Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Pampanga

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 Pampanga

[edit]

According to w:SM City Pampanga, the mall building was completed in 2000 and designed by Palafox Associates. Freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law, and a need for a free license from Palafox Associates architectural firm via COM:OTRS is still required.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Is it easy to undelete files, such that a bot could be created to do mass undeletions of files of photos taken in the Philippines? If not, since FoP rules are under active consideration, there should be a way to sequester these and other such photos into some kind of compressed archive with a lock on it accessible only by admins that will be uncompressed if the FoP rules are adopted and deleted if they are voted down. It would be a shame to do massive deletions and then try to get everything reuploaded like next month or whatever. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this remark can be considered for all similar nominations for deletion of photos taken in the Philippines, so that I don't have to copy and paste it a bunch of times. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for giving me an example and explaining, JWilz12345. Was the undeletion a time-consuming process for the admins? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't know about that, and I don't know the experience of admins restoring deleted images of Belgian architecture and sculptures. Perhaps for some it may be time-consuming, but restoration should not be speedy as some files may contain DW's (like billboards, installations of copyrighted characters like IronMan or Superman, LED screens with broadcast feeds, etc). So far I know about 5 restorations when relevant FOP provisions were introduced. Aside from Belgium, others included Russian buildings, Albanian buildings/sculptures, Armenian public art, and Moldovan 3D works - buildings and public sculptures/national monuments. To add, IPOPHL-BCRR in the Feb. 10, 2020 dialogue stated that current status (no FOP in the Philippines) still prevails, until that amendment has passed into law and the Implementing Rules and Regulations for future Philippine FOP is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, which is why I suggested putting all these in a compressed folder accessible only to admins, but they'll do whatever the policies and procedures on Commons are. Thanks again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: there's no need to put all of them in the folder. All "deleted" files are visible to admins. It's just that these are "redlinks" to non-admins like us. It seems that the cases mentioned at w:Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages on enwiki also applies here, because enwiki also has restoration feature and the ability of enwiki admins to see all deleted pages and files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how things work for admins of those wikis. I'm a bureaucrat on Wikivoyage, and I can see deleted articles on en.voy, but not without restoring them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

  • CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
  • However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
  • Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
  • On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
  • When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
  • I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
  • It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
  • If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
  • Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
  • As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  • The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
  • In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
  • WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
  • In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:SM_City_Pampanga&oldid=542512181"