Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City North EDSA

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:SM City North EDSA

[edit]

no freedom of panorama in the phil. bldg is from 1985. plus look at various colorful sculpture things here

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per above. 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 (like File:09439jfNorth Avenue SM West Trinoma Quezon Cityfvf 06.jpg). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just reviewed the rest of the images. I concur with P199's inputs. For the other images,  Delete most (showing the building, and some artistic installations and a few show ads, so COM:DW).  Keep some, but delete a handful redundant ones per COM:NOTUSED. Undelete if FOP is introduced here: per w:SM City North EDSA much of the mall has been renovated substantially and its architecture greatly altered, and as such the possible undelete date of 2036 (1985+50+1) may not be possible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:37, 8 January 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 .." 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]
Mrcl lxmna input

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) 03:25, 29 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) 07:56, 10 November 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) 08:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per en:WP:TRAINWRECK, different cases, please renominate as separate DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:SM_City_North_EDSA&oldid=542071377"