User talk:JWilz12345/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

::Done: Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan Philippines Category:Cloudy skies due to monsoon and Tropical Depression Marilyn in Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 1 (C-3 Road, Sgt. Rivera Street - Banaue Street, San Jose & Pag-ibig sa Nayon to Manresa) and Category:Cloudy skies due to monsoon and Tropical Depression Marilyn in Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 1 (Gregorio Araneta Avenue corners Banaue Street, Quezon Avenue & E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue - Manresa, Talayan, Santo Domingo & Tatalon, SFDM)

please allow me to explain that 340 photos are not even too much to detail the Civil and mechanical engineering of the Giant Build Build Build State 3 Section 1 Project; due to bad weather, I opted to photograph this landmark by riding in a Jeep moving thus quite blurry unlike in fast light of Blue Sky, due to Monsoon of Marilyn LPA Tropical Depression; I could not take the details due to dark and depressing Clouds; however, when the sun and blue sky appears, I will take New Photos especially for E. Rodriquez, Sr. to Terminus in Santa Mesa which is not in your Request, sincerelyJudgefloro 08:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Pressure vessel for Cape Bojeador Light 2005.JPG

File:Pressure vessel for Cape Bojeador Light 2005.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Cape Bojeador Lighthouse.JPG

File:Cape Bojeador Lighthouse.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Cape Bojeador view.JPG

File:Cape Bojeador view.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- ~riley (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: Thank you for your granting of autopatroller rights to me :-) Although I won't be active in Recent Changes in contrast to my activity at Tagalog Wikipedia. But once again, thanks for the new rights. :-)JWilz12345 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Balaring silay.jpg

File:Balaring silay.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Premeditated Chaos (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

File:SATeaGarden03.JPG

File:SATeaGarden03.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Balete tree Jed Sazon - Flickr.jpg

File:Balete tree Jed Sazon - Flickr.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Nokia N70 2.jpg

File:Nokia N70 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Magandang gabi po

The Photographer's Barnstar
For your tirelessly improve the Wikimedia Commons with your photographic skills and contributions.
Hi and the Bulacan lockdown pandemic prevents me from taking photos of La Union and Pangasinan and Benguet; but my depression is cured by daily waking up at 5:30 am racing to buy the fresh fish from Pamarawan Island of Malolos City, then a cup of choco or coffee and at Jollibee, then taking photos of the fish, fruits, vegies and Kakanin; I bought the Globe Home Wifi and this is my daily dose against unhappiness of being humbled by Pandemic; I wish you the best, for the Pandemic is a great blessing since I savour fresh fish, fresh home cooking and Food photography; for I discovered that I was able to take precious valued photos of Fishes never ever seen in the internet, yes very rare, and I have them due to good luck and early rising from bed, cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Judgefloro: Thank you po para sa barnstar :-) Although as of now I contributed few photos here, if you are interested you might want to have a glance at Category:Photographs by User:JWilz12345 and, my most favorite concept, Category:Photographs of roads by User:JWilz12345. But nevertheless thanks for the barnstar. I might mention some of my favorite photos from yours: File:7975Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 38.jpg (Balete Drive), File:EDSA near GMA headquarters 2016jf.jpg (EDSA-Kamuning), File:402Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 61.jpg and File:608Metro Manila Skyway Stage 3 Project Section 43.jpg (Skyway Stage 3 @ G. Araneta Avenue, with parts of Sucat–Araneta–Balintawak Transmission Line which was at that time being relocated to give way for the project). I tend to love "cloudy photos," similar to several road photos of mine hehe. But anyway, I appreciate your contributions. But I also hope that you will choose the best photos (not necessarily all photos) to be uploaded to Commons, as Commons has a policy regarding it - seen in Commons:SPAM. Again, thank you for the barnstar. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, good evening from here at Bulacan; I thought as I read that you are from Bulacan too; I captured all Barangays of Bulacan except 1 in San Miguel due to misinformation by trike driver and Barangay Kabayunan, DRT which is accessed only from San Lorenzo, Norzagaray crossing 3 rivers; I deeply understand your point of view that Commons deal only with best photos not redundant; you know, from 2012 to March 15 2020 Pandemic Lockdown, I spend P 2,ooo per a day photography of say, Caba, La Union, or Aguilar, Pangasinan and of course, Nueva Ecija and Nueva Vizcaya, and even Metro Manila due to expensive Tricycle fees of average P 700 for 3 hours arkila; so, with 14 hours travel for SM City Baliwag UV express to La Union, inter alia and back, plus 3 hours editing, and 14 hours uploading 2 days, I am constrained to value each photo leaving Commons editors to delete which photos I did not carefully examine as redundant; at any rate, my philosophy in Inclusive photography rather than meticulous selection; now, at this World Pandemic which humbled not only the Superpowers America, Russia and China, my 1.6 million photos will be very very very educational to Generations, thanks too, and cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, I accidentally stumbled upon your signature (I surely wouldn’t if you wouldn’t use this orange background) and have some remarks about it:

  • Regarding the first part for your name: <span style="color:#4169e1; font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]]</span>
    • The font Footlight MT is apparently only available with some Microsoft Office products. Hence it is not installed on all or at least the most systems (Linux!). It would in my opinion better just to use the generic font-family:serif.
    • The colour rule is not at all applied here because it is overruled by the rule for link colour. You would have to set the span with colour rule inside of the brackets, but if I remember correctly this will not work. So, you should either abstain from colouring or change to another rule for the background (but hopefully not that agressive like the orange one …).
  • Similar for the second part <span style="background-color:#FFA500; font-family:Palatino">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span>
    • I do not like this aggressive colour tone, but it’s not forbidden and your choice. You could, though, write the rule shorter: "background:#FFA500; (it’s technically not exactly the same, but in effect there is no difference).
    • Like for the first part the font Palatino is not installed on all systems. On Windows systems usually a variant named “Palatino Linotype“ is installed, on some Linux systems there may be “TeX Gyre Pagella” installed which doesn’t even contain the name Palatino. Sometimes there may be a definition for a font replacement, but this is something you cannot rely on. In fact, it is not on my system and I see this string part in my default sans-serif typeface! So long story short, again I would suggest using the generic font-family:serif.

All in all it may be shorter to write your signature as <span style="font-family:serif">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background:#FFA500">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> (I apparently left out the potential background for your user name).
Hope this helps. — Speravir – 19:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Speravir: hello. Footlight is my most favorite typeface, hence I used this also for English and Tagalog Wikipedias. Pardon me, but I cannot change it to a generic one. But nevertheless I might change the coloring scheme. However, should I change the coloring scheme here, I might as well change it to English Wikipedia too, in which I also use such form amd style of signature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If a user does not have Footlight MT installed on his machine he will not see your name in this font, the same for Palatino. So, yes, this would also be an issue in wikipedias; if you insist you could at least add the serif part:
<span style="font-family:'Footlight MT',serif;">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]]</span> <span style="background:#FFA500;font-family:Palatino,serif;">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span>
If you actually wanted to change the appearance only for yourself, then you should do this locally on your machine. For Firefox this would be a file userStyles.css or an addon like Stylus (there are others, too), the latter is also available for Chromium browsers. I could try to help you creating the necessary rule. BTW if you are more active in enwiki we could discuss it there (but I am not active in Tagalog wikipedia).
— Speravir – 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

File:San Ignacio Church.JPG

File:San Ignacio Church.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Don Bosco Center for Spirituality - retreat house main buildingjwilz.jpg

File:Don Bosco Center for Spirituality - retreat house main buildingjwilz.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your assistance regarding my picture

I want to thank you for the advice you gave me regarding wrongly named pictures I published and asked to be deleted. You showed me, providing some links and further advice, how it was better not to delete them, but start a process to get them renamed. Particularly the tone of your writing struck me. I have on occassion received very cursory answers from some other people, you probably realized I am rather new and insecure to using codes and the role of editors, and were more like a teacher. I have performed the suggested changes and feel more certain in the future. So many thanks to you. Dosseman (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dosseman: you're welcome. :-) But since all of your DRs are ongoing, you can't cancel them. Instead, insert {{Withdraw}} to the relevant DRs that you began. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:588 Shopping Mall Pulilanjwilz.jpg

File:588 Shopping Mall Pulilanjwilz.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

File:FeastdayOfImmaculateConception Pulilan 20191209jwilz.jpg

File:FeastdayOfImmaculateConception Pulilan 20191209jwilz.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply, Rejoinder and Request to draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Defiinitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Category:Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice vis LBC mail and or Email

Reply, Rejoinder and Request to draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Definitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice bis LBC mail and or Email - Reply and rejoinder on Philippine Roman Catholic Parish Churches: a) with my Canon Law discussions vis-a-vis Civil Law particularly Copyright Law of Philippines on FOP - I state with utter certainty that based on my many experiences as Catholic ::: a) before any Parish, I say Parish not Chapel is Decreed and Solemnized by Bishop Blessing and Decretum, the lot and building must first be titled in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese like Malolos or Antipolo or Manila Archdiocese; for example the Category:Most Holy Trinity Quasi-Parish Church (Barihan, Malolos, Bulacan) was Decreed built since the Old old Chapel Category:Bisita ng Santisima Trinidad (Malolos City, Bulacan) was claimed by defeated defendants in RTC Malolos Bulacan; Bishop Oliveros banned Priests from saying Mass hence an Aglipayan said Mass until the controversy was ended when the defendants agreed to the transfer of Title of land and buildings of the Bisita to the Bishop of Malolos; to underscore, Catholic Church laws set conditio sine qua non that the Bishop of Malolos or any Diocese must have Fee simple title via Deed of Donation signed by Donors owners and all accessories like sculptures and all the rights thereof of copyright holders whether moral or otherwise are absolutely transferred to the Bishop of Malolos by issuance of new Transfer Certificate of Title in his Titular not personal name; no sculptor or any painter like Lahug can claim any moral right in his paintings at Betis Pampanga Church; b) the same thing happens to Government properties and statues like Rizal's - all the workers or sculptors must transfer all their rights including moral to the Local or National Government; for Government funds whether Barangay, Municipal or National were used to acquire, built and own the property and accessories; and no permission whatsover is needed to photograph these;
I would like to suggest that as veteran editor, as suggested by User:Ianlopez1115 please draft, finalize and file a Formal FOP Definitive Opinion for Commons Uploading - Letters to both new IPO director Rowel Barba and DOJ Secretary Menardo Ilasco Guevarra - Request for Opinion of Secretary of Justice vis LBC mail and or Email, to settle once and for all the matter of Deletion, or Undeletion of FOP uploaded photos pending hereat Commons; I do not want to be the one since I repeat Category:Menardo Ilasco Guevarra is my classmate and I might be favored with subjectivity; for I believe in Commons founders' philosophy of objectively and neutrality of myself in dealing with my photos nominated for deletion, thanks and very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Judgefloro: I think that Ianlopez1115 is formulating a draft for the request for formal opinion of DOJ on the Commons:FOP Philippines matter, based on his reply at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. You may want to reach out to his talk page at User talk:Ianlopez1115. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Letter of Judge Florentino V. Floro to Wikimedia Commons editors - users

Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; I state with Faith, that this Letter to you may enlighten upon the Legal finer points on the matter of FOP in the Philippines, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Judgefloro: I will post these two photos at the most relevant forum, at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Addition, JudgeFloro, as much as possible, all of FoP discussions and concerns should be posted at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, to advoid clutter on most users' talkpages. We are going to focus discussions there. If you want to get the attention of other people here, ping them with {{Ping}} (ex. {{ping|JWilz12345}}). Thank you for your understanding. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tanjay

Category discussion warning

Tanjay has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

180.190.66.182 03:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I could not manage to add the FOP cat at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yilmaz gunay statue suleimania.jpg. Can you kindly give a hand there, please? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome @E4024: 🙂. But BTW, just an FOP-related thought. The Iraqi FOP-related DR you're dealing with is nothing compared to our situation. Given the lack of explicit mention of freedom of panorama, numerous files depicting Philippine architecture and sculptures were slapped with deletion requests, mainly from what we Pilipino Wikipedians consider a "troll" (User:Mrcl lxmna). FOP in the Philippines is being dealt with at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, though closer examination of our copyright law seems to reveal no FoP-like provisions. The most recent development is that the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is exploring the inclusion of FoP provision as one of the possible amendments in the ongoing review of the present law which is Republic Act No. 8293. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing deletion requests

Hi! Can you maybe leave an edit summary indicating what the edit is about, and/or mark the edit as minor, when you add categories to old deletion requests like in this edit? It’s not very pleasant to see those titles pop up in my watchlist again, especially when I don’t remember if it’s an old deletion request or a new one that I need to deal with as soon as I can. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Lucas Werkmeister: . What I did in the old DR's lately was to add relevant FOP categories like "<noinclude>[[Category:Saudi Arabian FOP cases/deleted]]</noinclude>. I consider the uncategorized as "orphan" to some sort and thus denying those affected files some potential undeletions in the future. I usually used the old editing form (disabled JavaScript because things tend to slow down, though I turn it on and used HotCat if necessary). My apologies if those become unpleasant to your watchlist. If there's a feature that will automatically add comments like "Added relevant FOP category", I would have added them on edit summaries, because manually typing slows me down. Most of the uncategorized DR's were commenced by A1Cafel, and I already told them to categorize whenever they conduct FOP-related deletion nominations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Aghanistan 2009 -- 'Go vote!'.jpg

I am not an original uploader, I have corrected contrast of the image I didn't uploaded. Please don't place warnings at my talk page as it is senseless, image past or image future is not interesting for me, but this kind of warnings are making me a sort of 'hooligan' who is an illegal content uploader. Thank you, Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Bogomolov.PL: I think it's the way the tools work. Both Visual File Change and the "Nominate for deletion", once a user commences the deletion requests, gives warnings to all users who modified those files, whether the user is the original uploader or not. That has happened to me recently: I got a DR about a photo of Greenbelt Mall complex in Makati City due to no FoP in our country, though what I only did on that file is uploading of the highest reso Flickr image, but I wasn't its original uploader. My apologies if this caused your inconvenience. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Pastime @ QMC Shrine (R. Dexter pic) - Flickr.jpg

File:Pastime @ QMC Shrine (R. Dexter pic) - Flickr.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:518Views of Candaba Swamp Candaba Viaduct 19.jpg

File:518Views of Candaba Swamp Candaba Viaduct 19.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

FoP-US

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:OneWorldTradeCenter.jpg&diff=510247593&oldid=504558498: I don't understand. Are we now going to put {{FoP-US}} on every image of U.S. architecture from the last several decades? - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think so. Just look at this revision of the description page of File:One world trade center august 2019.jpg, which at one time was used on the main enwiki article of the office tower itself. But I think this is not mandatory, as many images of Dec. 2, 1990–present-day U.S. buildings are not yet tagged as such, but the wording at Commons:FOP US implies this is encouraged. In fact I put that on one Flickr transfer I made: File:One World Trade Center (NYC) - Flickr.jpg. Maybe Liuxinyu970226 has better say on requirement of FoP tags like that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: considered the increasing number of "derivative-works copyvios" of images of American sculptures and other non-architectural American artworks (Category:United States FOP cases/pending), and the number of cases in which images of such works were deleted has just surpassed 1 K, IMO it is now necessary (but not obligatory) to add such tags to all U.S. architecture from December 2, 1990 onwards, so as to increase copyright awareness to all readers and viewers of Wikipedia, all Commons uploaders, and to the general public. {{FoP-US}} contains a warning that indicates FoP is limited to architecture, and not other types of artistic works. Through this, I also hope (hopefully) that the upcoming U.S. federal government (whether Trump or Biden administration) would realize the ultimate importance of Wikimedia for free knowledge dissemination, and then make at least a few amendments on the current U.S. copyright law. If 2D artworks like murals cannot be made OK for FoP, then at least sculptures and/or other 3D artworks would (hopefully) be included in the FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So you want to tag a few million pages whose copyright status is perfectly clear because there is confusion about other pages? Feel free, but I have a feeling you are not going to find anyone else bothering. I'm guessing this would be "relevant" for about 10,000 photos I have on here. I'm certainly not going to go through looking for them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: the tag is not obligatory, anyway. I think I'm going to place tag on "in use" files (most especially those heavily used on English Wikipedia). But I won't add such tags at the moment, as I'm busy with adding <noinclude>[[Category: [COUNTRY X] FOP cases/[STATUS]]]</noinclude> to dozens of case pages that remain uncategorized. Currently I'm adding these categories to several case pages began by Yuraily Lic, and I feel it is more important and productive to categorize "orphaned" (a.k.a. uncategorized) FOP case pages than to spend my time tagging millions of files, whether those showing U.S. buildings or other FoP-valid subjects worldwide. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing a page on Commons there is a small field labeled "Edit Summary" or "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary: 
 

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the Edit Summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the Edit Summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's name in the Edit Summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted Jeff G.! 🙂 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

House Bill 8062

@JWilz12345: Hi! Just want to give you a heads up on this new bill filed last Nov. 23 by Reps. Garin & de Venecia seeking to revise the Intellectual Property Code & is currently pending before the Committee on Trade & Industry. (pdf file here). No FOP provision though but still a substantial proposal, 136 pages long! Thinking of maybe persuading Wiki Philippines to send a rep. when deliberations start, though I believe that won't happen anytime soon with the committee swamped by COVID-19 recovery bills. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"still living, unfortunately"

[1] Now, now, be polite. ;-) Too bad about the Freedom of panorama, though. There were several pics of nice Turkmenistan black and gold statues deleted for the same reason. Someone should talk to them about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I only based my DR nominations on prior FOP cases (you may look at Category:Turkmenistani FOP cases/deleted). The current Commons stand on Turkmen FOP is at COM:FOP Turkmenistan. If you believe that this is not the case in actual, you may raise the issue at either Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. Right now I'm suffering from health problem so I can't entertain any more queries. Regards. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I hope you get well soon.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: BTW, do you think there is an effort to have freedom of panorama provisions introduced in the former Asian union soviet states? (All five -stan countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) Whether supported by Wikimedia or independently-initiated? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea, but I doubt it's a priority. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Astana-concerthall.jpg

I am not an original uploader, I have corrected rotation and contrast of the image I didn't originally uploaded. Please don't place warnings at my talk page as it is senseless, image past or image future is not interesting for me, but this kind of warnings are making me a sort of 'hooligan' who is an illegal content uploader. Thank you, Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Astana 2010.jpg, File:Bayterek Tower (Astana).jpg

I am not an original uploader, I have corrected contrast of the images I didn't uploaded. Please don't place warnings at my talk page as it is senseless, images past or images future is not interesting for me, but this kind of warnings are making me a sort of 'hooligan' who is an illegal content uploader. Thank you, Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

On Philippine FOP

I am sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: (I moved your reply to a brand new section here) Ok. I understand. Sorry again. Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me. I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Because that is what IPOPHL indicated in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan in November 2020. This dialogue may be helpful in pushing for the inclusion of FOP in the approved amendment to R.A. 8293, because the proposed amendment, House Bill No. 8062, still has no FOP provision. The exceptions are now at Chapter VII, Sections 159.1–165.3. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Ron Mueck head.jpg
Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Ron Mueck head.jpg. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative work of a non-free work, please explain why on the file's talk page.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

File:SM Megamall - Back View (EDSA Cor. Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong; 2015-05-26).jpg

File:SM Megamall - Back View (EDSA Cor. Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong; 2015-05-26).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NoFoP templates

Hello JWilz12345. Please advise what is the intention regarding the NoFoP templates in Category:FoP_templates. Has there been any general discussion about this? --Krd 15:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krd: I created these no FoP templates to catch the attention of users about the lack of Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama in some Asian countries. I hoped that this will somehow cause the call for introduction of FoP in their respective countries. Though I didn't create one for the Philippines as I am hopeful that FoP will be introduced soon here, but perhaps not very very soon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think these templates create the impression that the files tagged with them can stay at Commons, which I think is not the case. I think all images shall be deleted, so the templates appear useless. Please advise at which point I'm mistaken. --Krd 18:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@Krd: I based the usage patterns on the usages of the likes of {{NoFoP-France}}, {{NoFoP-UAE}}, and {{NoFoP-Greece}}, which were already there before I created the NoFoP templates for the last Asian countries with no FoP (except both the Philippines and Georgia which I am aware that have some beginning steps taken for the eventual introduction of FoP in both countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I will bring this (especially the France example) to the VP for clarification. --Krd 05:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Commons:Deletion_requests/NoFoP_templates --Krd 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

How about recovering some of N Seoul Tower photos deleted without FoP?

After knowing a few examples from the deletion request related to the NoFoP template, I have one question. In the past, when N Seoul Tower photos were deleted without FoP, I found the deletion request that other buildings other than N Seoul Tower were copyrighted and deleted. However, Photos of general cityscape are photos of a country where there is no freedom of panorama, but they usually weren't deleted.

For example:

One photo of general cityscape in Iran without the freedom of panorama.

Some photos of general cityscape in UAE without the freedom of panorama.

Therefore, I think it is good to restore only the photos that can be judged as general cityscape among deleted N Seoul Tower photos. How about you?

--Ox1997cow (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: there's a process called Undeletion requests. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin and so all deleted images are "invisible to me" (just redlinks), therefore I cannot determine if which of the deleted files can be restored as skyline or cityscape pictures or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Own}} by the uploader

Hi. The point of a the {{Own}} template is internationalization. If you write {{own}} by the uploader, it mixes the local language with English. If you must, could you please use {{Own work by original uploader}}? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: noted! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Quezon Memorial Circle (Diliman, Quezon City; 01-01-2020).jpg

File:Quezon Memorial Circle (Diliman, Quezon City; 01-01-2020).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

120.29.106.118 06:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Millau Viaduct image

Dear user JWilz,

I hope this is the correct location to contact you. In the actual monthly challenge "bridges" my file "Driving on Viaduc Millau" got deleted according to the Frensh FOP law, which I did not know about before. Sorry, because I like the picture. My question now is, how can I replace it using an other picture? May I just extinguish the deleted file of the "edit" page in the challenge and replace by the new one?

Best regards and thank you

Foeniz (Hartmut Schmidt)Foeniz (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Foeniz: Hello. I don't know if this is allowed in the contest rules, but in my opinion, yes remove the affected image and replace it with a new one. A new bridge, perhaps from a country with FOP for architecture, or an old bridge from any of the countries, including those with no FOP. It is actually OK to include bridges from France, but those bridges should either: a) be old enough in which its architect has been dead for more than 70 years, or b) be simple and not as architecturally distinct as Millau Viaduct and Pont de Normandie (but I don't know if the bridges' simplicity affects the scoring of the images for the contest). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your information foenizFoeniz (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi JWilz12345. I noticed that you've made malformed deletion requests. When you want to delete a file by manually using the {{Delete}} template, please remember to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion, otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

License plates

Hi, just saw this deletion request and I am not quite sure how to interpret it. Wouldn't this mean that everything in Category:License plates of Connecticut and all other license plates should be deleted? I have been told somewhere that a license plate with no particular design is not a copyright infringement. I will also post at the Village pump. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: better start a thread at COM:Village pump/Copyright, as I'm not very familiar with the copyright status of most license plates. For that particular case, license plates are works of the state of Alabama, though unfortunately Alabaman state works are not PD (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#US States and Territories). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Manila City.png

File:Manila City.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

124.106.141.178 06:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Riversidebacolod.jpg

File:Riversidebacolod.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I made NoFoP-Philippines template.

And I will make NoFoP-South Africa template soon.

NoFoP-Philippines template is here.


Philippines Warning sign

FOR CATEGORIES

Republic Act No. 8293 (the IP Code of the Philippines) as it stands today does not contain a freedom of panorama provision that permits free uses of images of copyrighted architectural or artistic works situated in public spaces. Please do not upload image files of such works here, unless their presence or inclusion in the image files is incidental. Architectural or artistic works that are now in public domain should be fine.

FOR IMAGE FILES

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features a copyrighted architectural or artistic work (e.g. monument, sculpture, memorial, or mural), photographed from a public space in the Philippines. There are no freedom of panorama exceptions in the IP Code of the Philippines (R. A. No. 8293), which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes, reporting of current events, and educational/teaching purposes. More information: COM:CRT/Philippines#Freedom of panorama.

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.
English ∙ 한국어 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: thanks for creating the template. Though I think it will only last for a year or less hehe, see the recent updates on the proposed FOP provision at w:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive46#Possible online meeting with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama (and possibly government-published images). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
And also, I suggest not making these more templates for a while until the relevant DR to those "no FOP templates" is closed by the admins. Someone may bundle these new no FoP templates to the DR too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
OK. I won't make it until that DR is closed. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I changed the form of {{NoFoP-Philippines}} so that it suits both as a category handler template and file namespace template. I replaced the {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} and {{NoUploads}} templates in most categories of Philippine buildings and public art with this template. It will serve as a temporary notice about the no FOP status in our country in those categories. Temporary, because FOP will be introduced soon, as part of amendments to our copyright law which are now pending at the Congress (and has passed and being consolidated by the Technical Working Group there). Though there's still no recent news if the Senate has made their version of the copyright amendment bill, and priorities in the legislature now are recovery bills in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic here which has greatly affected the National Capital Region, Central Luzon, and CALABARZON regions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. However, in this DR, I suggested that keep templates except {{NoFoP-Japan}} and {{NoFoP-Russia}} for use only in the file namespace. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: the NoFoP-Philippines is not bundled in that DR anyway. As such it won't be affected by whatever the decision will be on that DR. I purposely converted this into a dual category-handler and file namespace template, so that Filipinos will become aware (hopefully) on the lack of freedom of panorama in the Philippines. It is for a limited period of time, and once FOP is now introduced here and it is formalized by an Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) guideline, the template will then be sent to DR as obsolete.
You may ask, why the need for IRR? This is because the FOP wording inserted in the proposed bill, HB 8620 (actually one of the three bills seeking to amend and modernize our copyright law) is a general FOP wording based on Australian FOP, and a governing IRR is required to determine which works will fall under the future Philippine FOP, and which will not (perhaps to exclude works made by vulnerable artists here, and also to address some questions raised by several Filipino Wikipedians regarding public place and permanence criteria during the 02/10/2021 online dialogue with IPOPHL). All three bills were passed in the Congress fortunately, and are being consolidated by the Technical Working Group. The table now goes to the Senate (and afterwards, the President for him to sign the passed amendment to the copyright law, after that an IRR will be formulated, which will formalize FOP in the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. I want that commercial purpose FOP will be allowed in South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I hope so. It's ironic that SoKor has no Commons-compatible FOP, unlike the FOP provision of NoKor which is acceptable on Commons. I don't know who in your country will initiate steps to introduce Commons-compatible FOP. But I'm hopeful. Also hopeful for FOP in UAE too, at least for buildings only which will make great difference for UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I think our edits conflicted 😅 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I'm sorry. If so, when does the Philippines start to allow FOP? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I cannot tell, because the copyright amendments are still in the legislature. There's no definite date on when will the amendments become part of R.A. 8293, and when will IRR be drafted. As for today, the no FOP status still prevails. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: since the DR was closed as keep, you may now proceed to create more no FOP templates. But I suggest don't create South Africa's, as they will have FOP soon. Considering the news/updates on their copyright amendment bill, I am definite that FOP may be introduced within this year (though Disney-type entities are continuing to impede the progress). You may now create the likes of {{NoFoP-Lithuania}} and {{NoFoP-Namibia}}. But I suggest be selective in country/territory: I doubt these type of templates will be useful in places where in theory Wikimedia websites aren't accessed to a great extent, like Seychelles and Cape Verde (just my assumptions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates, This DR was decided to keep.

Therefore, I will do something.

However, It's hard for me to do it alone.

See also: Commons:Village pump

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: ✓ Done moving Category:FoP-Philippines to Category:NoFoP-Philippines. Also made some relevant modifications on those templates. I leave the other no FOP templates to the other users. However, it might take some time for the files and categories using this template as the categorization of "NoFoP-Philippines" is generated through the template and not through the direct addition of categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are we re-discussing Italian FOP?

When I read COM:VPC, I saw about re-discussing Italian FOP.

After I saw {{NoFoP-Italy}}, I knew there is no FOP in Italy.

However, Italian FOP is being discuss again.

What is the reason? This content is too long to understand.

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: to sum up the whole thing, I'm going to use bullet pointers:
  • There have been some inconsistent closures on Italian FOP cases. Various modern buildings nominated, like Tiburtina station of Rome, have been closed as kept on the grounds that most modern architecture (specifically those lacking distinctive features) are "not copyrighted".
  • In the subsequent inputs from Italian Wikipedians (from Wikimedia Italia), two key points have been brought forward:
  1. There exists a form of threshold of originality for buildings. Per Ruthven, the ToO is inflated: "in order for it to be copyrightable, a work has to clearly show some creative aspects". Most modern Italian buildings like Tiburtina station fail as an artistic work of architecture (according to them). There is a list of protected contemporary architecture found here (in Italian). Any modern buildings not on the list should be fine on Commons, like the Tiburtina station.
  2. Marco Chemello (WMIT) gave a Wikisource link of the official Parliamentary pronouncement from 2008, in Italian. Again to quote a relevant part: "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The last part is understood to relate to moral rights and hence, COM:Non-copyright restrictions. If you wish so, you may want to translate paragraphs one by one or two by two on Google Translate.
  • I analyzed the second point, and eventually thought of an analogous FOP for Argentina (de facto and for buildings only).
  • According to COM:FOP Argentina, their copyright law has no FOP whatsoever. Nor do exceptions exist for their buildings. In effect, no de jure FOP. Argentina should have been one of the "red" countries on the map for this case, like Italy, France, and South Korea.
  • But there was a lawyer's extensive study and interpretation of their copyright law in the late 90s, and stated that it is universally accepted in Argentina to paint or draw or photograph all Argentine buildings for any intents or purposes, without infringing architects' copyright. Thus comes a statement that Argentina has de facto FOP for buildings only.
  • So I compared the Argentine situation and Italian situation. Both are similar to each other, but the Italian one is very complex.
@JWilz12345: Through some examples, I think Italy has very high bar on threshold of originality, in which even complex buildings are not copyrighted. However, I'm not sure if it's related to FOP. How about your opinion? And how about sculptures in Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: the discussion is not yet finished, I'm waiting for the insights and opinions of other users. For sculptures, that's not covered by the parliamentary pronouncement or even the list, so no FOP still unless it's already 70 years after the sculptor's death. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If so, did you see one of deleted Italian FOP cases that corresponds to buildings that exceed TOO ? Ox1997cow (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an admin: I can't see deleted images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Jones Bridge - new light posts (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg

File:Jones Bridge - new light posts (Manila; 11-24-2019).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How about Italian TOO?

When I read a discussion of Italian FOP, I thought this.

Italy has very high bar on TOO, in which even complex buildings are not copyrighted.

Therefore, I think that photos that were kept due to no copyright were not considered copyrighted because of high TOO in Italy.

Conversely, South Korea has very low bar on TOO, in which even simple buildings are copyrighted. (See also: COM:FOP SK)

How about your thinking?

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: maybe. Italy has a high TOO for buildings. Perhaps several deleted images of Italian buildings may be restored (but not all), after the discussion is finished. With regards to FOP, I'm quite skeptic lately after translating the whole Parliamentary reply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: So, is there a relationship between high TOO and FOP? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No. There's no relationship between these two at all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If so, should the photos kept in Italian FOP currently being discussed be attributed to high TOO? There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, but Italian TOO is high. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: those photos of recent Italian buildings that are "not creative" can be kept (but let the admins decide). On the other hand, you may want to add inputs at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Section break (I just separated the section into two subsections, as the thread is becoming long and unwieldy). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: And, Why South Korean TOO is low? What did you see and judge that way? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Ox1997cow, it was this UV house case of 2008 explained by Explicit at COM:CRT/South Korea's talk page that convinced me of the low TOO standard of SoKor. See the talk page of SoKor's CRT. Sorry for relatively delayed response: there is a debate ongoing at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan hehe. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I opened a discussion to talk more about FOP and TOO in Italy. Are you going to participate? Ox1997cow (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I cannot say if I'm going to participate in that discussion or not. I'm just waiting for the responses of other users/admins (which unfortunately haven't responded to my mentions/ping yet). At this point the involved participants (me included) have already said their inputs at VP/Copyright, and that should have been sufficient to have other users state their inputs or opinions about the matter. Note that I may become busy in real life soon (personal reasons), and hence I may not participate in some discussions soon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On User:JWilz12345/FoP: I think it is a good idea to change the photos of the works of no FoP countries into photos that apply DM.

Among the photos of a country where there is no freedom of panorama, it is difficult to know the original appearance of the work if it is painted black due to copyright.

Therefore, I think it is better to replace them permitted per DM.

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I think it's best to stay as it is. A few representative works of no FOP countries "censored". By adding DM images, the section for no FOP countries will become pointless (as it may look like those countries have FOP). The main aim of my userspace gallery page is to illustrate images of works from countries with compatible FOP, and the addition of section for works from countries with no compatible FOP is just brief, and DM images are not suitable for that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Info @Ox1997cow: all concerns regarding User:JWilz12345/FoP userspace page should be posted here (to avoid unnecessary discussion areas). Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know

I've been searching for an hour or so and I still can't trace back the picture to where I originally found it, though I recall it was some sort of a page about Wikipideans who left the site or something like that. If this means the picture has to be taken down then I'm going to feel kind of sad because I love this seagull walking on the seashore, it's a nice painting. Best regards, --Scuraball (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Scuraball: try using reverse image search of Google or TinEye. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you make draft of COM:TOO Italy?

At the discussion of Italian FoP, I think this.

It's to need draft of COM:TOO Italy.

Can you make draft of COM:TOO Italy?

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there is no need to add it to TOO. My proposed new additions to COM:FOP Italy will suffice (exceptions). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I made User:Ox1997cow/Currency by referring to your User:JWilz12345/FoP.

I divided the country into two categories, one category is list of countries where we can upload current currency or last currency before Euro replacement, and the other category is list of countries where we don't.

I will find images of coins and banknotes from many countries and add them to this list.

Currently, only currency images from South Korea, Japan, the United States, the European Union, and Switzerland have been added.

Can you help too?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Thanks for your info, though I'm sorry, currency is not my side of interest. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: OK. Can I link User:JWilz12345/FoP to my user document? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: you may :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Interior architecture

Recently, I noticed that you often ping me for issues regarding COM:FOP Taiwan. If you have ever go back and look at my comments, then you will understand why I say that I am not interested in discussing FOP-Taiwan here.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kai3952: I didn't ping you. It is clear from the thread. You were just mentioned by another user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Why you made {{NoFoP-US}} like {{NoFoP-Japan}}?

lately, you made {{NoFoP-US}}.

This template is similar to {{NoFoP-Japan}}.

I wanted to make {{NoFoP-US}} like {{NoFoP-South Korea}}, but you made it.

Why you made {{NoFoP-US}} like {{NoFoP-Japan}}?

And can I make {{NoFoP-Lithuania}} like {{NoFoP-Italy}}?

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: see Jeff G.'s reply in the relevant Village pump/Copyright thread (that was already archived, I think). In my own opinion the U.S. "de minimis" is sharper (see COM:DM United States), in which a copyrighted work is de minimis when its presence is "trivial" (not incidental). So it is more restrictive. For Lithuania, you may (because it uses incidental/not the main subject concept, see COM:FOP Lithuania). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I made {{NoFoP-Lithuania}}. See it. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, but I asked the direct reason. Why did you make {{NoFoP-US}} for categories, not file namespace? Ox1997cow (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: because it is unlikely that Commons will have images of copyrighted U.S. public art that are incidental or accessory. Per COM:DM United States, the de minimis concept is more on triviality than incidental or accessory. Trivial means you cannot notice the copyrighted work immediately, or if the copyrighted work successfully blended the non-infringing elements (like buildings or trees). Also, for some cases where the unfree work is on the sides of the image, cropping does not harm the value of the rest of the image. Even images of copyrighted U.S. public art that you may think as DM (if you follow European or SoKor de minimis) may fail because of the sharper U.S. de minimis standards. So the best approach is a category-only NoFoP template for U.S.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I know. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

I have seen your message on the pictures of Umme Rubab Chandio common deletion, kindly let them published on Wikimedia, I have published these pics for the page umme Rubab Chandio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pope sindhi (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Okey sir @JWilz12345, I am new inspite of a this that I have joined Wikipedia in 2015. If any see mistake kindly tell me how to correct it. Your obidently Pope Sindhi Pope sindhi (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Movement for freedom of panorama in the Philippines?

In conversation with you, I found out that you are very interested in freedom of panorama in the Philippines.

Your user documentation also confirms that the Philippines and South Africa campaigned to allow freedom of panorama.

So, how did you start a movement to allow freedom of panorama in the Philippines?

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: well, to clear things up, there was no campaigning or major movement that occurred. It was more of discussions and dialogues between some Filipino Wikipedians and the IPOPHL or the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. And I only played an indirect minor role here, with another Wikipedian (Longcake Higad), acting as "bridges" between IPOPHL and the Filipino Wikipedians (via email). The things you saw on my user page signify my support for the introduction of FOP here and in South Africa. I think there is "loud" movement in South Africa because of substantial resistance from some groups there and some Disney-like entities outside of South Africa opposing the proposed amendments (you may find more info about this in the Wikimedia South Africa page on the Copyright Amendment Bill, found at Meta Wiki). Fortunately, as of this writing, I see no explicit resistance to the FOP here. That's why a major movement or campaign is not needed. The only thing needed is showing of support to the FOP provision. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: Update as of today: the pending bill containing the FOP provision is still "Pending with the Committee on TRADE AND INDUSTRY since 2021-02-08." To know the update, go to https://www.congress.gov.ph/search/, then type "HB 8620" (remove the word "Velasco" if it appears in the search field) and tick the "House Bills and Resolutions". After clicking / tapping search (magnifying glass button), click "HOUSE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS - 18th Congress". You will see the summary of the pending bill and its current status. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What is difference between {{Non-free graffiti}} and NoFoP templates?

{{Non-free graffiti}} and NoFoP templates are for warning purposes.

However, {{Non-free graffiti}} can be placed under licensing sections, but as you said, It is wrong to place NoFoP templates under licensing sections.

What is difference between {{Non-free graffiti}} and NoFoP templates?

Ox1997cow (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: non-free graffiti is more complicated, however, and I usually leave the graffiti matter to other users/admins. Details are found at COM:GRAFFITI. Other users/admins may address your concern though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok, but My opinion is different. I think NoFoP templates can be placed under licensing sections. Because NoFoP templates are for warning purposes, and they have the same purpose as {{Non-free graffiti}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: this is best resolved at Village pump areas (particularly COM:VPC) and not forking the thread to my talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Wait I though you posted it on VPC. Now slashed. I'm beginning to get confused due to your mentions of me at numerous threads you began or your were involved with.
To address your concern, it's best to post it at COM:VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ox1997cow: about your question about both Non-free Graffiti and no-FOP templates, here is my input:
    • {{Non-free graffiti}} can be considered as a license tag because it serves as the license of the depicted illegal graffiti (note: illegal means it is painted without authorization and painted for the purpose of vandalism, unlike murals which are either painted legally or painted with purpose of expressing art, usually signed with the signature of the artist; murals will be immediately sent to deletion requests unless the country extends FOP to 2D works). Of course it contains a warning for reusers.
    • {{NoFoP-Philippines}} and other no-FOP templates are leaning towards problem or warning tags. This is because an image tagged as such may be infringing artists' copyright as there is no FOP license in the first place. It is also intended to help admins and other users in checking or tracking: another user will check if the image can be accepted here for other reason (Commons:De minimis, etc.) or not. If not, then the file must be deleted through a deletion request (though in the past several files were deleted speedily). (The reason why there is wording "If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work...is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted.") This is not really to inform, but to warn. Hence no-FOP templates have never been considered as license tags. There is no guarantee of keeping files tagged as such, esp. if de minimis or trivial inclusion cannot be applied, as long as there is no FOP in the country, until either the work falls PD or the country introduces commercial FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Metropolis of Manila.jpg

File:Metropolis of Manila.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

124.106.129.212 00:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed that Paraguay did not have FoP.

However, COM:CRT/Paraguay states that Paraguay has FoP.

Without knowing it, I made Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ícono Paraguay.jpg...

I'm sorry...

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: it's OK. Just close the nomination by yourself, like what I did at Commons:Deletion requests/File:05458jfQuirino Avenue Metro Manila Skyway Makati Barangays Paco Manilafvf 03.jpg (uncontroversial closure by yourself). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I did. By the way, did you see Template talk:FoP-Italy? Ox1997cow (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: by this time there should now be a consensus on the "exceptions to no FOP in Italy". These exceptions include works by deceased artists and very high bar of threshold of originality, which should be added at the bottom of COM:CRT/Italy#Freedom of panorama (see also the bottom of COM:CRT/Philippines#Freedom of panorama). However, I expect such major changes to be done by Italian users (not users from other lands like me), and an open questio remains: should the 70 years p.m.a. be removed from the FOP section? Just forward my question there as I will leave the matter to the Italian Wikipedians who are more familiar on such peculiarities. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrator?

Hi, JWilz12345. You are active in deletion requests and we need more administrators. Do you want to became an administrator? Taivo (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: thanks for your invitation but, I decline. I have several real world, off-Wiki activities / errands that may hinder on-Wiki works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I made {{FoP-Paraguay}}

Paraguay

According to article 36 of the Paraguayan Law on Copyright and Related Rights, this reproduction is permitted without authorization by the author or payment of remuneration in relation to works already disclosed:
  • Reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in streets, squares or other public places, or on the outer walls of buildings, where the artistic medium used is different from that used for the making of the original, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work, if known, and the place in which it is located are mentioned.
See COM:CRT/Paraguay#Freedom of panorama for more information.
English ∙ +/−

How about this?

Ox1997cow (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} doesn't seem to suit Category:Buildings in South Korea and Category:Buildings in Italy...

In South Korean copyright law, the post-authority protection period has been increased from 50 years to 70 years in 2013, so works that are in the public domain in South Korea are works of authors who died before 1963.

And, as a recent discussion suggests, buildings and sculptures in Italy by the author who died are allowed.

So, I removed {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} from Category:Buildings in South Korea and Category:Buildings in Italy.

Instead, I placed a custom attention text.

However, in 2034, {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} will be reattached to Category:Buildings in South Korea.

Ox1997cow (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: for SoKor case, that template is still valid. Just adjust the parameters from 50 to 70. The fact that the amended law changed the duration doesn't mean the use of the template hecame obsolete.
For Italian case, I think the categories should follow the French model, where {{20th-century architecture in France}} - which contains a warning box - is used. Italy does have that template: see {{20th-century architecture in Italy}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: However, in my opinion, the custom attention text is more appropriate due to the difference in whether it is in the public domain following the extension of the copyright period in 2013. (died 1962: public domain, died 1963: not public domain (public domain from 2034)) Ox1997cow (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: perhaps you may want to create {{20th-century architecture in South Korea}} and have {{21st-century architecture in South Korea}} as a redirect to it, similar to French and Italian cases. Having separate custom templates makes maintenance harder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What means SemiPD icon?

FoP templates(for example, {{FoP-UK}}) include File:SemiPD-icon.svg, and NoFoP templates(for example, {{NoFoP-SK}}) include File:Red copyright.svg.

I know that File:Red copyright.svg means a work is protected by copyright.

However, I don't know what File:SemiPD-icon.svg means.

What means SemiPD icon?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: you might have posted your question on COM:Village pump or COM:Village pump/Copyright instead, as I don't know the precise meaning of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I posted my question on COM:VPC Ox1997cow (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: File:Volgograd and the Motherland statue.JPG

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volgograd and the Motherland statue.JPG: I apologize for only now responding—I just noticed your message tonight. Thank you for explaining the situation. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your welcome @DocWatson42: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Found it!

I finally have some free time thanks to summer vacations and I decided that I would find the source from the seagull picture you rightly deleted, and I did! Here is the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seagull_in_capitol_hill.jpg I do believe that I can remix the file and share it but maybe I had to link the work or the license or something, idk you tell me man, Best Regards! --Scuraball (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Scuraball: thanks for the info. You can request the undeletion of the deleted file via COM:UNDEL. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Scuraball: I already posted the restoration request at COM:UNDEL. Be sure to reply to any questions that admins or veteran users may ask. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Per COM:FOP Italy, Buildings and sculptures by deceased authors in Italy are allowed.

Therefore, I will attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy.

{{NoUploads|0}} (For example: Category:Allianz Tower(Arata Isozaki and Andrea Maffei are still living.), Category:Needle, Thread and Knot(Claes Oldenburg is still living.))

The reason I set the copyright protection period variable to 0 in {{NoUploads}} is that Italian buildings and sculptures have freedom of panorama as soon as the author dies.

Can I attach the following template to the category buildings or sculptures by living authors in Italy?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I think it is better to ask this at COM:VPC. I don't want to make suggestions if other users may find it inappropriate later. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok. I asked this at COM:VPC. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How about to make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}?

After I saw File:Petite sirène de Copenhague (conforme à la loi danoise).JPG and read Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen), I think this.

It's good to make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}.

I refer to {{NoFoP-Japan}} and {{NoFoP-US}} and make it for categories.

What about the text?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: The suggested text is (with the links):

Article 24(2) of the Danish copyright law, Consolidated Act on Copyright (Consolidated Act No. 1144 of October 23, 2014), permits uses of pictorial representations (like images) of works of art found in public places, but this no longer applies if the work is the main subject of the pictorial representation and this representation is used for commercial purposes. Therefore, images of such works are not considered as "free works" on Wikimedia Commons, which requires images to be used even for commercial purposes. Please do not upload images showing such works, unless these works are already in public domain, or 70 years have passed since the death of the artist or last-surviving artist. See also Commons:CRT/Denmark#Freedom of panorama for more information.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make {{NoFoP-Denmark}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I made this. If there is anything to correct, please correct it.
NoFoP-Denmark Layout

{{NoFoP-Denmark}}

Also, I made {{NoFoP-Ethiopia}}. How about this?
NoFoP-Ethiopia Layout

Ethiopia Warning sign

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Ethiopia. There is no freedom of panorama exception in the Ethiopian copyright law, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes.

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.
English ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−
Ox1997cow (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: both are fine. For Ethiopia's case, there is no FOP whatsoever among the exceptions (Articles 9–19) of their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Anything to edit? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
None. Both are OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators

Hello. Have you ever thought of becoming a sysop? I am so pleased with your comments in DRs actually, you would help community a lot. rubin16 (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubin16: thanks for invite, but like what I replied to Taivo (see the thread above), there are real world, off-wiki activities/errands to do. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not pushing you but to be considered active you need 5 admin actions in 6 months. And we are all volunteers here and manage our time and workload: when you are busy, other administrators are working, too. So, I still want to invite you, but it is your decision, of course. rubin16 (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: as of now my decision is decline. Though I am not closing the doors, I am not ready yet as well as real life errands. But thanks for the invitation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of LRR

Hello, JWilz12345. You have new messages on another wiki at Commons:License review/Requests#JWilz12345.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--A1Cafel (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: thanks for nomination. But I speedy decline: I'm much more comfortable of being an ordinary user than a user with admin/sysop/LRR/checkuser/ etc. status (with higher-order user groups). See my replies to both Taivo and Rubin16 above. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mass nominations

JWilz12345, thank you again for your advice back in June. I procrastinated, but installed Visual File Change tool just this morning. Without it, this would have used up most of my morning. No, that's not true -- actually no it wouldn't have: I'd have contemplated going ahead "manually" but decided that my life was too short to use it up on such chores. VFC is a stark contrast: it's as convenient as I could hope. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome @Hoary:  :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How are Mongolian DM standards permissible for including copyrighted architecture and sculptures in landscape photography?

For photos of architecture or sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, stand-alone photos are not allowed, but landscape photos with them are often allowed under DM.

For example (Lotte World Tower: See also COM:FOP SK and COM:DM SK)

(However, I think it's necessary to rename these files to make applying DM clearer.)

However, Mongolian DM standards are for non-commercial use only.

If so, what images are allowed when applying Mongolian DM standards in the above case?

The closest order to the person taking the photo and the copyrighted subject is A, B, C.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: de minimis rules vary from country to country, and depends on either the relevant provisions of the copyright laws or existing jurisprudence (such as a French court case concerning postcard depictions of Terreaux Plaza of Lyon). If there is no specific country standard of de minimis, then the common principle of de minimis applies. Just my opinion only: you cannot apply the South Korean de minimis on Mongolian cases, or French de minimis (based on accessory concept) on U.S. cases (to which U.S. de minimis, based on triviality concept, applies).
For Mongolian case, we apply the common concept as per COM:De minimis#An example: If the <WORK> forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the <WORK>, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the <WORK> was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the <WORK> was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
However, it is written in COM:DM Mongolia that Mongolian DM is limited to non-commercial use only. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: if that is the case then sadly. But in practice it is largely unenforced within Mongolia and outside (though folks here may state COM:PRP). Though in my opinion, it is completely OK to depict Mongolian cityscapes similar to File:롯데월드타워 2020.10.jpg. Also, you may take into account the threshold of originality. We can apply the common standard of COM:TOO to buildings of Mongolia. If the houses or buildings are just plain, with no artistic properties, then the images are completely fine for me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, Mongolian cityscapes similar to File:Lotte World Tower near Cheongdam Bridge.jpg may be OK, as long as the buildings are distant. For streetscapes, similar to File:제2롯데월드타워 01.jpg, these are OK if the surrounding buildings are not artistic or creative enough. Note that these are just my opinions, other editors and longtime users here may be more forgiving or restrictive on DM perspectives. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I take an example from the ongoing deletion discussion.
Ox1997cow (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I crossed out my inputs for those two files. I will leave the matter to the closing admin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about freedom of panorama, this is detrimental to the original author...

Freedom of panorama is a copyright-free provision that allows we to freely use photos of buildings or sculptures located in public places.

However, this is an obvious benefit as it allows free use from the point of view of the person taking the photo, but it is a loss for architects and sculptors because they cannot make money from copyright.

Therefore, there will be a backlash from architects and sculptors when introducing freedom of panorama into law in a country where there is no freedom of panorama.

In fact, when freedom of panorama was introduced into the law, were there cases where freedom of panorama was introduced only for non-commercial use due to the opposition of architects or sculptors, or when the introduction of freedom of panorama was rejected?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I admit I'm thinking about the same, at least to some extent. Freedom of panorama or panoramafreiheit (German term where this English term came from) might seem to be harmful to the interests of the authors of recent works in public spaces that we see in our eyes. Though it is taken seriously here on Commons: Commons:Licensing, which is the chief pillar that supports the freeness of Wikimedia Commons, clearly states that all files must be freely usable by anyone in the world, even for commercial reuses, without copyright-related restrictions.
Freedom of panorama is, in fact, a highly complicated gray area in the copyright in relation to user rights of peoples across the globe. It cannot be simply explained in just a few words. This complicacy is a result of different levels of FOP around the world:
  • Freedom of panorama is most liberal in China (mainland), Malaysia, Uganda, Portugal, Mexico, Peru, Hong Kong, UK, and most of the former British territories (now independent countries), except the likes of South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, and Ghana.
  • Adequate FOP is guaranteed in countries from Spain to Taiwan. Artistic-rich countries of Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland also have adequate FOP.
  • Noncommercial FOP for public art is evident in Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Finland, though with liberal FOP for buildings only.
  • But there is a totality of noncommercial FOP in countries like Iceland, France, Slovenia, the three Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Belarus, most of the Soviet Union-era states with "-stan" suffixes, Morocco, and your country.
  • FOP is restricted only in many countries, like UAE (broadcasting media only), Greece (mass media and not new media), South Africa/Namibia (radio, TV, and telecommunications media), Democratic Republic of Congo (in textbooks, journals, newspapers, TV media, and movies only), and Honduras/Nicaragua/Costa Rica (personal use only).
  • The rest like ours and Indonesia don't have FOP at all. As of now the copyright amendment bills are still pending in our Congress since February 2021, but fortunately there is no news of opposition to FOP here – "as of now".
The controversy arising from recent discourses about FOP, in which Wikimedia Foundation becomes involved with in several instances, can be seen in the mid-2015 events in the European Union. A summary of the events can be read at w:Freedom of panorama#European Union.
BTW, what made you thought of this? I there a significant opposition to WikiCommons-compatible FOP in your country? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
My guess is that when South Korean copyright law decided to include freedom of panorama provisions, non-commercial restrictions were placed on it by backlash from architects and sculptors. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: maybe. But this very controversial issue under freedom of panorama — the distinction between commercial and noncommercial — is becoming more and more unclear and uncertain, thanks to social media.
Social media has created a "gray zone" with regards to freedom of panorama, as this Politico.eu article states. Maybe our postings (publications) may be noncommercial, but FB and other platforms apply their own types of licensing which some European Union lawmakers consider as "semicommercial". You may want to read the article of Politico.eu regarding this (but ignore the issue on Eiffel Tower at night as Yann and other French Wikipedians have agreed that there is no copyright on ordinary lighting). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to attach the photos of the works of no FoP countries into photos that apply DM.

After I read User:JWilz12345/FoP. I have a good idea.

I think it is a good idea to attach the photos of the works of no FoP countries into photos that apply DM.

However, I'd like to make it clear that these are allowed under DM.

Examples of notices: The images below are images of buildings, sculptures, monuments, etc., in countries where there is no freedom of panorama, which is allowed under DM.

Ox1997cow (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: in my opinion, it is better to leave the "gallery portfolio" under my userspace as it is, and not to include DM examples. Adding section on DM, in my opinion, erodes the purpose of the gallery portfolio which is to show images of works from countries with Commons-compatible FOP. Plus, de minimis varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and unlike FOP provisions which are clearly based on copyright laws and existing jurisprudences and legal literatures or analyses, DM is subjective and not objective. Besides, DM concept is already available in a section at Commons:De minimis that illustrates examples (near the bottom of the page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In what cases can {{PD-old-architecture}} be used in South Korea?

{{PD-old-architecture}} recently made available for a standalone photo of public domain building located in a country where there is no freedom of panorama.

First of all, in South Korea, the protection period after the death of the author was extended from 50 years to 70 years in 2013, so works whose authors died before 1963 are in the public domain.

In what cases can {{PD-old-architecture}} be used in South Korea?

1. Buildings whose architect died before 1963 and completed before 1990 (ex. Sungnyemun)

2. Buildings whose architects died after 1963 or are still alive and completed before 1990 (ex. 63 Building)

1990 is mentioned because in the United States building copyrights were enacted in 1990, so buildings completed before 1990 are in the public domain in the United States.

Naturally, stand-alone photos of South Korean buildings completed after 1990 are not allowed.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: first of all, is your country's copyright law retroactive? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: It is not retroactive. Thus, in 2013, when the copyright protection period was extended from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author, works whose copyright had expired (works whose author died before 1963) remained in the public domain. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Ox1997cow wait. 63 Building is not allowed here because there is no suitable FOP in your country. As per the chief pillar at COM:Licensing, files have to be free both in the country of origin and the United States. For the FOP-reliant works of architecture, this can be interpreted as "architectural works must be free both in the country of origin and the United States." The addition of US tag at the bottom is just for U.S. compliance. But the architectural work must be free in SoKor also. Even if the building is free in the US (either because of PD status for pre-1990 works or FOP status for post-1990 works), if not free in SoKor then it is not acceptable here.
You can analyze the infobox image at w:The Little Mermaid (statue) (a sculpture from Denmark that has no commercial FOP for public works). It is not in fair use, even if English Wikipedia only accepts fair use tags for unfree sculptures ('cause they follow US law). This is because it is in public domain in the United States (it was erected before 1926). So artworks that are not free in the country of origin but free by US law are wholly accepted there. The Little Mermaid is still off-limits here, however, because it is still copyrighted in the country of its origin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) (Cross out my input as it seems the image on enwiki has been subjected to fair use licensing too). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: If so, do I need to attach {{PD-South Korea}} together with {{PD-old-architecture}} when uploading Sungnyemun image here? Ox1997cow (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: no need. Just use {{Licensed-FOP}}. The PD-old-architecture tag will be placed at the first field, and the photo (uploader' license) at the second field. The PD-old-architecture is universal for most (if not all) countries with no suitable FOP. Plus you can attach the year of the death of the architect if available (similar to {{PD-old-auto}}, where this is largely based from). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I create {{NoFoP-Warning}}?

After attaching NoFoP templates to cityscape photos in countries where there is no freedom of panorama (such as South Korea, France, Philippines, etc...), an idea came to mind.

That's what makes {{NoFoP-Warning}}.

It is similar to {{Licensed-FoP}} or {{Licensed-PD}}, except that the structure is different as shown below.

Photo

(License Template (ex. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}})

Object/s

(NoFoP Template (ex. {{NoFoP-South Korea}})

I referenced the file page of File:Lotte World Tower near Cheongdam Bridge.jpg I uploaded.

Can I create it?

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use NoFoP templates for Licensing section. Other warning templates (ex. {{Personality rights}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Nazi symbol}}, etc.) are also heavily used in Licensing section. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: please discuss your proposal on Village pump. But IMO it is too impractical and may cause potential misuse. The users may claim that such template can be used to defend files from deletion and that it warns reusers. But retention of files that violate authors' rights is against both COM:PCP and COM:CARES.
The "NoFoP-xxxxx" templates are enough for me. Another thing, there is no artwork license in the first place for works of countries with no suitable FOP (no freedom of panorama licensing or authors' licensing), which means there are only two ways to deal with such files: judge if the files meet de minimis or the artwork is too ordinary to be considered original, or file a deletion request. Besides there is also {{De minimis}} tag if you feel that "NoFoP-xxxxx" tags are not enough. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Port-Grimaud

Many thanks for your check, it was a surprise to me to learn of the limitation. I agree with the deletion of my files. Fernando.tassone (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fernando.tassone: hello. Please comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Port-Grimaud. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama/table

Hi JWilz, Apologies for posting and removing,
I'm not sure if you're aware but over at https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ both old table and new table pass Graphical Objects and User Interface Components WCAG AA (and the old table seems to score better at WCAG AAA (Graphical Objects... isn't available under WCAG AAA)

So just wanted to ask does the table really need changing if there's presumably no difference between the 2 and that both pass WCAG AA?,

Reading this WCAG AA is classed as "acceptable" and AAA is "gold standard level of accessibility" so acceptable should be enough (providing people can actually navigate the site without issue/hinderance, I can't seem to find anything else inregards to the Graphical Ob.... so I don't know if the tables meet or fail WCAG AAA,

I originally came here to complain over the new colour scheme as green and orange look terrible although the old table wasn't much better although it was easier on the eye,

Apologies for this being so long (and for the double post) but felt this should be brought to your attention, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I modified the table as per Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/07#Colors on COM:Freedom of panorama/table, in an attempt to make the color labels of the table more accessible to people with color blindness. However, if the current color scheme is not OK, I may revert back to the original form. But I may ping @Mattinbgn: (one of the Wikipedians who have this condition as per his original request at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17#Maps and tables - colours) to air his side and if he agrees to revert back the table or does he have better suggestions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz, I know that's why I didn't revert you :) (Would be very VERY silly to revert something for which you got consensus for :)), Thanks for pinging the other editor - Would be interesting to know how the old/new tables stand, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi JWilz, Hope all is well, Apologies for disturbing you,
Unfortunately Mattinbgn hasn't been on since the 1st August so unless you have an issue with the previous table then should the previous table be reinstated ?, I can always post a note on the tables talkpage noting this discussion and that if the table does hinder accessibility that proof should be added and new colours be added etc,
Many thanks. Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2020: SLR. I suggest you raise this concern at COM:VP, with a link to this revision of my talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted as uptil now it's never been a problem, I've left a note on the tables talkpage, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Italian & Philipine FOP

As I am not familiar with legal background of the recent Italian & Philipine FoP changes and I will not handle cases related to them. You may need to ask admins who actively participated in taking appropriate decisions of the changes for help. Otherwise, the requests may be closed as stale soon (this generally happens after 30 days). Ankry (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: for the Italian cases, I'll mention those involved in the discussions at UNDEL.
Re: Philippine FOP changes. It is actually expansion of treating certain works (most especially buildings) as public domain. Prior to the July 2021 discussion at VP/C, it was accepted that buildings completed from August 1951 to December 1972 were still copyrighted by virtue of Philippine accession to the Berne Convention, which was "supported" (I don't know if my term is right) by this presidential proclamation stating that "may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." But it is evident that the old Act 3134 of 1924 (which didn't grant copyright protection for finished architecture) was still the prevailing law, and this was reflected in a 1964 court ruling that disregarded the "no-formality rule" of the Berne (notwithstanding the presidential proclamation of 1955). (resource, found on page 169 of the document).
By applying the circumstances and impact of this court ruling, this means the 1924 copyright law was still in effect in the country up to December 14, 1972, a day before the Marcos-era Presidential Decree No. 49 (applied Berne provisions and gave protection to future buildings) took effect. Hence it is without doubt all finished Philippine buildings from 1951 to December 14, 1972 are still in public domain thanks to the American colonial-era law and this 1964 court ruling that still applied the old law despite the Berne accession. See also an insightful input of Howhontanozaz here.
It is just similar to the public domain status of U.S. buildings before 1990 (thus {{PD-US-architecture}}). The only difference is that the Philippines was the first to protect buildings (December 1972), unlike U.S. which only took that move in 1990. This, however, does not provide de facto FOP in the Philippines; this is only an expansion of treatment of public domain status to Philippine buildings up to those completed prior to December 15, 1972. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think after looking at the two maps?

Currency copyright status map
Freedom of panorama status map

After looking at the two maps above, what do you think?

I find it interesting that both maps show South Korea and North Korea in opposite colors.

Currency: South Korea - Light Green, North Korea - Red

Freedom of panorama: South Korea - Red, North Korea - Light Green

What do you think about the status of currency copyright and freedom of panorama in your country, the Philippines?

Philippines: Currency - Yellow, Freedom of panorama - Red

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: pardon me, no comment as I am not involved in most currency related discussions. Though I cannot ignore the stark irony that NoKor which has one of the most stiffling regimes in the world has a very liberal and progressive FOP on par with those in Europe (like Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, and Serbia), while SoKor which has one of the most free cultures in the world (the proliferation of KPop and KDrama cultures) has a very restricted FOP similar to Iceland's, Belarus', Kazakhstan's, or Slovenia's.
I just hope that FOP gets introduced in our country soon, as more files are being nominated. I can't do much on them as the impacted buildings are post-1972 and the artworks/monuments are creations of artists who are either still living or deceased for less than 50 years, and no FOP status still prevails as of this writing. Just a minor update: according to Howhontanozaz (who is my contact off wiki too on Messenger), the w:Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is still consulting with relevant stakeholders who might either benefit or be impacted by all amendments. The two bills that are currently pending in the House of Representatives and being consolidated are House Bill No. 8062 and House Bill No. 8620, the latter has the sought-after FOP provision (modelled after the Australian FOP). But even if all these amendments are passed, an equivalent bill from the Senate is still needed (and finally, President's approval). You may want to look at w:Congress of the Philippines#Lawmaking to know the typical "journey" of a proposed bill in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Ok. Good luck to your country, the Philippines. And I hope that freedom of panorama will expand to commercial use in South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Btw @Ox1997cow: , despite you're from SoKor, if you wish you may join the Facebook group of the Tambayan community (Tambayan community = en:WP:TAMBAYAN). The FB group also welcomes Wikipedians who are not from the Philippines but may have involved in various Philippines-related matters. It is still your decision to join, however, and it is not compulsory. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JWilz12345/Archive_1&oldid=893076750"