Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Antipolo Cathedral

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:Antipolo Cathedral

[edit]

1954 bldg, arch. Jose de Ocampo who died in 1995. also note numerous sculptures and icons that are copyrighted per phil copyright law and international copyright organizations. the churvh doesnt hold copyrights and only mere ownership

no freedom of pano in the phils that allows all and free forms of reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and sculptures that doesnt compromise the rights of the architects, sculptors, designers, archi firms, or their heirs within the 50 yr copyright duration period. see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama

a statement by one of the moderators or admins at Commons:Undeletion requests also says that bldgs from 1951 to 1972 can be NOT OK as commons cares for the moral rights of the aforementioned people from archi and sculp community, even if the archi and sculp community does not notice the website, despite the guideline says "maybe ok" for 1951 to 1972 bldgs

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; with all due respect, may I humbly Suggest both as Editor and as Regional Trial Court Judge, based on the express provisions of Philippines Laws and settled jurisprudence and for this matter, I respectfully reproduce herein as part hereof my my reply and inputs my a) Consolidated Reply, Rejoinder and Noting of Suggestions by -Ianlopez1115 (talk) b) Sources and evidence and c) I Stay Neutral on the FOP Nominations: The Opinion of Department of Justice when rendered on FOP upon filing of Request for DOJ Opinon on FOP is superior to the IPO Director's Circulars and Rulings on FOP: the Deletion or Undeletion will be thus settled vis-a-vis the unsolved issues of Commons FOP New "Copyright Rules for the Government" released by IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular 2020-024 July 3 2020 By IPO Director Rowel S. Barba - Sec. 3 a on Fair Use, and 4 which clearly states that NO PRIOR Approval is needed for use or photography of statues and all Government whether local or national works like Town City Halls facades etc. very very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder: Thanks for your deep concern on these photos of Philippine Cultural Heritage and Landmark; as Regional Trial Court Judge of Malabon and Ateneo Law Alumni, please allow me to hereby state that this is a grey area or one of the finer points of Philippine law vis-a-vis a) Canon law of the Catholic Church b) International law c) USA Federal Law and Copyright law of the Philippines Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, to wit: i) International law recognizes the Property rights of Vatican City, the Holy See vis-a-vis Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo Francisco Mendoza de Leon under Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila Broderick Pabillo Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator, who has exclusive jurisdiction over the Antipolo Shrine headed by its Rector but under said Pabillo ; ii) there appears no conflict whatsoever between Commons following the Copyright Laws of Philippines and USA Federal Laws on one hand and Canon Law, on the other, which is recognized by International Law; as a Separate State from Rome, Vatican City by its Holy See, Pope Francis is Supreme of the Hierarchy of World Laws on Church properties; iii) it is well known that private chapels and Shrines cannot be elevated to Parish Churches unless the land and buildings with all accessories and its Torrens Title under Property Registration Decree PD 1529 are transferred not to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo in this case, but to the Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator Pabillo, as incumbent; the Title of Auxiliary bishop of Manila appears in the Torrens Title of the Lot, land and all the buildings and improvements thereon, registered with the Registry of Property of Antipolo City, not in the name of Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo rancisco Mendoza de Leon but in the name of the Bishop of Antipolo under Bishop Pabillo, in the fee simple of Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila; iv) when thus titled, the processes or process of issuing the Decree of Parish Church or Shrine of Antipolo is thus issued and even approved by elevation to the Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, at Manila Cathedral for Imprimatur; v) the Decree permanently creates the Parish Church or Antipolo Shrine and the Solemnization Mass and Blessing of the Church follows; vi) afterwards, all properties, whether statues, crosses, relics, art, sculpture, towers, bell, and all incidents become functus officio, the properties of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila by fee simple both under Canon Law, International Law and Civil Law including the Copyright Law, 1987 Constitution and settled Jurisprudence both the Jurisprudence of Catholic canon law Philippines and International law; vii) following these points are the Rules of Statutory interpretation and the Laws on Property which include Copyright law: the maxim of Accessory follows the principal governs:: all the properties whether sculptures or additions are or become inherent properties of the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila, and nothing is left to anyone; no right therefore remains whether moral, wise or otherwise to the makers, sculptors or any and all the works inside the Church; viii) by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are transferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors transferring in fee simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful, WE, the Catholics, who are co-owners thereof with the Auxiliary bishop of Manila ; ix) at any rate, when I photographed the Manila Cathedral which is the Seat of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila, I was told by the Rector of the Cathedral about the foregoing, stated in Lay man's terms and I was granted permission, thus; a final word perhaps - not once but 3 times I wrote a Letter to the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) at Fort Bonifacio to clarify the Matter of FOP but, as expected, they would not issue any reply due to the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet ever since RULED on the matter for no justiciable controversy has been elevated to the High Tribunal on FOP, x) Finally, I made extensive angle by angle photos of the EDSA Shrine for I am ahead of the world's time::: There is a clear and present danger, for Filipinos to greatly fear that this Shrine was already on table planned to be demolished to give way to the BUILD, BUILD, BUILD infrastructures road transport LRT MRT extensions or otherwise; ergo, I humbly suggest, that if these photos would be deleted, please, before the deletion, upload them in Flickr and another safe haven, where these photos would remain in the Portals of Eternity; with these, I respectfully submit my legal opinion not as Judge but an Senior Citizen of Commons, literally, as I am 67 years old, and I share the Wisdom of Commons creators' philosophy, very very sincerely yours, Judge Floro Judgefloro (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all. As per my argument at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila, although buildings from Aug. 1951 to Nov. 1972 are marked as "Maybe" at Commons:FOP Philippines, the "maybe" status is still listed as among the exceptions, which mean they should be OK. The lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage, at least to such buildings. AFAIK potential copyright issues may arise at contemporary-era buildings (most esp. buildings built after the post-EDSA People Power revolution of 1986) and also to sculptures that are truly considered special works of art, such as the recent deletions of photos of famous Lion's Head in Baguio and the photos of the noteworthy Sigaw sa Pugad Lawin in Quezon City that were removed in the early 2010s. But I always doubt that such copyright issues may arise even in the foreseeable future. IMO, the lack of actual case law only solidifies the de facto FOP situation in the Philippines. Any assumption of photos of such buildings as not OK are just guesses. And take note, FOP status in the Philippines is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, so these DR's should be put on hold or better, keep all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion, see also w:en:WP:TRAINWRECK. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 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.

Antipolo Cathedral photos its insides and associated visual and religious artworks

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipolo_Cathedral says it is from 1954 and its architect is Jose Lorenzo de Ocampo (1995 year he died). No freedom of panorama in the phils.

The humiliating failure of the defensive jwilz12345 to restore a deleted photo of this church - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=475710000&oldid=475707968 - as seen at his or her comment at revising https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama - proves that bldgs from 1951 and 72 are not ok at commons until the country has a full freedom of pano implemented.

Also see some photos showing figuries, icons, statues, sculptures, crucifixes, altar and other religious artworks, plus the interior architectural frameworks and details. Some even show derived works like banners and posters

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extract of my undeletion attempt for the Cathedral of the Holy Child of IFI (also from 1951–72 period) from the undeletion requests

The following files were deleted because of "no FOP in the PHL." Ref. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila. But per enwiki article, it was completed on May 8, 1969 (inauguration date) so it falls under the exemption as stated in the revised Commons:FOP Philippines (buildings completed before November 1972).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply from requestor Despite being marked as "Maybe" for 1951–1972 buildings, it is still listed among the "exceptions" at Commons:FOP Philippines, which means they should be OK. The lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage, at least to buildings that are old enough. AFAIK potential copyright issues may arise at contemporary-era buildings (most esp. buildings built after the post-EDSA People Power revolution of 1986) and also to sculptures that are truly considered special works of art, such as the recent deletions of photos of famous Lion's Head in Baguio and the photos of the noteworthy Sigaw sa Pugad Lawin in Quezon City in early 2010s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We should make one global decision whether to accept Philippine buildings from 1951 to 1972, and change the "maybe" to "probably" or "probably not" once consensus is reached. Otherwise, decisions will be made based not on the merits of the case but on the inclination of the closing admin. We see this problem on graffiti and URAA cases as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: is there a need to open a new discussion about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or another forum? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: update.Making an inference at Clindberg's analysis at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#PHL buildings from August 1951–November 1972, 1951–72 bldgs should be fine. "The Berne Convention does state though that it's matter for domestic legislation on how photos of architecture etc. would be protected, and that legislation did not exist until 1972. I'm not sure that the question of photos of buildings has ever come up in court there, so I'm not sure what the de facto treatment is -- it's possible photos of buildings are simply used without consequence there." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carl stated right before: " It seems as though there are still questions on how treaties become operative law in the Philippines, though (given that the Philippine Senate did concur to the Berne Convention in 1950, effective 1951) it would be reasonably valid law. That link is a presidential proclamation from March 1955, which states that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." Architectural works between 1951-1972 are still a huge maybe and maybes are generally a "not ok" per COM:CARES and COM:PCP. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. It could even be the case that architecture was protected but they still needed a copyright notice to get that protection, since technically the notice requirements were not removed until 1972. It sounds like there were no court cases in that period which could have answered that question. There are a bunch of "maybe" questions for that intervening period. It may be exacerbated by any type of de facto ignoring of that possibility -- i.e. maybe people use photos of buildings commercially all the time but nobody has bothered to sue over it. It would take losing an infringement case to change such behavior. And we're trying to guess how that would turn out with basically no precedent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Just visited here. if your argument is correct Nat, them bldgs completed that period is NOT OK. Then OPPOSE. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Until relevant discussion affirm that buildings completed in the period between 1951 and 1972 are OK, we cannot proceed with undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Jurisprudence and Philippine Case law provide clear teachings applicable to Commons editing, Mass Deletions and FOP:

[edit]

US Jurisprudence and Philippine Case law provides clear teachings applicable to Commons editing, Mass Deletions and FOP: "The US judges considered the Four Factors of Fair Use, which is also observed in the Philippine judicial system in considering fair use: the purpose and character of your use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market". So what does the law allow? :"Few situations in real life point to a black-and-white scenario for fair use but the balance of the right-holder and the user, is at the heart of the matter." Section 5.2 Only the copyright owner has locus standi or Legal Right of Standing in Law to sue or file any action including here, in Commons, to Nominate Deletion processes for any photos uploaded; an anonymous Commons editor including any named or pretending Commons editor has no right whatsoever to ask Commons to Delete; Section 5.4 defence against claim of infringement or here, Mass Deletion Request: Sec. 184, IPO Code - Sec. (c) Reproduction or communication to the public on current political xxx etc. religious topics and Section 3 - fair use under Article 185 of the IP Code - fair use of copyrighted work for news reporting and similar purposes; Republic Act No. 10175 must be read side by side IP Code - Sec. 3 (h) without rights equals continuous actions in the Philippines which squarely applies to Commons Mass Deletions; to protect online users in the country.

In addition to be very specific, may I respectfully reproduce herein my Legal Argument of Church properties: Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; with all due respect, may I humbly Suggest both as Editor and as Regional Trial Court Judge, based on the express provisions of Philippines Laws and settled jurisprudence and for this matter, I respectfully reproduce herein as part hereof my my reply and inputs my a) Consolidated Reply, Rejoinder and Noting of Suggestions by -Ianlopez1115 (talk) b) Sources and evidence and c) I Stay Neutral on the FOP Nominations: The Opinion of Department of Justice when rendered on FOP upon filing of Request for DOJ Opinon on FOP is superior to the IPO Director's Circulars and Rulings on FOP: the Deletion or Undeletion will be thus settled vis-a-vis the unsolved issues of Commons FOP New "Copyright Rules for the Government" released by IPOPHIL Memorandum Circular 2020-024 July 3 2020 By IPO Director Rowel S. Barba - Sec. 3 a on Fair Use, and 4 which clearly states that NO PRIOR Approval is needed for use or photography of statues and all Government whether local or national works like Town City Halls facades etc. very very sincerely;
Rejoinder: Thanks for your deep concern on these photos of Philippine Cultural Heritage and Landmark; as Regional Trial Court Judge of Malabon and Ateneo Law Alumni, please allow me to hereby state that this is a grey area or one of the finer points of Philippine law vis-a-vis a) Canon law of the Catholic Church b) International law c) USA Federal Law and Copyright law of the Philippines Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, to wit: i) International law recognizes the Property rights of Vatican City, the Holy See vis-a-vis Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo Francisco Mendoza de Leon under Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila Broderick Pabillo Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator, who has exclusive jurisdiction over the Antipolo Shrine headed by its Rector but under said Pabillo ; ii) there appears no conflict whatsoever between Commons following the Copyright Laws of Philippines and USA Federal Laws on one hand and Canon Law, on the other, which is recognized by International Law; as a Separate State from Rome, Vatican City by its Holy See, Pope Francis is Supreme of the Hierarchy of World Laws on Church properties; iii) it is well known that private chapels and Shrines cannot be elevated to Parish Churches unless the land and buildings with all accessories and its Torrens Title under Property Registration Decree PD 1529 are transferred not to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo in this case, but to the Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator Pabillo, as incumbent; the Title of Auxiliary bishop of Manila appears in the Torrens Title of the Lot, land and all the buildings and improvements thereon, registered with the Registry of Property of Antipolo City, not in the name of Roman Catholic Diocese of Antipolo rancisco Mendoza de Leon but in the name of the Bishop of Antipolo under Bishop Pabillo, in the fee simple of Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila; iv) when thus titled, the processes or process of issuing the Decree of Parish Church or Shrine of Antipolo is thus issued and even approved by elevation to the Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, at Manila Cathedral for Imprimatur; v) the Decree permanently creates the Parish Church or Antipolo Shrine and the Solemnization Mass and Blessing of the Church follows; vi) afterwards, all properties, whether statues, crosses, relics, art, sculpture, towers, bell, and all incidents become functus officio, the properties of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila by fee simple both under Canon Law, International Law and Civil Law including the Copyright Law, 1987 Constitution and settled Jurisprudence both the Jurisprudence of Catholic canon law Philippines and International law; vii) following these points are the Rules of Statutory interpretation and the Laws on Property which include Copyright law: the maxim of Accessory follows the principal governs:: all the properties whether sculptures or additions are or become inherent properties of the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila, and nothing is left to anyone; no right therefore remains whether moral, wise or otherwise to the makers, sculptors or any and all the works inside the Church; viii) by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are transferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors transferring in fee simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful, WE, the Catholics, who are co-owners thereof with the Auxiliary bishop of Manila ; ix) at any rate, when I photographed the Manila Cathedral which is the Seat of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila, I was told by the Rector of the Cathedral about the foregoing, stated in Lay man's terms and I was granted permission, thus; a final word perhaps - not once but 3 times I wrote a Letter to the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) at Fort Bonifacio to clarify the Matter of FOP but, as expected, they would not issue any reply due to the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet ever since RULED on the matter for no justiciable controversy has been elevated to the High Tribunal on FOP, x) Finally, I made extensive angle by angle photos of the EDSA Shrine for I am ahead of the world's time::: There is a clear and present danger, for Filipinos to greatly fear that this Shrine was already on table planned to be demolished to give way to the BUILD, BUILD, BUILD infrastructures road transport LRT MRT extensions or otherwise; ergo, I humbly suggest, that if these photos would be deleted, please, before the deletion, upload them in Flickr and another safe haven, where these photos would remain in the Portals of Eternity; with these, I respectfully submit my legal opinion not as Judge but an Senior Citizen of Commons, literally, as I am 67 years old, and I share the Wisdom of Commons creators' philosophy, very very sincerely yours, Judge Floro Judgefloro (talk) 05:09, 2 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

[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) 07:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our Catholic Parishes, Churches, Cathedrals and Basilicas buildings are built and solemnly consecrated from Donations of both the poorest and richest parishioners - physical or manual labor including the architect engineers designer's pen but all are part of the Bayanihan method; Canon and International Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law including Extinctive Prescription of 4 years from Common Uploading bars any deletion - architect engineers designer and all contributors transfer all their rights absolutely to the Titular Owner, the Bishop Archbishop of the Diocese or Archdiocese; No Parish or Basilica can be consecrated built or retrofitted renovated without the transfer of all accessory rights to the Titutlar Bishop; Ergo, No Copyright exists whatsover
[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) 08:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: per discussion, per previous nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Antipolo_Cathedral&oldid=542071721"