User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 1

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

Image:Judgefloro.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Size of this preview: 392 by 600 pixels Public domain

This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator, WikiPedia Commons User:Judgefloro. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, the creator grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Subject to disclaimers.

I am http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_V._Floro and a a WikiPedia User - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Florentino_floro I am in WikiPedia Commons - User:Judgefloro

I had seen this picture, I made it, own it, and the created and this picture is now open to the public domain.

I am new to this WikiPedia Commons but this is my own picture, like this one which I owned and is now part of WikiPedia:

thanks, please allow this for there is no copyright violation, for the picture is mine and taken for me on my oath-taking as judge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Judge_Floro.jpg

--Judgefloro 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Image:Panlilio cash.jpg

Pay attention to copyright Image:Panlilio cash.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

The same for

--GeorgHH • talk   17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sir, with all due respect, the pictures:

were copied from the Philippine site of our Supreme Court of the Philippines. I am a Philippine lawyer, and under our law and Wikipedia rules, these pictures may be copied if there is prior permission from the government agency. I quote the rule from Wikipedia:

The Philippines

Copyrighted photographs are protected for 50 years after publication. Works by the government of the Philippines are not protected by copyright. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work was created is necessary for exploitation of such works for profit. (Republic Act 8293)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#The_Philippines

R.A. 8293 does not require written permission, since under our Civil Code, grant of permission may be verbal/oral or written, or tacit. Meaning therefore, if the government agency does not in any manner complain to WikiPedia, then the same is UTTER permission.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby prayed that by virtue of the cited Philippine law, the aforementioned pictures should, as it is prayed that they be retained for the public domain.

Further with regards to *Image:Hello Judge.jpg Ripley's does not have that, since theirs is completely different:

Ripley's Believe It or Not! #70(6/8/2006)

The image is a personal charcoal work which I asked a Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines student of fine arts to make for me, I paid him and Ripley's does not have such work.

So, on this score and evidence, I petition that the same be retained.


Sincerely,

--Judgefloro 06:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, if you are not the copyright holder and uses the PD-self tag for this images, it's wrong and the images must be deleted. If the images are corresponding The Philippines Republic Act 8293, you should replace {{PD-self}} by {{PD-Philippines}} or another suitable license tag. Also you must remove the I release this/my own work to the public domain or As owner/creator, I release this picture to the public domain statements because you are not the owner/creator. If your are a lawyer, I must wonder!
According to Image:Hello Judge.jpg: The image has two copyright notices (Sterling and Ripley) so I see no way for restoring the file. You are free to ask for undeletion on Commons:Undeletion requests. --GeorgHH • talk   19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir, thanks very much for your advise and reply to my submitted comment. Please help me further in correctly uploading these images, since, if you will read my HISTORY, I am new here in Commons, and I want to learn. I apologize for stating those are my own works, since I thought that, since they are not protected by copyright under our laws, being government properties, then, I thought that by scanning and making it my own by cropping etc., hence, I will now DELETE my statements and replace them with your suggested template, and in case my edits would not be correct, please help me again. Thanks for your kindness.

--Judgefloro 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Panlilio cash.jpg

was deleted, because the second of your uploads also was a copyright violation (from here, where they clearly credit the image to Tonette Orejas/Inquirer, Central Luzon. Lupo 12:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the message, I am sorry that I can't find any good picture of Fr. Panlilio, cash gift, aside from those 2 deleted. I thought that by cropping it and doing it as my own work it will be mine under our Philippine laws. Regards, I am a recent user here, so please help me in the future, I want to learn.

--Judgefloro 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Philippine eaglet.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this image as it was again a clear copyright violation. This image was released by the Philippine Eagle Foundation through Agence France Press (AFP). See e.g. here, or here. You falsely claimed it was your own work. Do not upload images taken from other web pages. Lupo 09:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Images from the Supreme Court Website

Since you disagree with the speedy deletion, I have now opened a discussion about this issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Judges of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Lupo 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers

Also do not upload scans or photos of newspaper articles. Image:Diego gutierrez.jpg and Image:Davide carotid.jpg are clear copyright violations; the copyright in owned by the Manila Bulletin (or the journalists who wrote these articles.

I must say, for a former judge, you make an awful lot of mistakes. We're not a news service and thus cannot rely on "fair use"-like copyright exceptions. We only want free images. Lupo 09:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I apologize for my mistake, and I want to clarify that I thought that the precedent of the Marcos newspaper I cited might well be allowed here also. I respectfully submit to your admin. authority.

--Judgefloro 10:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your uploads

I have now deleted most of your uploads as copyright violations. For countless images, I have found the web sources. The few that remain will probably also be deleted. Do not upload images taken from other web sites. If you continue like this, you will be blocked, former "judge" or not. Lupo 09:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Reply 2

As I have informed your office as admin, before, I am new to this kind of thing, so, if you find my uploads proper for deletion, I respectfully submit. I just thought that uploading in full from websites is copyright violation, but editing them or cropping them and amending them would turn to be my own work.

--Judgefloro 10:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't create a new work. Even if it did, your version would be a derivative work, and you could only publish it with the express consent of whoever owns the copyright on the work you modified. Lupo 10:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sir, so please message me forthwith if you have time if my contribution is for deletions so that next time I will no longer commit the same mistakes. Also, the blue robes was deleted, but it is my own work I own the 2 blue robes, I had it pictured at our studio Topico, I paid $1.50 and had it scanned, so, as it is my own, I think with all due respect that it must be reverted unless it violates any rule. For sure, that robe is not in any internet site except in my own friendster and photobucket as mine uploaded for as public photos. Thanks.

--Judgefloro 10:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but Topico studio is the owner of the copyright. See §178.4 of RA 8293:
In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary;
Thus we could only undelete that image if you presented a written transfer of copyright from Topico studio to you. Lupo 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, thanks, and therefore, to save my efforts, I will not have the picture developed by a studio like Topico but by a mere ordinary commercial developer like Kodak machines in malls. By this, the photo is mine and can be uploaded here. Thanks. I will get a new photo of mine without Topico for the blue robes.

--Judgefloro 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. It doesn't matter who develops the film or who scans in the developed photo, though. What matters is who takes the picture. Lupo 14:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Flicker photo

I uploaded this Church picture from flicker. Please do check if this uploading is correct. Thanks, if not, then amend it, help me please. thanks. --Judgefloro 11:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Meycauayan Church old.jpg

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

No, it's not ok. It comes from Flickr (here). Now, the first thing on a Flickr page to look for is the copyright statement. Virtually all Flickr pages have a line somewhere saying "This photo is public". That's not a copyright statement. It just means that the image can be viewed by anyone. The copyright statement is a line saying "© All rights reserved", or "Some rights reserved". This photo says "All rights reserved", so it's not freely licensed, and we cannot host it.

If the Flickr page says "Some rights reserved", click on that text. (Try it out there.) That will show you the license. If that license says anything about "non-commercial" or "no derivative", it's not free; if it just mentions "attribution" or "share-alike", it's fine.

Back to your image from here. Note the Flickr user's own comment: "undated pic of meycauayan church". Clearly the Flickr users has scanned an old postcard or some such, but he doesn't have the copyright on it. It may be that indeed it is a "pre-war" photo, as someone else commented at Flickr, and that the image might in fact be in the public domain, but absent any verifiable confirmation of this by a third party, we should not host this image. Lupo 12:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The image actually comes originally from here (full size). When were electric light bulbs for the street lights introduced in Mecauayan? Given that most other images at that site are from 1966, I would presume that this image also is from that year. So, it's not in the public domain yet, and the Flickr user actually just copied the image from that page. Therefore, we cannot host it. Lupo 14:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and regarding the deleted coconut 2 mata oil and charcoal burning

Thanks for your having enlightened me on the most difficult points regarding uploading from flicker, etc. I just found that your office deleted

a)the picture of a coconut shell with 2 holes green background and 2 bottles of yellowish coconut oil: explanation: this picture was taken by me at Malolos Bulacan, and had been developed by an ordinary photo shop thousands here in Philippines, and not by a studio. So, unlike the deleted blue robes of Topico studio, I request for its reversion, and if it is no longer available I will upload another one since it is my very own work,

b) the picture of charcoal burning: this picture was made by me and given to me by - Romy Miranda <filgenuity@gmail.com>, so, please enlightened me why there was a general deletion which included this, just because as NEW USER (look at my contributions, recently all made, as I am learning here, but all made in good faith, in the light of the most difficult laws local and international on copyright where even justices and lawyers debate and are highly divided on applications; nevertheless, since this is not a court of law, but an online encyclopedia, WITH ALL DUE respect, I submit to your good discretion and ruling, but I cannot at this time understand all the rules, so, I prefer, that I hereby petition that the same be reverted since they are mine, and not from websites.

Regards

--Judgefloro 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On (a): yes, that's entirely possible. If so, simply re-upload these two images. It is possible that I mistakenly deleted a few images that might indeed have been yours, and that should not have been deleted. But you had uploaded so many copyright violation that I just could not evaluate each an every image in detail.
On (b): well, if some spokesperson from KingsGrill/Filgenuity gave that image to you, that's nice, but unless they also explicitly declared that the image could be published under a free license, and you can provide some proof of that (such as an e-mail they sent to you—in which they clearly say under what license they release the image—and that you can forward to OTRS, our permissions archive), we cannot host a promotional image such as this one. Ownership of a physical copy of a work does not imply ownership of the copyrights on the said work. And in any case, the image title Image:Judge florentino v floro.jpg was highly inappropriate, something like Image:Burning coconut charcoal.jpg would be more appropriate.
Lupo 09:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I wonder if you understand what I write here at all. What's up with Image:Angel of Death.jpg?? This is another Topico studio photo. Topico studio owns the copyright! See above, re §178.4 of RA 8293. Ownership of a physical copy of a work does not imply ownership of the copyrights on the said work. Lupo 09:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Reply:

Alright, I get the point, and thanks. It is just that our Philippine laws on copyright does not cover internet, but since, as I said this is not a court, and I am bound by the rules here, ergo, I would rather re-take the pictures of myself Judge Floro, I will no longer upload the charcoal burning due to hardships and technicalities. Now, I will later upload the 2 mata coco oil. My last question is: If I take a picture of myself and/or I have many pictures of myself with buildings and scenes, can I upload it here as my own work? Thanks. (By the way, the picture on Topico is myself, but I am the Philippine Angel of Death, and the decision mentioned this name. It is not an alias but it is part of the decision released on april 06) [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5261856.stm ] I am the only Angel of Death in the Philippines, and this is my copyright name.

--Judgefloro 09:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice

As a result of your repeated uploads of copyright violating images (most recently being Image:Agnes VST.jpg, which I just deleted), I've blocked you for a week. Please take this time to familiarize yourself with the scope of Commons, which is to provide a location for freely licensed images. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Will all due respect, the Image of our Solicitor General is a free image under our Philippine laws on copyright. If the image is foreign, then foreign laws prevail. Once, a public official like Agnes Devanadera goes out and had her picture for public purpose, like profiles, then, such is for common or public use, and there is no copyright for that. I am a lawyer and judge and based on our Philippine jurisprudence on copyright laws, such picture is not copyrighted. So, I respectfully submit to your sound discretion.

--Judgefloro 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Floro poron gray.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/− There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my oversight (due to the very very slow internet pc here which I rent at Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines - due to the December 2006 Taiwan quake which damaged Philippine internets), resulting to my failure to put the proper template of copyright. I had corrected it already. DONE. Thanks. --Judgefloro (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:Floro July 7years.JPG

Pay attention to copyright Image:Floro July 7years.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Reason: Newspaper are copyrighted, someone already said this on you talkpage ( #Newspaper) --Martin H. (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry, for the mistake. The picture I took, I pasted my own purchased 2 frontpages newspapers of Philippines. I had not aimed to copy the contents, but I created is as art background of the cards. Thanks.--Judgefloro (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Image:Filipino_dwarfs_floro.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:Filipino_dwarfs_floro.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

-Nard the Bard 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I got this image from a foreign Forum which uploaded the original image. Now, so that I would not violate copyright laws, I did take a photo by myself of the image, developed it into physical 4R picture, using photo paper. Then I scanned it to the PC. I leave the legal discretion to you, on the matter, if this should be deleted or not. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your photos

Hi, I notice that you've uploaded tons of things, most deleted, and almost all of which pertain to you rather than Wikipedia articles. While I think Wikimedia allows some leeway for pics to supplement a userpage, I've noticed that all your activity here (and there's been a fair amount of it) has revolved around you. Please be advised that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia are blogs or personal webspace. If you want to avoid all the trouble of your pics of yourself and your papers being deleted, please just move to the appropriate hosting services like Blogspot and Flickr to talk about yourself. --58.69.95.218 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Image:Florentino floro papers DSC 3314.JPG

You've uploaded a derivative work We're sorry, but Image:Florentino floro papers DSC 3314.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Photographs of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this photo must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a derivative work, please explain why on the image description 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） ∙ +/−

--Infrogmation (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I stand corrected. May I please explain however, that those pictures are my very own creation. I will not appeal. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of the Philippines

Hi Judge! I see that you have been submitting a lot of photos recent. Thank you very much for that. Would you mind taking pictures of things unique to your country and area? Local wildlife, landmarks, etc? I find going out and spending an afternoon at a park or in the woods to be a great way to relax and the results often are positive for the Wikimedia project. Let me know if you need anything! --J.smith (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Sir

Hi! I am 56 and I know pain and suffering/life's trials amid my vision and wisdom, which I shared here and with Wikipedia English. I am deeply sad to state, that just because 3 co-Filipino Editor, co-Ateneo de Manila University alumni schoolmates (2 and one Filipino Wikipedians who accused me of harassment - Psalm 109 prophecy of curse, when he submitted evidence of IP address anonymous posting to mislead editors, while he was in Mubai, as I cursed that place where I also bi-located), conspired, I was indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia English; and my July, 2007 - November 22, 2008 works there were painfully removed, leaving of course only the history tabs.
These 2 and 1 Filipino admin.editors are so powerful and have had the numbers to put me down. I admit that I had to defend myself against their defamation-libel and stalking by filing first verbal school case and would later file civil and criminal lawsuits against these 3 co-Filipinos, which suits are protected by Wikipedia rules. Thus, they even went here to ask to delete my own pictures but they said they lost. So, I stopped contributing here and there. Ordinarily, Commons is not the place to upload one's pictures, since this will not benefit this noble project. But if I, who had been Googled as celebrity in the law and parapsychology department, among other, submit my own pictures, as celebrity, they are Commons treasures.
I don't know if you and have time, or can help me be unblocked there, amid the very deep anger, hatred and vendetta by these 3 Filipinos. I admit that as gifted, irrespective of creed and religion or no religion, I had impeccably prophesied the pains they and others suffered, inclding this dire
26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, where this 3 accused me of even putting the IP address at Mumbai, in violation of no personal info in Wiki. But, at your young age with dreams and vision, I am sure that you have ways to discern the truth, if my vision is for Commons and Wikipedia. Merry Christmas to you, to Commons anto your family/country.[1]If you can help me obtain justice or be unblocked, may I please ask your kind help.[2][3] Since, my Wiki talk and user page were blanked and I could not reply, you can reply here please or in my judgefloro@yahoo.com. Cheers.[4]--Judgefloro (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi --J.smith, I have taken some pictures of Philippines and I am uploading them now, please help me if you have time. Regards--Judgefloro (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage

Dear Judgefloro, I am very sorry to have to tell you that your userpage cannot be hosted here at Commons. The reason is that we are a repository for free media content (images, sounds etc) and cannot accept pages which are essentially encyclopedia articles, whether about yourself or indeed about any other subject. Please have a look at Commons scope page, and not in particular the section that says that encyclopedia articles are excluded content. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into your user page, and I hope you are able to find another site that will allow you to host it, but that it cannot remain here. Please do not restore it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Judgefloro (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


All your images

All your images 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.

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） ∙ +/−

EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


File:Florentino_Estrada_Oaths.jpg

File:Florentino_Estrada_Oaths.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） ∙ +/−

Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am temporarily back from vacation

Thanks for your messages, and sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfSVS0126 11.JPG

File:FvfSVS0126 11.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） ∙ +/−

Rybec (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Fr. De La Goza, the head of the Archives of the Seminary accompanied me and allowed me to take photos of all these. I took the photo far right to avoid copyright issues. At any rate, I am awaiting the NCCA reply on my request for express permission when I called it recently and I will go to the Intellectual Copyright Office near McKinley, for written opinion and permission on No Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, hence, no objection to the deletion. Regards--Judgefloro (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife)

Hi, Welcome back from you long vacation. I have noticed that you have just created this category (Category:Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife)). Together with this category, you also created three new categories to put in the category you just made.(Manila Water, Maynilad Water Services, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System). Please read the Category Structures on Commons (COM:CAT#Category structure in Wikimedia Commons) especially about Hierarchic principle and modularity principlewhich states:

"The category structure is (ideally) a multi-hierarchy with a single root category (water supply), Category:CommonsRoot. All categories (except CommonsRoot) should be contained in at least one other category. There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)."

Do you know that two of those categories are subcategories of the higher one? What you are doing is not allowed because you are creating a cycle. That is also OVER-CATEGORIZATION. Those categories have the same parent category, which is water supply. (Manila Water and Maynilad is under Metropolitan.) Please follow Commons rules.

The very first section of Commons:Categories which is the Quick Guide says, "How to find the appropriate categories" and doesn't say create your own categories. Water, waste, electricity, etc. are all covered under Category:Infrastructure, which is a more established parent category for such items. And nowhere it says to look for articles in Wikipedia, and create a category from it. What you are doing is populating Commons with unnecessary categories (as only you need them, for reason that's against Commons rules).

Under Creating a new category, it says "To create a new category: Do a thorough search, to BE SURE there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose." - you should have started with Category:Water supply infrastructure in the Philippines.

Also, please be brief about your descriptions for categories and Files. Again under Creating a new category: "A category page should contain the following information - (2nd line) A short description text that explains what should be in the category, IF the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own. You see, Commons SEARCH results are based on the file and category descriptions; extra unnecessary words would corrupt the search results. So please, keep it simple ("only to explain what should be in the category"). Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This category (Category:Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife)) I created is based on the technical title of the entire Park. If your search on Google, to find the best and true title of the entire photos, there are different phrases. How I decided to select this title is here: when I entered the Park, it has the NAWASA welcome arch with Balara Parks directory; upon entering, the Manila Water has power over the entire park lately, but the 2 other water suppliers have concurrent jurisdiction or confluence of functions and they are involved in the Park. Wikipedia has no article for this Park, but the 3 ones I used, as sub-categories. The better solution is to put red or ask this category to be created, but still the other sub-categories must be included so that the readers and people who read this Park and Filtration plant must be able to find the photos. Hence, I would disagree with your stance on over-categorization, but I respect your opinion. You may of course, edit the category and put the same in another perspective based on your above-discussion. Note, that this Park springs from La Mesa dam and La Mesa Watershed and Ecopark in Wikipedia situated nearby but connected herewith as you see the blue and green water. The description suffices, since the entire Park is very very complex for these reasons: it is a Filtration Park, that has the Manila Water and NAWASA now Maynilad and the other corporations I put in as sub-category having confluent jurisdictions over this Park. Tersely, I disagree with your opinion that there is over-categorization, but and but, I will respect your editing on this if you wish to put the photos in their supposed as you think or opine proper categories. And my description is so short since I put the verifiable and technical links that makes notable these photos, avoiding copy pasting of facts, just the titles and reader is led to read the entire meanings of the photos in the short links. Note, this is a shared computer, other users use this. I decided not to log in yet for I am not uploading yet. Thanks.--112.210.248.19 14:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I edited the category to make short the description added your category and took out some as I note your message, thanks again.--Judgefloro (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Briarfallen: Don't be fooled: User:Judgefloro is a sockpuppet for User:Ramon FVelasquez. Judgefloro was a dormant account until Feb. 16, a few days after FVelasquez stopped contributing. Other than the user name, everything else is the same: same photography style, same camera, same massive uploads, same file numbering system, same double-level category mistakes, same grammer and writing style!!! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Good morning to both of you User:P199 and User:Briarfallen. Judge Florentino Floro does not know the finer points of internet technology and more importantly, this Commons and or Wikipedia. He has been into photography since 1992 until today. Judge Floro personally takes photos since his high school days. If one opens google, his more than 200,000 photos were uploaded in different blogs, forums, sites including Commons, among others by way of sharing to trusted donees because of liberality of the giver, the Judge. In his Philippine tours of towns and visita Iglesias, he takes lots of pictures, and would allow friends and even Judges to copy his memory card and have them uploaded. Sad to say, he has no control of the faults, negligence and violations by the donees. To protect their integrity and for security reasons, the Users would not identify themselves and would often use IP addresses without logging in. Judge Floro, as you see here was asked by a certain User to share his photos of Philippines in this Commons. Thus, he did convince many of the donees to upload and share Judge Floro's photos in Commons and even in photobucket, Flicker, etc. It is the good faith and liberality of the Judge to share his wisdom instead of selling them as he was many times asked to sell his photos. Judge Floro denied all requests for onerous transfer because of his Religious Catholic Faith. This User account of Judgefloro was made from the beginning in good faith. Judge Floro has personally monitor the way the kind person uploads here, but of course, mistakes can be made. In the case of User:Ramon FVelasquez, Judge Floro cannot deny or even admit that the photos uploaded came from Judge Florentino Floro, since the good Judge does not want publicity and he has repeatedly denied sale of his photos. In view of the foregoing, I, User:Judgefloro hereby ask both of you, if, to put the records straight, that an administrator of Commons be alerted or notified, if this User:Judgefloro, which I use with the permission of Judge Florentino Floro who donated me his photos, in accordance with the above terms, be determined to be a sockpuppet P199 suggests. Then, I therefore ask an administrator to rule, if I can continue uploading Judge Floro' donated photos to me, here and whether, this, my account should be suspended or stopped. In the meantime, while there is no ruling, I will continue between breaks as I put in my template, to upload and share with Commons in utter good faith Judge Floro photos. Thanks.--112.210.183.197 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is the proof that User:Judgefloro and User:Ramon FVelasquez are the same: File:MuseumMalacanan9714 01.JPG is attributed to Judgefloro, while File:Diosdadolibrarymuseumjf.JPG is attributed to FVelasquez, but they show the same person in the photo!!! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Tersely, on behalf of User:Judgefloro, this user has stated that the most of the photos uploaded were by virtue of the Deed of Donation inter Vivos by Br. 73 RTC Judge Florentino Floro. This User has uploaded photos which has contributed a lot to Commons and has not violated any Commons rules. The issue is whether, for privacy policy and blocking policy, including using of 1 or 2 accounts, per Commons policy unlike Wikipedia, can you have a Check User of these 2 accounts, and if so, is using 2 or more accounts as has been done here in Commons, please see the Commnons Help Desk, not allowed. As you see, User:Judgefloro does not admit that this account is sockpuppet for Ramon FVelasquez has not been blocked and it is your statement that you do not want Ramon FVelasquez blocked unlike the stance of Briarfallen. Therefore, what is your position, can you bring the matter to the Administrator or Help Desk or any other proper board of Commons?--58.69.155.110 02:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Integrity

Thanks for your messages. I can submit herein a Letter duly signed by Judge Florentino Floro on his Donation of his Nikon Photos to myself, a member of the Philippine Judges Association. Rest assured that the donation was freely made and I claim responsibility for the uploading for public domain here. I am only one of those privileged to have been bestowed J Floro's photos. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

autopatroller

User:Judgefloro (talk | contribs)‏‎ (autopatroller) (Created on 26 June 2007 at 14:16) [5] has been granted autopatroller rights.--Judgefloro (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"There is no rule against User:Judgefloro or User:Ramon FVelasquez being stopped from uploading. The problem with him is he is not following the RULES or LAWS of Commons on over-categorizing and categories," [6], states User Briarfallen. From this, I, as rejoinder, do confrim that Ramon FVelasquez account is not mine and I have no control of his uploading. Based on evidence here, all my uploads are unlike Ramon's and I follow Commons rules on categories and descriptions, if you by cursory perusal check my uploads. In fact, in this talk page, there is no complaint by any Adminstrator or editor, except on Balara Filter that deals with over cat. In Balara filters, unfortunately, there is a sewerage issue hence, I added the related company of Maynilad and Nawasa. Rest assured that unlike Ramon, I will do my best to follow the Commons description and category Rules, to make it easier for you and Briarfallen and the many editors who watch my photos donated by the good Judge Floro. I have no control however on the use of IP addresses for I myself use shared computers for our Judiciary does not have one for each of us, hence, the IP address logging, which protects privacy; our Judiciary friends in one way or another tutored me by their Commons friends to make it easier for me to best upload my donated by Judge Florentino photos, good morning.--Judgefloro (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfSablanBenguet0362 06.JPG

File:FvfSablanBenguet0362 06.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） ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. The Officer in charge of the Municipal Hall granted me permission and even asked me to photograph almost all angles of the interior of the town hall even if the town has no Internet. I asked her to accompany me to the falls but it was quite far, 30 minutes walk. In Asin Hot springs, my family had been yearly bathing there since 1966-1975; the tarpaulins used by the office had taken or copied their pictures from their own website. In this file, I took photo of the trophy the town won which is beside the tarpaulin. I have no objection, however, hence, please delete. I am planning to go to the Philippine Intellectual Property Office in Fort, near McKinley as I was told by the National Library office, whose Director Ric Blancaflor should clarify this once and for all for the guidance of editors in Commons. As alleged, Blancaflor stated that there is no SC ruling yet, but the office is mandated to issue a legal opinion which is secondary authority rather that wait for the 1st authority of the Court En Banc. Sincerely, no objection to the deletion. File:FvfSablanBenguet0263 25.JP --Judgefloro (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IPO Letter FoP

IPO Letter and Petition filed [7] IPO Letter FoP filed with the IPO Bureau of Copyright newly created by amendment law of 2013; the IPO promised to render and issue a legal opinion after arrival of the Director from abroad.

IPO Letter FoP

--Judgefloro (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL, in this building which I photographed including the 16th floor office of Director Blancaflor, I discussed the matter of my Petition on FoP with Atty. Limbo who said that the newly created on 2013 Bureau of Copyright will be the one under Director Blancaflor who is abroad but will be back soon to render and release a legal opinion on my Petition, Letter. --Judgefloro (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Name cat

May I'm adding Category:Photographs by Judgefloro to your uploaded photos? Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've found your category as Category:Photos by Judgefloro, May I'm continuing for the rest of your uploaded photos with it category? Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A great honor for our beautiful Philippines to have you as lover of these photos and images. Often, I forgot to put Photographs by Judgefloro in my uploads, hence, your interest would be a great help for sharing wisdom of Philippines, the simply amazing country, to future generation and present researchers and viewers of my photos. I merely copies Photos by Judgefloro as pattern from other editors here. Hence, by your continuing for the rest of any and all of my uploads will be a great help not only for me but to categorize these pictures for easy finding and sorting. And maybe, who knows, if someday, someone will put these pics in a book like Philippine town facades, Philippine churches or even the best of Philippines. Best of luck. Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your approved and I'm working it as soon as possible. I'm seriously concern with the Philippines because it's my neighbor country. You can see that I've made almost a thousand of articles stub about the municipalities and barangays in your country and may be counting in the next time as possible. Cheers. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Great work and good morning it's 11:27 am here in Bulacan, Philippines. I thought, and think, that User:TheCoffee and other Filipino Wikipedians created stub articles on 14 Provinces including their 280 towns which I flooded with landmark photos. As you notice, the most remote but great beautiful towns of Famy, Laguna, Amadeo, Cavite, Lobo, Batangas, Sampaloc, Quezon, Lamut, Ifugao, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, San Clemente, Tarlac, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Infanta, Quezon, and yesterday, Cordon, Isabela, and lately, Bangar, La Union, - were and are now with at least 200 photos each. This world record including your help will never be duplicated in history. My claim is based on Evidence as Proof hereof. Thanks--Judgefloro (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
In addition, can you please check my art workLight art if you have time, on correct categorizing. Regards--Judgefloro (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfIntramurosChurch2851 04.JPG

File:FvfIntramurosChurch2851 04.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） ∙ +/−

Slick (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Sorry for the wrong upload; I already deleted this, but was again including in the upload wizard by my mistake. Hence, I searched for a better version. Senator Bong Revilla is a high profile politician and it is very rare that he is photographed, hence the rarest photo of Bong Revilla. In fact his Wikipedia article has no photo yet due to this problem of Original photography. I was able to capture his close photo because I was in the Church wedding, by serendipity. No objection to the deletion, however. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome arches-signs on Philippine roads

Hi Judgefloro,

This is regarding the Category:Welcome arches-signs on Philippine roads. Please, for better clarity do not just make a generic 'Welcome arches-signs on Philippines roads (NAME OF THE CITY)' category like what you did in Category:Welcome arches-signs on Philippine roads (Gapan City, Nueva Ecija)‎. As we all know, most Philippine towns have more than one entrance and/or have several border towns. So please follow the other examples in the category and first put the name of the town who owns the welcome sign followed by the border town in parenthesis. For example: Category:Cabanatuan City Welcome arch (from Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija)‎, Category:Cabanatuan City Welcome arch (from Talavera, Nueva Ecija)‎. For Welcome arch between provinces: Category:Welcome arch in Nasugbu, Batangas (from Alfonso, Cavite), Category:Pangasinan Welcome Arch in Umingan (from Lupao, Nueva Ecija)‎. If the arch does not say 'Welcome' or 'Maligayang Pagdating' or welcome in any other language, then it is not a welcome arch but a border arch. If so, please use Category:Border arches-signs in the Philippines. This will help with clarity and bring awareness to those who are not familiar which towns border what towns. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Briarfallen. First, thanks for improving Philippine images, including my contributions. In later uploads, I had been following your examples like on Churches. I look at your categories and edits thus I treat them as examples. The same with arches, this time later, I do use your patterns, unlike before where I just put the general category and as a stub image letting you and other editors to make further edits. Sincerely.--Judgefloro (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'Bridges in Bulacan' and 'Road bridges in Bulacan'

Hi Judge or Ramon,

Why did you start these two similar categories. Could your please explain? This is again OVER-CATEGORIZING as 'Road bridges in Bulacan' would be a sub-category of 'Bridges of Bulacan'. Having your pictures in more categories is good, but having them in the same Category tree is again OVER-CATEGORIZING. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia. This is not the place where you can make your own rules. - Briarfallen (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello Briarfallen,

At first glance, it seems that the Category road bridges in Bulacan is the same or should merge with bridges in bulacan; however, for engineers and experts, unlike laymen like us, the 2 are far apart and Commons may be a vehicle for better finding photos needed in research if placed in these 2 categories: not all bridges are road bridges and some researchers, may like to find in stress-laden situations, photos that they need, hence, my personal call enabled me to edit the photos in these 2 categories. At any rate, if your opinion is the other way around, I will not revert your edit, and will let the matter be seen or viewed by expert administrators who are engineers on bridges. Tersely, I do not like 2 or more categories, but just 1, unless the photos need 2 or more. Sincerely --Judgefloro (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking the names of places and rivers

Could you please make a thorough research to make sure that you have the correct name of a particular location like rivers. The river that you called Palasan River is actually Santa Maria River and Meycauayan River - Tawiran Bridge is on Meycauayan River while Taliptip-Ubihan Bridge is on Santa Maria River. They are not on the same river. Palasan River is located somewhere between Obando and Valenzuela. The flood control project sign about the Palasan River in one of your pictures may have fooled you. Same goes with Balincaging River in Pangasinan; the official name of the river is Balincaguin, which is the former name of Mabini, Pangasinan. I have already changed the category to Balincaguin. - Briarfallen (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? Even the Taliptip Bridge (Taliptip-Perez) is on Palasan River? That's three different rivers that you wrongly called Palasan River. You don't seem to be concerned with the veracity of your information. Could you please check the maps to verify that you have the correct names of the rivers? Not only that but you filled those categories with similar pictures disregarding the rule of over-categorization. Again, please follow the rules of Commons. - Briarfallen (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Before I put the photos in categories, I interviewed the a) Barangay Halla of Taliptip and Tawiran people, the b) local residents and finally the c) passerby natives. I asked them, the name of the bridge and rivers vis-a-vis Wikpedia article edits that not even fully supported by sources. While there is such Palasan, Valenzuela, and Palasan River, still the names of the bridges and rivers by the folks are the same as the names of the rivers, that is, Taliptip, Tawiran and Ubihan, bridges and rivers. However, due to floods, the names of the bridges were erased. They call the rivers as Tawiran and Taliptip. I saw the Barangay Perez and Barangay Tawiran and Barangay Taliptip road signs. Thus, because of these, I decided to put the photos in these Categories. While when you read Wikipedia saying, these are the so and so names of bridges and rivers, still before you say so, there must be a supporting link, like what I did, the pdf or url of DPWH or any verifiable link, like tarpaulin official announcements by DPWH that as you would say contra my categories; the names of the bridges and rivers are as you, said but I could not find any url to support themn. My option is to follow the testimonial evidence of the reliable officials and officers and natives that I interviewed vis-a-vis the tarpaulin Palasan River. I was told that there are 3 bridges, the Ubihan, the Taliptip Dulo and Tawiran. Note that Meycauayan of Ubihan, Tawiran of Obando and sitio Dulo of Taliptip, Bulacan, Bulacan, all these 3 have jurisdictions or merge in all these photos concerned except in some where only 1 stands. Hence, in my judgment as editor I based by ruling-edit on the testimony of these people. I lived once at Meycauayan, Bulacan, and I know these but not Obando and Bulacan, Bulacan. If you do have any reliable link to contradict my categories, then please amend my categories. But if you rely on anything without verifiable link, then, my gathered testimonies on the names of these categories are and should stand. In short, I would rather put only 1 category, but when a photo is inside the 3 towns of Meycauayan, Obando and Bulacan, Bulacan, then, I do not have the choice but to justly put the 3 categories. In the alternative, I suggest that this matter of my edit and yours on the name of briges be reviewed by administrators who must have a final say on a) what is the technical Wikipedia and DPWH name of the briges and b) rivers. Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question: to settle the issue of correct names of Bulacan rivers and bridges

Do you agree, to settle the issue of correct categories regarding these rivers and bridges, that I file a written query and request addressed to the very OIC of administrator of the Office of the Vice-Mayor woman who assisted me in the photography of the Bulacan Municipal Hall including the very Flag seal that she took for me to photograph from the office of the Vice-Mayor. For sure, she may endorse this matter to the Office of the Mayor to the Bulacan Local Tourism office in the Hall. Verily, the final say written or otherwise (that is, they can edit Commons, my and your edits, too), of their office may suffice to settle, whether your edit or mine is the correct category as to the correct name of the 3 bridges, the 3 Rivers and whether or not, I did over-categorize, for I stand by my edits that some of the photos are under the categories of Ubihan River, Meycauayan City, Tawiran, Obando, and Taliptip, Bulacan. If only the names were not erased by flood, then, I could have easily put the same and not rely on the Tarpaulin on Palasan River. I await your reply, and once you agree, I will file personally this request and quote your message above for the judgment of the Bulacan, Bulacan Offices of the Vice Mayor and Mayor: they would undertake an ocular inspection of the 3 bridges and rivers and then, within a month, hopefully, your argument vis-a-vis mine, herein would be adressed within the technical comptence of these learned officers. Very truly yours --Judgefloro (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The way they are now are the correct rivers. I spent several hours researching before I corrected them. Not only that I also use Google Earth to map where you were when you took these pictures. Please read again what I wrote - I only questioned the name of the rivers not the bridges. Some bridges in the Philippines are labeled and some are not. Some have no official names. And there are several ways you could name bridges and it would not be incorrect. But like what you said, you just the asked people around the areas or people living there regarding the name of the rivers, therefore, you shouldn't have used them as people are not reliable sources.
What bothers me it you still shamelessly admit that you do not understand OVER-Categorization and you do not want to follow it. Categorization is used to organize the files here to eliminate clutter in categories. Who would want to open a category with 500 files? Who would want to see pictures and then checking a subcategory or a category above ti and you would see the same pictures again. Categorization is organization of files so as to avoid these problems. It is also the law of Commons, even if you do not understand it, you must follow. If you are Judge Floro you must know what law or rules mean. - Briarfallen (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Let me note that since I contributed here on February this year, I learned many things from you: a) putting specifics on welcome archs, and I patiently followed your names as patterns for this arch, for reason that it would help many to find the photos; b) only 1 category as much as possible, except if the photo is located in the concurrent jurisdictions like in boundaries and the like; c) even in Churchs, I folow your pattern, and I appreciate the times you spent to technically improve the categories; now, regarding the bridges, it is just sad that many bridges have names but are erased by time; hence, in the meantime, if no name, then I use the name of the barangay or the name used by the native; I know that the DPWH had exclusive jurisdiction to name and put the ID, and station plus kilomers in the bridges plus PDF files for the projects; I was planning to go to Bulacan DPWH but since you said that the instant issue is only about the river, then, as I said, I put the name Palasan due to the DPWH taraulin post; I also talked to the Ubihan natives, the Taliptip folks and they really could not give me the technical name of the river: but but and but they gave me the names of the rivers since time immemorial they used; for example, Angat River snakes to 11 towns, like Pampanga River in some towns; but some rivers, like here, when I read Wikipedia, I could not pinpoint the name of the River that will qualify as category under these 3 bridges. At any rate, free to visit my talk page, for a better placing of the photos. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfBulacan9999 17.JPG

File:FvfBulacan9999 17.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） ∙ +/−

LGA talkedits 04:25, 4 May 2014 (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, LGA talkedits 04:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I was in the midst of the Bustos town fiesta festival when I chanced to discover this almost hidden or by the side Monument; Thanks for the message; in Commons:Derivative works, I ponder that the logo and seal is part of the Cultural heritage, monuments and memorials in Bulacan or in the Philippines emanating from the Tourism aspect for the site is 100 years marker and landmark of the town. No objection to the deletion, though.--Judgefloro (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories divided into provinces

Hi Judgefloro, I just want to inform you, because of the ever increasing number of files in the following folders and also for easier access, I have decided to subdivide the following categories into provinces: Category:Road bridges in the Philippines by province; Category:Hotels in the Philippines and Category:Restaurants in the Philippines. Each province is also a main category of the subs created. Well, you started subdividing the Road bridges category, I just followed it up. - Briarfallen (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Briarfallen. Actually, instead of studying the rules on Categories, I learned from your painstaking editing of Philippine Categories, but just that I could not especially do categories on the parts of churches like facades domes, which you impressively and especially did make. Thus, I found the wisdom of putting sub-categories to find the photos easily, especially when I got the cue from Santa Maria Bulacan Barangays as articles, so I applied and apply them to San Simon and Baliuag among others. It is bad if too many photos for just a town, due to hard finding, but when barangays are created as articles or commons created sub-categories, clutter and over photos are solved and simplicity with few photos for each barangay, but only 1 category. Rest assured we will try our best to painstakingly put better sub-categories. Best regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfTarlac0158 43.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 32.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 33.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 34.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks Steinsplitter. I applied in writing and was allowed as part of a small group of tour with payment of P 50 pesos fee to tour this Museum and we were all granted express permission to photograph any and all the pictures uploaded except those prohibited that is under the watchful eyes of the tour leader. This is the Official Residence and Museum of the Philippine President. At any rate, no objection with all due respect to the deletions of the above-images considering the laws of USA vis-a-vis Philippine copyright laws borrowed from US laws and jurisprudence. Regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper categorization.

Hi Judge. I just want to advise you to be more wary when naming a category and the files that you put on those categories as you are breaking the rule of appropriate categorization, Commons:Appropriate categorization. For example, when you created Category:Mamerto Natividad and Category:Mariano Llanera, you should not categorize them under Category:Monuments and memorials in Nueva Ecija as they are "human beings" not "Monuments". You should create a separate category like "Category:Mamerto Natividad Memorial in Cabiao, Nueva Ecija" before placing this category as a sub-category of Category:Mamerto Natividad and Category:Monuments and memorials in Nueva Ecija. Some people, later on, might add files like pictures of Trinidad or Llanera, therefore, they should have their own general or MAIN category and then add the monuments category as sub-categories. User:P199 have already brought up this problem of category naming when you did Category:Intramuros as User:Ramon FVelasquez. I also fixed some of the buildings that you categorized as government agencies; those are just buildings not the agencies. Categorizing those agencies as buildings is incorrect. Some government agencies have more than one building at different locations, or what if you want to put files related to that agency like logos or projects related to the agency? Then you are also categorizing these items incorrectly. Please read the 'Appropriate categorization' including the subsections. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Judgefloro/Archive_1&oldid=198361885"