing privileges in cs:Afrika has replaced it with the good recording linked above — Eru·tuon 19:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjh21 is right, per COM:INUSE, this file can indeed not be deleted as long as it's in use, and it's still in use in cs:Afrika, so I could now close this request as a "kept", but as the comments regarding quality seem quite convincing, let's wait a bit for the Czech community... (I wouldn't want to step in there and change it, it's their business). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a cs.wiki admin accordingly. @Draceane: All the audio files at cs:Afrika were made by someone who doesn't speak those languages, and they sound awful. Can you please replace this one and the English one, and remove the others? Metaknowledge (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the recordings are quite weird. I will remove pt, ar, am and sw from the Czech article and I' ll put File:LL-Q150 (fra)-Fhala.K-Afrique.wav instead of fr, right? Is there any file to replace the English one? — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Draceane: File:LL-Q1860 (eng)-Justinrleung-Africa.wav is a definite improvement, and is the only other English pronunciation I can find. --bjh21 (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done ([8]). — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Well, as it's no longer in use anywhere and COM:INUSE was the single argument for keeping it, now deleted per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2020 (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:شعار نادي الوحدة السعودي1916.png

[edit]

The file is copyrighted as a logo and is not free or proprietary, the license is false AleUst (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:20, 20 September 2020 (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:Sh. Ahmed bin Khaled Al Juffali.jpg

[edit]

My work, want to delete ASAP because considered breach of private photo Johndoe1971 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:21, 20 September 2020 (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:Ineos grenadier.jpg

[edit]

Image taken from Ineos website. Very likely copyrighted. Vauxford (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 03:45, 21 September 2020 (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:ドラえもん - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

COM:DW of a copyrighted character. No FoP in Japan for sculptures. Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:49, 22 September 2020 (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:AFI Connect Registered RGB.jpg

[edit]

out of COM:SCOPE: unused logo AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per OOS nom. TOO may be debatable, but orphan unused. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2020 (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:H.Echevarria Pic.jpg

[edit]

Taken from a copyrighted page: https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/men/herman-echevarria-net-worth/ E4024 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2020 (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:WikiJackieOrmes.jpg

[edit]

This picture can't be from 2020, since Jackie Ormes died in 1985. Who really took it and when? 2601:601:447F:A5AE:E175:5598:D5DB:2E0 03:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted False claims CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2020 (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:Portrait art3.JPG

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 4nn1l2 as Dw no source since (dw no source since). Converting to DR due to age. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. "no source" claim is a lie; no other reason for deletion suggested. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2020 (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.

Files in Category:Photographs of roads by User:JWilz12345

[edit]

No freedom of pano in the phils. the true reason of this jwilz defensive ness is that he or she took road photos with copyrighted buildings included! maybe thw overpass also has copyright too

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2020 (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:Memphi Party1.JPG

[edit]

Unused photo of room in unidentified location. Without more information is of no educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2020 (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:Amanthos GmbH & Co. KG Firmenlogo.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope material. Glorious 93 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:35, 9 October 2020 (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:FeBAMBA 2018.jpg

[edit]

Low res professional photo with minimal source information, unlikely to be own work. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:36, 9 October 2020 (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:Ma Chia - Ling.jpg

[edit]

Picture from facebook, an OTRS is needed. Larryasou (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:36, 9 October 2020 (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:MerriCatherine.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope Lotje (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:36, 9 October 2020 (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:धनिया के पकोड़े.jpg

[edit]

The user uploaded photos of food and add a UC Browser Doodle copyrighted on most of them. To keep the file we need to crop away the doodle as it would ruin the photo. The photos are of low resolution so I doubt they will ever be used. There is no exif data available but aslo I found no evidence that they are taken from the internet while using Google RIS. Perhaps I would have kept a file or too if they were good, but we did not have better alternatives available. The files were uploaded on 15 June 2015 in a row for Commons:Wiki Loves Food.

With doodle :-

Without doodle :-

Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination except File:धनिया के पकोड़े.jpg, which is in use. --ƏXPLICIT 00:39, 9 October 2020 (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:Thitipoom Techaapaikhun.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation Instagram 2A00:23C4:E637:4201:E0D6:3A4:BB37:F7B5 16:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:38, 9 October 2020 (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:Sample chatscaper dialog.jpg

[edit]

Unused screenshot, no value. Sakhalinio (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2020 (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:Kart Indre Østfold.svg

[edit]

Superseded due to municipality reform of 2020. No global usage, migrated everything with globalreplace. Worldlydev (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A map showing municipality borders as they were before the change may still be of historical interest, educational use is possible. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Haha, took me a while to figure out how to end a DR. Please forgive me. Should obviously be kept for historical reasons and was mixed in while mass-DRing. --Worldlydev (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: DR withdrawn. --Wdwd (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2020 (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:Desde el Río Orinoco, Venezuela.jpg

[edit]

Most likely license laundering. Image found elsewhere on the Internet. http://ve.globedia.com/cine-diversidad-madrid FunnyMath (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Cineasta John Petrizzelli Font, ha dado permiso para usar la fotografía Desde el Río Orinoco, Parmana, Edo. Guárico, Venezuela, tomada detrás de camara por el cineasta y productor de cine venezolano Eduardo Felipe Viloria y Díaz. Como dice el escrito de Globedia publicado por Correo Cultural Petrizzelli es creador de Los Ciclos de Cine de la Diversidad en Venezuela y en el año 2018 Petrizzelli fue uno de los organizadores del Ciclo en Madrid. La Fotografía fue permitida por John Petrizzelli Font para acompañar el escrito.

Gracias por estar pendientes.

John Petrizzelli Font (cineasta italo-venezolano)

Dalia Jaén (Realización Biografía)

See this edit. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 06:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: still no OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 06:26, 15 November 2020 (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:Tree Wall Mural (9654104040).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:54, 26 November 2020 (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:Sungui-dong (9650866425).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:53, 26 November 2020 (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:Кафедральный собор Алаверди.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag)

Uploader asserts that this photo with an unknown author from a family archive is in the public domain, but does not provide information about why the image is in the public domain. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2021 (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:Высотное здание в Душанбе.jpg

[edit]

низкое качество изображения, не имеющая конкретного значение. - User:Шухрат Саъдиев (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Шухрат Саъдиев: I moved your old nomination from the file talk page here so you know.Jonteemil (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I agree. Poor image quality. -- (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2021 (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:Abdu Gusau and Sardauna with Taylor woodrow officials.jpg

[edit]

Most likely not own work. Image says it is a 1955 photo. Highly unlikely that the uploader was a photographer in the 1950s. FunnyMath (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (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:NormanFosberryWiki.jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. Calistemon (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2021 (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:Bin Weevils Homepage.png

[edit]

Most likely not own work. Image description says it is the homepage of binweevils.com. Unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder of the website. FunnyMath (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 16:09, 27 Januar 2021 UTC: Commons:Screenshot: game --Krdbot 20:11, 27 January 2021 (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:RVB 300 Logo ENSCL.png

[edit]

Borderline logo. Likely below US TOO, but may be above COM:TOO France AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2021 (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:Plattenbau in Sahlkamp.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Besser.online.gehen (uploader) as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Unnötige Datei --Besser.online.gehen (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC) AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2021 (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:Major Denice PM-BA.jpg

[edit]

The watermark („journal sando“) insists that they are the copyright holders. The uploader is not the creator of this photo. 84.131.18.184 07:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Jose Rizal Centennial Monument - Angono

[edit]

no Freedom of panorama in the phils that allows free and unrestricted reuse of photographs of bldgs and sculptures in commercial and non fair use purposes. monument looks recent.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .."In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

[edit]
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
[edit]


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, except the plaque. There are no copyrightable elements in a list of names. ƏXPLICIT 07:19, 16 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:People Power Monument and Clock Tower (Dasmariñas City)

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phils. also take note of artistic clock tower + lamp pole there. people power means it must be erected after 1986

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." .." In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:24, 17 February 2021 (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:Morong,Rizaljf5803 01.JPG

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that allows commercial and unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the phil. cavalier statue is undated amd assumed to be copyrighted Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions
  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:50, 17 February 2021 (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:Tanay,Rizaljf6193 02.JPG

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that allows commercial and unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the phil. Tanay Independence Mon. copyright lies in the creatpr and not the goverbment even if they commissioned it Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:31, 17 February 2021 (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:EDSAMonumentjf2030 04.JPG

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phils - creator is eduardo castrillo who died in 2016. no freedom of panorama that guarantees unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted works including conmercial and non fair use reuses Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions
  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Judgefloro: the limitation you claim is ireelevant. It is only relevant after this file has been deleted (per response of Clindberg to my question on his talk page recently). As long as this file stays here, infringing exploitations still persist. Sadly I can't "vote" for keep since this is a 1993 work by Eduardo Castrillo (see w:Eduardo Castrillo#Major works), who died in 2016. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 13:28, 27 February 2021 (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:Bantayog ng mga Bayani Monument - Hunters ROTC Guerillas - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that allows commercial and unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the phil Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hunters ROTC monument (San Juan, Cainta, Rizal). ƏXPLICIT 13:27, 27 February 2021 (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:DavaoSkyline.jpg

[edit]

not a true skyline but focuses on modern buildings. no freedom of panorama in the phils that provides full freedom on reuse of photos of bldgs and sculptures in a commercial and non fair use way. as such photos of post 1972 bldgs and sculptures created or designed by people who are either still alive or have been dead for less than 50 yrs infringe moral rights of architects, enginners, designers, sculptors, and or architectural firms. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FOP or not, this does not appear to be uploader's own work, but a crop of the image found here. ƏXPLICIT 12:57, 27 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tanay Inang Bayan Shrine

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that allows commercial and unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the phil

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." In addition, these are Works of the Local Government hence outside Copyright Law; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I messaged the Muncipality of Tanay with regards to the copyright of this statue and the reply I got from Mr. Mike Anthony Catuira, Administrative Aide VI of the Office of the Mayor is this: "As far as i know, there was no copyright holder of inang bayan monument." I asked for more information and I'm currently waiting for his reply. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:15, 4 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Rizal Monument in Tarlac State University (Lucinda), Tarlac City

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phils. undated and assume undated aculptures are not ok!

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just basing on the sculpture's plaque, I would date the sculpture to between 1994 and 1995. Therefore, we could assume that it would be public domain, at the very least, only on January 1, 2045 (1994+51). -Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:59, 5 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Rizal Monument in Camiling, Tarlac

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phils. sculpture assumed to be copyrighted as undated work of art

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete most as no COM:FOP Philippines, but  Unsure for File:Camiling,Tarlacjf1926 05.JPG and File:Camiling,Tarlacjf1956 11.JPG as borderline de minimis. Though leaning towards delete too to the said images as the monument wasn't incidental — intentionally added as an important element of the images (thereby fails COM:De minimis, with this category as their principal or sole category). There is no relevance on Judgefloro's claims on "prescriptive extinction" — per Clindberg on their reply to my question in their talk page before, the existence of such freely-licensed images here on Commons (without evidence of authorization from the heirs of sculptors via COM:OTRS authorization) means continued exploitation to infringe the copyrights of the sculptors. That prescription can only happen 4 years after the elimination of the infringing material. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:57, 5 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Lapu-Lapu Shrine

[edit]

no verifiable info about the sculpture or the person behind it. this famous landmark is thus assumed to be copyrighted. not ok bcoz no freedom of pano in the phils that allows unrestricted reuse of photos of bldgs and sculptures (incl commercial and non-fair use uses) as per copyright law of the phils.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment According to this article from the Cebu Daily News, this current statue is a 1981 replacement of a much older 1979 one. Given that the sculptor is unknown, this work would only become public domain in the Philippines on January 1, 2032 (50 years after publication). -Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep for File:MactanShrineEntrance1.jpg because it doesn't depict the statue itself. Also  Comment that File:Lapu lapu killing magellan 2017.jpg, File:Lapu lapu painting.jpg, and File:MactanShrinePainting1.jpg are all paintings not related to the statue itself. Paging @Howhontanozaz: about the painting. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: According to this blog post, the paintings are by a certain Primo Cuizon Pino. Other than that, I couldn't find anything on the painting or the artist. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any law forbidding photographs of public monuments is silly & should be resisted. This user has made multiple such mass deletion requests & has already been cautioned that this is disruptive & he or she should stop. Pashley (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the deletion request says "assumed to be copyrighted", and one might just as well assume images of the thing are copyright to the photographer. Anyway, I'd say our use is obviously fair use. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pashley: I already warned them before not to make any new DR's. But on the issue of the so-called lack of freedom of panorama in our country (refer to Commons:FOP Philippines for details), this is currently being discussed anew at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. You may want to raise your inputs there, as it seems the de jure rule on Commons is that if assumed to be copyrighted, then "NOT OK" per Commons:Precautionary principle, like (rewording the 5 statements there to fit into our no FOP situation):

#The heirs of Ilustre or Abueva will not bother to sue or cannot afford to because of our hosting of their sculptures and architectural works here.

  1. Arch. Roger Villarosa will never find out that we keep photos of his GMA Network Center Bldg.
  2. Foster & Partners will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their works of architecture from the Philippines.
  3. Nobody knows who the true copyright owner of Lapu-Lapu's shrine, so it really doesn’t matter.
  4. Photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the Philippines are found all over the web and social media, and yet nobody from the Philippine architectural and sculptural community has complained.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* I would now say either put this DR on hold or  Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Lapu-Lapu monument was erected in 1938, that's when Opon (now Lapu-Lapu City) had three mayors in succession because they kept on dying, giving birth to an urban legend. The Magellan monument near it was erected in the Spanish era. These two monuments were erected before 1970. Mrcl lxmna has been indiscriminate in such nominations and I would suggest brushing up on when each subject of the photo was built before nominating it. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My previous comment for the record
  •  Comment (mirrored from my comment on another pending Philippine FOP case) the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons. So sadly, there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). A potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) might help in introducing freedom of panorama in the Philippines, through an amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 (hopefully). When will both this meeting/dialogue and amendment happen, I cannot say yet however, as there's no meeting / dialogue as of this writing yet. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New input:  Delete all statue images. The information brought by Howhontanozaz is legit. Also this was mentioned by a SunStar article, that 1981 was the year unveiled (the previous statue was a concrete one, and it was alleged that the Marcoses hated the appearance and hence it was replaced with the current bronze statue said to be more resembling the actor George Hamilton). Also delete all images of paintings as copyvios (COM:Derivative works) without authorization from the painters in applying CC-PD commercial licensing. @Pashley: , Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept fair use for perpetuity (see COM:Fair use), and Commons doesn't accept noncommercial licensing from artists/architects either. According to IPOPHL-BCRR, the current rules apply even if the copyright law amendment bill is pending. Permission from the copyright holder is still required. This means, while destructive, much of mrcl lxmna's requests (perhaps 9 out of 10 requests) are valid in accordance with prevailing no FOP situation in the Philippines (COM:FOP Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Philippine Star article mentions a different date (1980). However, both dates whether '80 or '81 still fail {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, except File:MactanShrineEntrance1.jpg. ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 6 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Museo de Baler

[edit]

This Quezon statue is the work of Julie Lluch who is still alive. It was unveiled only in 2006. (source) Sculptures are copyrighted in the Philippines up until 50 years following the sculptor's death. Plus, there is no FoP in the PH.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:00, 8 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Kartilya ng Katipunan “The Life and Heroism of Gat Andres Bonifacio” Monument and Mural (Mehan Garden, Ermita, Manila)

[edit]

creator is eduardo castrillo who died in 2016. no freedom of pano in the phils guaranteeing UNRESTRICTED REUSE of photos of buildinga and sculptures still copyrighted inc. commercial and non-fair use reuses. 2016 plus 50 years equals 2066 in which this shrine will be out of copyright protection that legally prohibits unrestricted photography and reuse of photos

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." .." In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. After research on links related to "Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending", going to those grouped under "deleted", i visited Commons:Deletion requests/Bonifacio Shrine in Manila which also eliminated the photos pf the sculpture. So i have a legal precedent to conduct this deletion request. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

[edit]
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
[edit]


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied. While elcobbola mentioned the clause (j): "Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title." According to Clindberg it sounds like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Clause (d) in the same section is only applicable to "reporting of current events," and clause (e) is limited to "teaching purposes," both are of fair use-type and not free enough for Commons (take note, Commons:Fair use insists Commons does not accept fair use licensing). So sadly @Judgefloro: , there is no Commons-applicable freedom of panorama in the Philippines (the current position of Commons:FOP Philippines). Only a potential meeting or dialogue between the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and the Wikimedia Foundation (with freedom of panorama as the principal agenda, as based on IPOPHL's reply to the latest email sent by Higad Rail Fan) will help prevent these and more deletions. When will this meeting / dialogue happen is not certain, however, and I don't know if it is acceptable to leave FOP deletion requests open for weeks or months, considering that FOP won't be implemented instantly (just because of this meeting), but that it will only come into fruition when Republic Act No. 8293 is amended (hopefully). However, when will this amendment come, I cannot say yet, since there's no meeting / dialogue as of this writing yet. I will also leave the final decision to admins in closing this and all other pending nominations at Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added  Comment. Thorough search online only returns and verifies Eduardo Castrillo as the monument's creator, like those of Urban Roamer, Philippine Star, and Philippine Daily Inquirer. As he died in 2016, the work might fall public domain in the Philippines in 2067, but might not be accepted at Commons until 2093 because of COM:URAA, 1998 (the year it was erected) as the "publication date" (duration of URAA copyright restoration for international or non-U.S. works is date of publication+95 years). So sadly, most of the images above need to be  Delete, since Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle seems to apply to all FOP cases (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evoque in Dubai 099 (5957859156).jpg deletion first is the right approach), as Commons respects the copyright of the artists and architects, even if the general public does not. However,  Keep images that only show the engraving that depicts the Kartilya ng Katipunan, in which the original literary (textual) work is in public domain, and the engraving itself seems to not pass COM:Threshold of originality. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, except six. ƏXPLICIT 07:27, 10 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:People Power People's Park (Ninoy Aquino Tarlac City Plazuela)

[edit]

commemorates an event thats 1986. most likely copyrighted and no freedom of pano in the phils that allows unrestricted commercial and non-fair use reuse of phots of modern bldgs and sculptures

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep those that I've marked as potentially de minimis or simple structures.  Delete the rest as no FOP in the Philippines. Undelete when FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the rest, I'll leave the closing admin to decide on whether to delete or keep as another de minimis image/s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." .." In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (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:Roblox- 한국 프로필.jpg

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. The image is categorized under Category:Roblox, implying that the image is from Roblox, a video game. However, Roblox allows users to create mods, so this image is probably not even part of the official game to begin with. Even if the image was an official artwork, its notability is suspect. FunnyMath (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2021 (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:IZBYE6320.jpg

[edit]

sugar? - milk powder? - crack? not usable Adelfrank (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (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:Trete.png

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. Used in the uploader"s sandbox on the English Wikipedia but appears to be a hoax, can't find any reference to him playing for Melbourne City FC. Calistemon (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2021 (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:Friends (10242740626).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. One of a number of personal photos of Jim Bendon, uploaded from Flickr by User:Nemti. Calistemon (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2021 (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:Kelly (8405362824).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. One of a number of personal photos of Jim Bendon, uploaded from Flickr by User:Nemti. Calistemon (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2021 (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:Kelly 4 (8405363664).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. One of a number of personal photos of Jim Bendon, uploaded from Flickr by User:Nemti. Calistemon (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2021 (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:Sick (8404337205).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. One of a number of personal photos of Jim Bendon, uploaded from Flickr by User:Nemti. Calistemon (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2021 (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:Jim 2 (8404316995).jpg

[edit]

Non notable person. Outside project scope. One of a number of personal photos of Jim Bendon, uploaded from Flickr by User:Nemti. Calistemon (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Buildings in Bacolod City

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that provides unrestricted commercial and non fair use use of photos of copyrighted bldgs and sculptures. copyright law of phils only allows fair use in broadcasting, private education, and non-profit or non commercial uses of photos of post 1972 bldgs and sculptures made by sculptors who are either still alive or are dead for less than 50 yrs.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrcl lxmna: Hello! Stop doing mass nominations without checking the photos individually. The File:Negros Occidental High School building.jpg that you nominated is completed in 1931 so that should fall under the pre-1972 that you've mentioned in your deletion request. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep or  Weak keep per my checking of the pics above. Sadly: enwiki article says Negros Museum dates to 1996, and Pope John Paul II Statue in Bacolod.jpg prominently shows the sculpture. No immediate info available for other subjects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Buildings in Naga City, Camarines Sur

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils. copyright law forbids commercial and non fair use usage of photos of post-1972 bldgs and sculptures made by sculptors who are still alive or have been dead for less than 50 yrs.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. You may delete everything. Regards. I do not have time to prove or convince anyone. --Filipinayzd (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2021 (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:ПЕРН.jpg

[edit]

Corrupted file, which in its present condition can't be of any use. Glorious 93 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2021 (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:RICARDO QUIÑONEZ ALCALDE DE LA CIUDAD DE GUATEMALA.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (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:恩六班徽.png

[edit]

Logo of uploader's middle school class, with unclear encyclopedia relevance. GZWDer (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it can be deleted. User:Loongth(User talk:Loongth) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of PS. --Anatoliy (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (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:Tuzo Bus.pdf

[edit]

unused, should be in wikitext if needed. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of PS. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2021 (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:Clothed Female Nude Male CFNM Hypospadias Kynodesme Direct Observation Urination A.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:SM City Calamba

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils. building looks recent.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To counter "plainness" argument in phil mall bldgs is one deletion req i recently digested and researched. At https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Bank_of_the_Philippine_Islands, your moderator jim once said: - """""Exactly half of the 122 countries that we have information on (including the Philippines) do not have any FOP. It is important to remember that FOP is an exception to ordinary copyright which prohibits the reproduction in any form of copyrighted works, so the absense of any provision for FOP cannot be unclear -- it simply isn't there. As for the"plainness" argument, The Philippine law says:

"172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose."

That is similar to the law in other countries.""""" Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)'[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, except one. ƏXPLICIT 01:32, 14 March 2021 (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:Bonecos de pano de elefantes.png

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2021 (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:Correpasillos coche infantil nicolasito.es.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2021 (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:Poupee-zombie.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2021 (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:The Law of Accelerating Returns(Daniel Gorsuch).pdf

[edit]

should be in wikitext if needed. Unused. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2021 (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:Town Planning.pdf

[edit]

unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-п-к.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-пп-к.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-м-р.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-к-н.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-стл-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-млл-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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:Фссп-л-т.png

[edit]

old version/low resolution Stingers1 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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:Katherine M. Rose, author.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2021 (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:Capturar020920209957.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation. Screenshot of copyrighted image, as the tittle itself, Captura020920209957/Capture020920209957, indicates. Leon saudanha (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by JPF82 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING. Derivative works of non-trivial packaging designs.

Spicy (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2021 (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:Swaantje Güntzel SEESTÜCK I, Nordfrieslandmuseum Husum, 2020, Foto Henriette Pogoda.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation, no permission by artist and photographer, no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Sg.: No FOP in which country? Sweden? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: derivative copyvio, no permission by the artist and the photographer. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2021 (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:Gazi.Husrev.beg.jpg

[edit]

Likely PD, but source doesn't provide any information that would support that AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:55, 5 April 2021 (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:Isa.beg.ishaković.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by From Hill To Shore as no source (No source since)

Likely PD, but source doesn't provide any information that would support that AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:55, 5 April 2021 (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:D6RW5AaWAAECWbX.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by From Hill To Shore as no source (No source since)

Not sure exactly where this file came from, can't find a version with the watermark. [9] is one source, from TinEye it looks like the image may have been on Flickr at one time. The image is likely PD, but I could find no information to support that. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:55, 5 April 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by PAPJ (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Source for all files is given as "own work", but the author is named as "©PowerJet". Files made with various cameras, most of which of professional quality. It appears those images were just copied from various places on the Internet or in the archives of PowerJet, with no evidence of permission.

Ariadacapo (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep No reason given for deletion. Yes, the author is probably commercial and the copyright holder for these images. If they have then chosen to altruistically share content here under a free licence, then we should thank them for that, not insult them like this. In particular an allegation that "images were just copied from various places on the Internet" should never be made here without some indication that those places exist, and that the images were from there, rather than being a Commons consumer. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user uploaded seven photos taken with six different cameras. One still has a watermark, one has corporate copyright info in the EXIF, one is the logo of a company, one was taken from a helicopter. All of them are uploaded as "own work". Surely we must expect more evidence of copyright permission before we further distribute under a CC-by-sa license. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we should not.
We do not have a policy, "all uploads must use OTRS". Uploads outside OTRS are still perfectly acceptable on Commons.
We do not have a policy "photographers must only use a single camera".
We should certainly not continue this increasing practice of welcoming a new upload, making use of it, then a few years later on, when any response to such a query becomes practically impossible, inventing some new retrospective non-policy reason to delete content, just because an editor here is bored and is looking for "serious admin bizniz" to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. No way that these are own works. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:58, 5 April 2021 (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:Hakan Uyanık.jpg

[edit]

Another versions on search result. Possible copyright infringement. Sakhalinio (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:59, 5 April 2021 (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:Providence Park New Overhang.jpg

[edit]

User has claimed other 3rd party photographs taken at this stadium as their own. This one, like the others, are relatively low-res, appears professional and is missing camera information in the EXIF data. I think COM:PCP applies here. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: insufficient reason for deletion, not found elsewhere online using Google images. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:04, 5 April 2021 (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:Pavelnovotny.png

[edit]

According to this edit summary on cs.wiki Pavel Novotný himself is the author of this photo, not the uploader. Harold (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:06, 5 April 2021 (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:10585087-hamburger-sv-fussball-bundesliga-niklas-dorsch-heidenheim-hamburg-transfer-hsv-geruecht-zr-3dfUI4JBDcec.jpg

[edit]
Deutsch: Das Bild ist ein Ausschnitt einer anderen Aufnahme, die "Sebastian Widmann/dpa" als Urheber angibt, s.a. [10].
Platte U.N.V.E.U. 13:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:07, 5 April 2021 (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:Norway municipalities.png

[edit]

No global usage, low resolution, and superseded by a .svg file. I migrated all usage over to the svg version with globalreplace. Worldlydev (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the file to be of a hhigher resolution but still sub-optimal to have such small details in a small png. Redundant and better replaced by svg --Worldlydev (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We don't regard SVGs as replacing or duplicating PNGs, so we don't delete the bitmap as superseded.
Issues of "low resolution" or "low detail" may also be because the deletion nominator changed it recently. It may need restoration to the earlier version as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The newer version is of higher quality. Norway's geography consists of many fjords and the border therefore is quite rugged. The map does a terrible job of showing the smalls details around the borders. While the newer map is better it is not optimal to have a file as this in a bitmat format just due to the amount of small details. Looking at the previous version you will see a much lower precision. Just to point out a few examples the islands of Hvaler or the former muncipalities that make up Færder are practically impossible to see in a jumbled mess of borders. Røyken and Hurum om Hurumlandet are poorly illustrated. Many more things that can be linked out here. The newer map is of a higher resolution and a revert would be a clear downgrade of quality. It is however not optimal to have a duplicate file even though they are of different formats. Therefore I recommend deletion of the bitmat version in favor of the superior vector format version. Worldlydev (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: good enough quality/resolution, might be useful to some to have a smaller/alternate version. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... for a decade, I was making maps for Wikipedia that, over time, may become defunct (based on geopolitics) or improved (based on user interest). For some time, though, it seems as if certain users were targeting my maps. What a shame. I don't make maps anymore ... if I did, I wouldn't have a life beyond Wikipedia. I work for an agency that focuses on satellite data and imagery, and my spare time is spent enjoying life. To those who like to target my maps: shame on you. You know who you are. Rarelibra (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (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:Fylke kart.png

[edit]

No global usage, low resolution, and superseded by a .svg file. Worldlydev (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: agree, this one is really poor. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:10, 5 April 2021 (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:Kiara Advani grace the screening of Netflix’s film Guilty.jpg

[edit]

Unused. Would like to delete. The9Man (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no longer qualifies for courtesy deletion, and it has an extracted image that relies on this source image. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:12, 5 April 2021 (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:What is Time by AP Cranston 20-5-1947.pdf

[edit]

unused, should be in wikitext if needed. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:12, 5 April 2021 (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:Models for human evolution.svg

[edit]

Created to apparently make a point in 2008, however per COM:HOST, Commons is not the right place to publish pet new theories or fanasies of scientific racism. These have negative educational value. Fæ (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:14, 5 April 2021 (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:Greater Vietnam's irredentist map.jpg

[edit]

The image is almost certainly not the author's own work, given that the image includes a caption that says "Original Image source: internet" Rosguill (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:14, 5 April 2021 (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:Darren Fenster (2828766067) (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Misidentified the players involved. Denniscabrams (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:05, 7 April 2021 (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:Darren Fenster (2828766067).jpg

[edit]

Misidentified the player photographed Denniscabrams (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:05, 7 April 2021 (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:Tehran Medical school Graduation, class of 1967.webm

[edit]

The tag claims that the author has died more than 50 years ago, but then states that the author is the owner of the YouTube channel, who has been posting quite recently. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2021 (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:Cruzeiro EC 2016.png

[edit]

While the majority of the logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality criteria, the crown on top, though, definitely isn't a generic symbol, shape or anything else that wouldn't meet the threshold of originality criteria. Glorious 93 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2021 (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:Cruzeiro 04.png

[edit]

While the majority of the logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality criteria, the crown on top, though, definitely isn't a generic symbol, shape or anything else that wouldn't meet the threshold of originality criteria. Glorious 93 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2021 (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:Clothed Female Nude Male CFNM Hypospadias Kynodesme Direct Observation Urination C.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (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:Clothed Female Nude Male CFNM Hypospadias Kynodesme Direct Observation Urination B.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2021 (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:Wearing kynodesme 04.jpg

[edit]

duplicate/not needed 2600:1700:E34:7740:9554:87B:E21E:B3C1 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Ortigas Center

[edit]

No freedom of pano in phils that guarantees unrestrocted cpmmercial and non fair use usages of photps of buildings and sculptures under copyright. buildings, sculpted building names and headers, and etched establishment names are those need to be scruntiniesed thoroughlt.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep or  Weak keep with inputs above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC) See my new inputs per review of the files below the collapsible box. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Debate between Mrcl lxmna and Judgefloro

BASES FOR DELETION

1. All that begins with the cryptic File:09959jfShaw Boulevard and similar title pattern show a copyrighted sign.

2. File:Ortigas Center, Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines - panoramio (2).jpg no copyrightable element? Despite the cloudy scene i can clearly see the walkway leading to Robinsons Galleria and its trademark logo is seen. The mall is a 1989 building

3. File:Ortigas Park - panoramio.jpg the focus of this photo is the modern building of Jollibee Plaza Condominium

4. File:Ortigas Skyline from MRT3 - panoramio.jpg some may claim skyline, but the Robinsons Equitable Tower was intentionally included right at its center.

5. File:Ortigas Center Manila.JPG this isa close range shot of the buildings of Ortigas and intentionally included those buildings.

6. File:Western area of Ortigas Center - panoramio.jpg is intentional to incorporate the 2000 building called BSA twin towers.

I can cancel the deletion for the photos showing FAR AWAY skyline and the road scene of ADB Avenue that doesnt intentionally include A WHOLE building.

And wait, the Philippine copyright law ra8293 doesnt incorporate the concept of de minimis or incidental inclusion that Jwilz tries to use as defense. So even closeup skyline and urbanscape views are infringing the buildings copyrights. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My review of files  Delete because no FOP in the Philippines:

 Unsure but:  Weak delete = COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle

  • File:Ortigas Center Manila.JPG - while I previously voted for keep for this, I can notice that buildings are the chief motif of this image. Not a true skyline picture, meaning it somehow failed de minimis. (But de minimis is not recognized in the copyright law of the Philippines)
  • File:Ortigas Skyline from MRT3 - panoramio.jpg - leaning towards delete for this too as a major building is right in its center.

 Keep because:

 Delete because - redundant and/or poor/mediocre quality (COM:NOTUSED)

Also to the deleting admin, pls delete also File:Ortigas Center (Met. Manila) - Flickr.jpg (one I uploaded via Flickr2Commons and categorized on this same category). It is as problematic as "File:Ortigas Center Manila.JPG". Pls restore only once FOP is officially part of the law. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: some and kept some as per User:JWilz12345. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:28, 5 May 2021 (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:Nidhhi-Agerwal-snapped-in-Mumbai-3.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 08:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama images are allowed to use in Wikipedia with proper licensing and attributes. I don't understand what is the exact issue here. Care to explain? Template:BollywoodHungama. The9Man (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BH files are accepted which are taken by its official photographer. It's not licensed properly. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am bit confused here. How did you conclude it is not taken by their photographer? And please explain to me what is not proper in the licensing part. I am willing to learn there. The9Man (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. I didn't conclude, that the image is not taken by their photographer, I agree to what I said, above. Actually all files which are available on BH are not okay to upload on commons. You can check this files and do the Reverse Image search on google, and have a look at the watermark original image. The image is copyright, taken from other sites and uploaded on BH with its watermark. The template Template:BollywoodHungama clearly states files taken by BH, party, or movie set, but do have a look if it's available elsewhere using ris. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 21:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Water-mark is not allowed in Wikimedia images. That qualifies the image to be deleted. Sumanch (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different sizes available of this file, check the link [11]. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (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:Leon trotsky.jpg

[edit]

no indication of pre-1946 publication required to be PD in Russia + US PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This was a 2002 upload to enWP, and transferred here in 2005. It was published under a Soviet PD licence and valid at the time "According to the non-retroactive copyright laws of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, all works published before May 27, 1973 are public domain. This applies worldwide."

It looks to be a 1910s-20s image and in a pictorial style for a published image, not some other usage. Author unknown. There is no indication that it was not published either, and has some moire elements in the image. I think that trying to apply a 2020 requirement on a 2002 upload without evidence to the contrary is a ridiculous bar to try and jump. It had the elements to keep and had a source, and the precautionary principle should not be applied like this without contrary evidence or research.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Soviet licence no longer applies, that has been an official ruling. Saying it looks like it was published is not enough. WHERE was it published? WHEN? Right now, there is NOT enough information to beleive it is currently public domain in Russia, or that it was ever PD on the URAA date.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the image is certainly not as grainy as publications from the 1940's and earlier. Could easily be from late 20th century publication. But without knowing it's original publication, we cannot judge.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per disc. --Indeedous (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2020 (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:Leon trotsky.jpg

[edit]

Like I pointed out before, there is NO evidence of early enough PUBLICATION for this item to be PD in Russia (or for the PD-Russia-1996 template to apply), and it is NOT disputed that the PD-Soviet tag invoked during the discussion as sole reason for "keep" is currently invalid. NO legal argument to support PD status of this item, closing admin has history of warnings about incorrect closures. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause and please read my comment. What I wrote, not what someone else might write somewhere else. If the photo was not published in Russia, the template PD-Russia is irrelevant. It cannot be invoked as an objection to hosting the photo on Commons. The photo may be considered published in France (PD-anon-70-EU + PD-US-expired) or in the United States (PD-US-expired), depending on the definition of published. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK - then there must be evidence that the photo complies with the conditions for one of those tags, ie, a clear source of early enough publication of the photo in the US in order for it to be PD in the US.--PlanespotterA320 (talk)

The photo is from the French passeport of L. Trotsky (1917). Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion as not published in Russia. --rubin16 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Philippine International Convention Center

[edit]

bldg is from 1976, no freedom of pano in the phil that permits unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted atructures in the country including commercial and for profit use. worse some have sculptural or derivative photo works!

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep! The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. Mrcl lxmna, pls. stop! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this request. I came here via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Delfindakila where the user is copying these files to claim as his own work. Elizium23 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For some background info, this was a 1976 architecture whose author was Leandro Locsin, who passed away in 1994. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My ultimate poll is,  Delete most and  Keep some per my review of the files above, thanks to the "d" label found on my Visual File Change that made reviewing easier. After the September-November 2020 forum at CRT/Philippines talk page, the status quo prevailed - no COM:FOP Philippines. While this is owned by the government, copyright is still held by the heirs of architect Leandro Locsin (see COM:Philippines#Commissioned works and COM:Philippines#Government works) unless a proof of formal copyright transfer via "written stipulation" is presented. Perhaps undelete when FOP is introduced here; failing that undelete in 2045 (50+1 years after Locsin died). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Info some of these images depict the sculptures, see w:APEC Sculpture Garden. However, still unacceptable as the countries who contributed are signatories to Berne Convention and the Philippines is also a Berne member. So cannot be reasoned out that their foreign origin means not copyrighted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Judgefloro: see Clindberg's comment on my query at his talk page regarding your claim of "4-year extinctive prescription" and its irrelevance on Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: partially deleted and kept, special thanks to @JWilz12345. --rubin16 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tanghalang Balagtas (Folk Arts Theater)

[edit]

bldg from 1974. no freedom of panorama in the phils guaranteeing unrestricted reuse of photos of post 1972 bldgs and all sculptures created by people who are still alive or are dead for less than 50 yrs. unrestricted reuse include the commercial and non-fair use resuses of such photos

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC) :  Keep. The so-called no FoP in the Philippines is just based on guesses and very literal reading of our copyright law. The lack of mention of FoP in the Philippines, plus the lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent copyright restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage (people are free to photographs such subjects here). And take note, the longstanding no FoP in the Philippines claim is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so IMO no deletions should be made. My response is mirrored from my responses of other DR's that are pending as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote keep. I concede that there is no Commons-acceptable FoP in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar due to Extinctive Prescription to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

  • I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Legal Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  •  Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: partially kept where it is either DM or not a building is on the photo (there are some photos with some big construction with inscription - I kept it as it seems to be non-eligible). --rubin16 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Jose Rizal monument in Tarlac City

[edit]

no freedom of pano guaranteeing free and unrestricted commercial and non fair use reuse of photos of post 1972 bldgs and sculpture by either livibg aculptors or sculptors who are dead for not less than 50 yrs. this undated landmark is assumed to be copyrighted and not ok. plaques are also copyrighted too

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .."In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

[edit]
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
[edit]


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: partially deleted by plates kept - non-eligible for copyright for me. --rubin16 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tanay 1606 is an Open Book - Independence Monument

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phils that allows commercial and unrestricted reuse of photos of copyrighted architecture and sculptures in the phil

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." In addition these are Works of the Local and National Government hence outside Copyright law with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime

[edit]
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
[edit]


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: plates kept as non-eligible, just plain text, others deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2021 (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:2019 10 14 Kaiser Wilhelm II BNr 420 IMG 7439.JPG

[edit]

License removed by Xocolatl (talk · contribs) with comment eher nicht. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: for Germany images are PD for anonymous photos in 70 years after creation/publication. Here is the historical event of 1903, so, PD. --rubin16 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2021 (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:Hanged Man1.jpg

[edit]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hanged Man.jpg.

I would like to delete these photos because there are the same photos on wikimedia commons, also because I wrote bad titles is totally to be canceled. Thanks--Samuele Redaelli (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2021 (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:Hanged Man.jpg

[edit]

I would like to delete these photos because there are the same photos on wikimedia commons, also because I wrote bad titles is totally to be canceled. Thanks Samuele Redaelli (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2021 (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:Beheaded Heads.jpg

[edit]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hanged Man.jpg.

I would like to delete these photos because there are the same photos on wikimedia commons, also because I wrote bad titles is totally to be canceled. Thanks Samuele Redaelli (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:SM City BF Parañaque

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phils that allow commercial and non-fair use use of photos of bldgs and sculptures. this is a very recent bldg, so copyrighted. a perhaps experienxed moderator here by the name of Jim said in an old deletion request said that structures, no matter how plain or ordinary is, are copyrighted upon erection. also, interiors may be copyrighted too.

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that There are 63 total Category:SM Supermalls in commons; and a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born;
May I further quote or copy herein the Comment of a learned Administrator of commons thus "Nominator should be more selective instead of simply nominating the entire category! There are other photos that clearly shouldn't be included here, but I let it go because they are poor composition .." with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and theTourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantages in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder

Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime 

* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;

I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: this one is simply non-manageable. There is no FOP in Philippines but this category (and nomination) includes the building but also just non-eligible issues (like a plain wall of the building with no design or architectural elements), just simple logos, some shops inside. Could be renominated if processed one by one and filtering relevant positions. --rubin16 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Buildings in Davao City

[edit]

no freedom of pano in the phil copyright law that guarantees free and unrestricted commercial and non fair use usages kf photos of copyroghted bldgs and sculptures. interiors can be also copyrighted

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: The permission must come from the architects or the architecture firms or their heirs so that i can cancel this deletion request. Not from the owners and the managements of these buildings. If the second case is true then the request remains open. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: partially deleted (IMAX deleted due to poor quality, not FoP issues) and partially kept. --rubin16 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2021 (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:East Barnet Shooting Club 01.jpg

[edit]

shows private information of a number plate 86.1.49.185 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Late reply but weak reason for it to be deleted. A number plate in the UK isn't private information and doesn't show any other than basic information of the car (i.e Make, Model, Engine displacement, Year it was registered) You could blank the number plate but I personally don't think it necessary since the subject in the photo is a building that looks to be near a public road. --Vauxford (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2021 (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:Swaantje Güntzel DISCOUNTER STILL LIFE II, 2017 Foto Henriette Pogoda, VG Bild-Kunst Bonn.jpg

[edit]

copyright violation, no permission by artist and photographer, no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Sg.: No FOP in which country? Sweden? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: different name of the photographer claimed in description and exif, uploader's name is different, likely to be copyvio. --rubin16 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/09/05&oldid=569074298"