User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat; I found time to write a little Clarification why I wrote long, incoherent and winding discussions on FOP; this is not my Ateneo and Judge style of legal writing (short, direct and straight to the point - beginning with yes or no, and not letting the reader guess); it was intentional on my part, because I am faced (my talk page and of my photos in User:Ramon FVelasquez) with floodwater of Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one; he or she with co-conspirators carefully planned and spent tons of man hours to erase my photos, inter alia; basically i am a smart one in disguise edits with wrong grammar and no spelling check but using expertise via JavaScript and other high tech tools; his or her alibi of parent and child sock or alternate account is hard to prove; but now, i am a smart one is virtually stopped by Kept Kept Kept; I am not at this moment complacent for i am a smart one will come back and I say there are many ways to skin a cat; I am sure that: a) Commons editors allowed i am a smart one to go on with MDRs; some of i am a smart one MDRs were even granted; i am a smart one thought that i am a smart one was able to succeed via disguise; this is called Dama, that is, Commons veteran editors and hard working administrators are very able and ready to protect Commons photos from this historical (only this time in Commons) MDRs; I am beginning to see Light, for most of my Long, incoherent copy paste Discussions in i am a smart one entries were successfully Granted lately; I cannot respond, discuss or submit better arguments and replies against this multi-talented i am a smart one than my tons of CODED riddle long replies with multiple headings; I deeply note that I am understood by editors and administrators who already Noticed that i am a smart one is not a single account but a grand Conspiracy to erase my and User:Ramon FVelasques my photos from Commons; very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 47.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 47.jpg Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I admit that this is not my painting; I just took this photo when I was touring Museum & Archive Gallery (National Parks Development Committee) of Rizal Park; I was granted permission by the Park Office and Administration to take photos as part of Philippine There is more fun in the Philippines
- To JWilz12345 I have raised 7 Questions on FOP vis-à-vis i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence)
- The Nominator herein has valid and unresolved yet issues; It is fervently petitioned that - all the Nominations of the herein Nominator should be as ruled "going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit"; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of the related Single Editor (underscoring for now and until the issue of Check user is resolved)
- I have shared my inputs on FOP : A fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one Judgefloro (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
File:04258jfCuisine Parols SM City Baliwagfvf 09.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:04258jfCuisine Parols SM City Baliwagfvf 09.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
File:0758jfBrillante Mendoza Film Festival SM City Baliuagfvf 12.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached Brillante Mendoza personally during the photo opportunity and I was granted permission to take photos; at any rate I uploaded a cropped version of his phot that I took hence outside the scope of the violation; at any rate I uploaded a new version, another photo which I took Judgefloro (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC).
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:M&M's Mix & Match Exhibit (SM City Baliwag)
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep Because I took this picture - SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious Judgefloro (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC).
.jpg){kind=link}
File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 42.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 42.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 26.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 26.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 02.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 02.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious
- May I add that the webinar is not an official stand of the Government or IPO but of a temporary officer; when IPO directors retire or are changed the new one has a new policy; so, my query to you have not been addressed; why noy email the IPO regarding all these, instead of DRs, so that once and for all, a Written Reply not a webinar will, for sure be a better yardstick for Commons to measure the yes and no of Deletion buttons; and a permission from the SM Management is a clear exception to the alleged copy vio as opined by the temporary officer of the Webinar opinion; I counter that only a written Reply and not Declining by the IPO will resolve all these issues; Judgefloro (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City states "The main points of the Papal copyright: Exclusive right on the use of the Pope’s image and voice for purposes other than religious, cultural and educational (art. 3)" - the words and phrases "other than religious, cultural and educational" word - may be interpreted using tools of Statutory interpretation : the Pope's image can be used - for a) religious - this case, the exhibit is not any art, flowers or cars but invites visitors of SM to pray and meditate, inter alia; it is not art for arts sake; b) cultural - in this case, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Malolos Museo Diocesano de Malolos, 2017 has exactly the same cultural and religious purposes - here, using the Pope's or all these relics by devout Catholics; c) educational - here, students were invited to take notes especially by St. Mary's College of Baliuag for their Catechism subjects; Pope Francis, as a Jesuit, is a scientist and wants to be very close to the poorest of the poor as in Buenos Aires'
- More importantly, the very Lis mota or crux of the matter in the case at bar, that is, at the very heart of the Exhibit - is Devotion and Piety, not art for Catholic; they are invited to touch the relics and to take photos of the pictures so that in their homes they can pray over with Rosary and be with God; as a Roman Catholic, Jesuit and Vincentian Seminarian from 1965-1974, I personally consider these photos as deeply "religious, cultural and educational" in the very sense and within the spirit or letter or the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City; the deepest meaning of the photos vis-à-vis Letter and spirit of the law (a tool of Statutory interpretation - "Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language." very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
File:0758jfBrillante Mendoza Film Festival SM City Baliuagfvf 12.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) → File:0742jfBrillante Mendoza Film Festival SM City Baliuagfvf 13.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Good afternoon from hereat Baliuag, Bulacan, Bulacan province - Happy Holidays and best wishes to thee and your loved ones; I uploaded it as a cropped version of one of my uploaded photos because: a) I received a Speedy Deletion request on the first photo; I explained that Brillante Mendoza Film Festival (25 August 2016, SM City Baliuag) personally gave me express permission to take photos of all his exhibits during the Photo and Autograph opportunity; he is very kind; but to avoid any issue of speedy deletion, I looked for one photo of 62 Photos and uploaded it as a new version of the 1st photo contested; I cannot find anymore any remaining photo; I beg your indulgence to note my senior citizen age of 67 and I understand very very few things about the technicalities of Commons and Computer; thanks sincerely-very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why not accept the speedy deletion of the original file at File:0758jfBrillante Mendoza Film Festival SM City Baliuagfvf 12.jpg or convert the speedy deletion to a DR per COM:D policy? Pinging @JWilz12345, Túrelio as interested. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I will leave the deletion decision to Turelio and other admins. But personally Judgefloro's move to overwrite is against COM:OVERWRITE. It is much more acceptable if the new file is a cropped version (to remove the copyvio material), but the poster is too prominent that COM:De minimis cannot be applied (it is neither incidental nor unimportant element of the image). Just overwriting it with an image that is obviously obtained from another existing file in the same category doesn't solve the issue, and may lead to COM:EDUSE issue as a duplicate, redundant file. To @Judgefloro, while Direk Brillante Mendoza gave you permission, he might have thought that you would only take the photo to "share" or "communicate" the movie to the world, via social media. He might have not known (or have little knowledge) about the licensing policy of Wikimedia Commons, which states that files must be freely reusable by anyone in the world, including reuses in post cards, calendars, commercial T-shirt prints, and commercial vlogs. As you licensed the image into public domain, you made a risk of allowing some unscrupulous persons to exploit it in unofficial or pirated DVDs and other illegal media, with just little editing (cropping and straightening) to do all such exploitations. FYI all movie posters are
Not OK at Commons, except if the movie is now in public domain (50 years after the death of last surviving author or creator for the Philippine case), or if the movie is wholly licensed as either public domain or Creative Commons, like the 2006 CC-licensed animated short movie Elephants Dream from the Netherlands. But as far as I know our country is a country that highly cares its artistic and cultural heritage, and all directors may not accept both Creative Commons or public domain licensing. (Some postscriptum @Jeff G.: So I guess this may be the reason why the pending House Bill 8062 (to amend the copyright law) still has no FOP provision, with the limitations to copyright remained "relatively unchanged".) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I will leave the deletion decision to Turelio and other admins. But personally Judgefloro's move to overwrite is against COM:OVERWRITE. It is much more acceptable if the new file is a cropped version (to remove the copyvio material), but the poster is too prominent that COM:De minimis cannot be applied (it is neither incidental nor unimportant element of the image). Just overwriting it with an image that is obviously obtained from another existing file in the same category doesn't solve the issue, and may lead to COM:EDUSE issue as a duplicate, redundant file. To @Judgefloro, while Direk Brillante Mendoza gave you permission, he might have thought that you would only take the photo to "share" or "communicate" the movie to the world, via social media. He might have not known (or have little knowledge) about the licensing policy of Wikimedia Commons, which states that files must be freely reusable by anyone in the world, including reuses in post cards, calendars, commercial T-shirt prints, and commercial vlogs. As you licensed the image into public domain, you made a risk of allowing some unscrupulous persons to exploit it in unofficial or pirated DVDs and other illegal media, with just little editing (cropping and straightening) to do all such exploitations. FYI all movie posters are
- Why not accept the speedy deletion of the original file at File:0758jfBrillante Mendoza Film Festival SM City Baliuagfvf 12.jpg or convert the speedy deletion to a DR per COM:D policy? Pinging @JWilz12345, Túrelio as interested. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- The very Lis mota or Crux of New FOP discussions is: Get a written Reply from the IPO director and DOJ Secretary towards the Executive Secretary: the photos were taken for the purpose of putting some pictures for the very very vast Category:Barangays 103, 104 & 105, Zone 9, District II, Grace Park East, Caloocan City; let me underscore that I joined the Discussions for a single purpose: to prevent Mass Deletions of the i am a smart one and i am a smart one's principal and co-conspirator in the discussed Cybersquatting Cyber-stalking lengthily argued by me; not that in almost all Deletion Requests here in all my Archives I regularly reply with "submitted to the sound discretion of Commons", I reiterate my Neutrality in all Deletions Requests or change of Category names, since my photos are subject of the Deletions and I put to Commons editors the judgment on them; but I cannot cannot cannot be silent on i am a smart one; and co-conspirators; I mystically discern and unmasked them but who will believe me here; Commons is bound by Rules and Policies and will not buy my Mystic assertions; ergo, I wrote long Legal treatises to Stop i am a smart one from Erasing Mass Files from Commons by craft, wits and expertise in JavaScript, inter alia;Judgefloro (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:0436jfCaloocan City Barangays C-5 East Road Rizal Avenuefvf.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0436jfCaloocan City Barangays C-5 East Road Rizal Avenuefvf.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Buenas tardes I was looking for the exact address and Barangay number and street for my Category in Kalookan Wikimedia since I was roaming and walking street by street to photo at least 2 or more pictures for 1 Barangay of Calookan] and when I found this I shot it; I should have Uploaded a new version to hide it or at least crop it when possible; Judgefloro (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:FvfUSTMuseum9572 06.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfUSTMuseum9572 06.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UST Museum of Arts and Sciences
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UST Museum of Arts and Sciences
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Buenas noches It was my first visit to ailing Leonardo Legaspi the First Rector of UST; I told him that I met him as he was descending the St. Vincent's Seminary 2nd floor to visit in 1967 LEGASPI, DOMINGO Z.; Meycauayan, Bulacan; May 5, 1981; Roll No. 31114 whom I recruited as seminarian; their mothers and my mother met weekly for 3 years religiously when they visited us 3 pm; I talked with him for 9 minutes at his room before his 4 pm cancer operation; 2 weeks before his death on 8 August 2014; I told him that my father Florentino and his father were close friends and met very often; he was so depressed when I told him that Our Lady of the Holy Rosary is beneath him; but he loudly told me "Do you not know that I was the Archbishop of Caceres for 8 years" and I added First UST Rector and even Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, even if all the UST Doctors now were under you, but your time has come ... Leonardo Legaspi granted me express permission and even asked me to take photos of UST which he loved so much ... I granted his Dying wish I leave the matter for the sound discretion of Commons editors; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:FvfUSTMuseum9618 39.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfUSTMuseum9618 39.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Buenas noches It was my first visit to ailing Leonardo Legaspi the First Rector of UST; I told him that I met him as he was descending the St. Vincent's Seminary 2nd floor to visit LEGASPI, DOMINGO Z.; Meycauayan, Bulacan; May 5, 1981; Roll No. 31114 whom I recruited as seminarian; their mothers and my mother met weekly for 3 years religiously when they visited us 3 pm; I talkeed with him for 9 minutes at his room before his 4 pm cancer operation; 2 weeks before his death on 8 August 2014; I told him that my father Florentino and his father were close friends and met very often; he was so depressed when I told him that Our Lady of the Holy Rosary is beneath him; but he loudly told me "Do you not know that I was the Archbishop of Caceres for 8 years" and I added First UST Rector and even Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, even if all the UST Doctors now were under you, but your time has come ... Leonardo Legaspi granted me express permission and even asked me to take photos of UST which he loved so much ... I granted his Dying wish I leave the matter for the sound discretion of Commons editors; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:FvfUSTMuseum9527 18.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfUSTMuseum9527 18.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:FvfUSTMuseum9527 22.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfUSTMuseum9527 22.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:554SiningSaysay Philippine History in Art Sining Lakbay GateWay Gallery, Gateway Mall Araneta Center 36.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:554SiningSaysay Philippine History in Art Sining Lakbay GateWay Gallery, Gateway Mall Araneta Center 36.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:554SiningSaysay Philippine History in Art Sining Lakbay GateWay Gallery, Gateway Mall Araneta Center 35.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:554SiningSaysay Philippine History in Art Sining Lakbay GateWay Gallery, Gateway Mall Araneta Center 35.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 43.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 43.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 44.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:9886Rizal Park landmarks attractions historical memorials 44.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Request to put on hold the deletions until a until a Reply be sent per Emails or written documents by the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors
- I disagree with reasons and I am submitting hereunder my suggestions or discussions with proof that the New discussion on PHL FoP is not finished yet or may be re-opened, since my legally valid queries submitted thereat were not yet resolved: in short, the valid legal issues I raised on FOP were not yet resolved but simply evaded leading to temporary or even false conclusions or theories: a) I relied - Estoppel in Pais - on the supposed filing of the letter by IanLopez vis-à-vis the supposed IPO and DOJ Replies on FOP uploading in Commons but there was no explanation why it was not filed; in fact, the cited IPO letter contains direct and unequivocal invitation to Email FOP questions, but until now, the IanLopez letter was not emailed; b) the twin legal issues I raised on the i) Locus standi to file Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one and the Principal Accounts of co-conspirator: vis-à-vis the Check-user issue, which as it stands is not ended buy put on hold ii) the very clear commissions of Cybercrime-squatting per Mass Deletion Requests by the Co-conspirators - were unanswered ; I Dissent with reasonable doubt vis-à-vis The very Lis mota or Crux of New FOP discussions is: Get a written Reply from the IPO director and DOJ Secretary towards the Executive Secretary:
- Even if I should or could stay neutral on these deletions, still, if I would not raise these points, the i am a smart one and i am a smart one's principal and co-conspirator, for sure, will take these as precedents to start anew floodwater of Cybersquatting Cyber-stalking; in short, may I interject as rejoinder - that it would be better to email the IPO Director on specific Deletions for your cited Webinar and talks in the IPO FOP are so general and covers almost all the sections of the Copyright law; these Deletions of yours may be dealt with on a "case to case" basis; any answer by email from the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors would shed light on Commons policies on FOP inter alia
- I therefore humbly appeal to Commons editors to put on hold these deletions until a Reply be sent per Emails or written documents by the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors; the precautionary principle or measure of first delete in other countries opined by some editors would not apply to the Philippine FOP or deletions cases because the IPO office itself invited Commons and all to email their queries and it promised prompt replies Judgefloro (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Even if I should or could stay neutral on these deletions, still, if I would not raise these points, the i am a smart one and i am a smart one's principal and co-conspirator, for sure, will take these as precedents to start anew floodwater of Cybersquatting Cyber-stalking; in short, may I interject as rejoinder - that it would be better to email the IPO Director on specific Deletions for your cited Webinar and talks in the IPO FOP are so general and covers almost all the sections of the Copyright law; these Deletions of yours may be dealt with on a "case to case" basis; any answer by email from the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors would shed light on Commons policies on FOP inter alia
- My reply
- As I said before, IPOPHL replied to Higad Rail Fan last November, and they are open for a possible meeting or dialogue with Wikimedia Foundation over issues like freedom of panorama. But in their reply, they seems to indicate that it is the side of Wikimedia who will initiate such meeting or dialogue, and not the side of IPOPHL nor do the side of the creators from architects to painters.
- Concerning your point that we (the editors and admins) must wait. This might also mean to wait for any of the Filipino artists to file a case in the court or to file a notice of take down to Wikimedia in order for the files to be deleted. But per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, we must not wait for lawsuits from artists in order for infringing content here to be taken down. As Nick who closed this 2017-era UAE FOP-related deletion request on a Dubai building once said, "deletion first is the right way" per the precautionery principle, even when a discussion is taking place. Commons respects the copyrights of the artists and other creators, even if the general public does not.
.jpg){kind=link}
- About my deletion request to some of your images that are derivative works of various artworks (many of them by still living creators like artists or photographers), the Commons:Licensing (specifically the section Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses) applies. I will copy-paste here the summarization of the licensing policy as indicated on that policy page:
All copyrighted material on Commons (not in the public domain) must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose; simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:
- Republication and distribution must be allowed.
- Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
- Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
- The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.
- Acknowledgment of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
- Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
- For digital distribution, use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management (DRM) may be required.
Also:
The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file:
- Use by Wikimedia only.
- Noncommercial/Educational use only.
- Use under fair use only.
- Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses.
In a nutshell, files here must be freely-reusable by anyone in the world, for any purpose like reuses on post cards, calendars, commercial T-shirt prints, and commercial vlogs that are produced by online video creators in order to profit. If the artists only allow pictorial reproductions of their work for Wikipedia only, for educational purposes only, or for fair use only, then their artworks are not free for Commons.
It should be OK if there's tangible permissions from the artists (via COM:OTRS email system) that state their acceptance to release their works under free and commercial-friendly licensing. But with the proposed amendment to the IP Code of the Philippines having more restrictive provisions most especially for digital media, and there's an increasing call from the artists to have a strong respect of copyright of their works even in the era of new media, I'm afraid some of your images of paintings, modern photographs, and other post-World War II artwork cannot be kept at Commons. Sad to say, the trend is more on towards restriction than freedom with regards to copyrighted works and their derivatives like images of paintings and artworks. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I deeply appreciate your hard work on this: it is just that the Mass Deletionist (you and others did issue multiple warnings) may strike again and again and use per selection, your deletions as precedent: and I deeply discern why you and IanLopez have not yet filed the draft letter; I read between the lines as I, also cannot reveal here the 99 per cent of the secrets about my classmates who are now top Government officers; rest assured that I stay neutral and I only respond to your deletion requests, per Ad cautelam or precautionary dissent because of the Mastermind of all these Mass Deletions
- I note with discernment and read between the lines on your above messages sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Addendum: you may not believe - that I cannot really, at my age of learning because of lack of erudition and education on Computer and all this stuff, comprehend the multiple and long winding policies of Wikimedia or Wikipedia; please note that It was P199 who helped me a lot against my stubborn Over Categorization in User:Ramon FVelasquez; if you review my Archives thereat and herein with over Total edit count: 1,641,607 contributions to Commons and 120,000 in User:Ramon FVelasquez, I have not even read the Rules of Commons; it says Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: Template:Bad name Correct name but the second line, I cannot grasp nor understand; for these reasons many editors here would complain about my homily or sermon and long winding off-tangent replies; but be patient with my posts; never in Wikimedia Commons history has there been 1 User with Zero Upload and Registered: 16:15, 2 September 2020 (3 months ago) Total edit count: 8,509 How can this account be called silly or a troll; it is an expert Modus Operandi to delete file from Commons and first and foremost - a brazen attack on my Mystic Existence; I cannot here reveal the deepest secrets I hold for I discern; this is the sole reason why I started submitting dissents and counters on your and others' messages, regards Judgefloro (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
File:8115Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan 40.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:8115Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan 40.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
File:8115Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan 48.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:8115Poblacion, Baliuag, Bulacan 48.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Magandan Hapon po; Noted, with a query regards Judgefloro (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 35.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 35.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 31.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 31.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Magandang Hapon po; No objection to the deletion, with a query regards Judgefloro (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jose Ignacio Paua Monument
Affected:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Magandang Hapon po; Noted, with a query
- The image is taken from back, hence, De Minis, anyway submitted to the sound discretion of Commons, regards Judgefloro (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Clark
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
File:617ajfSM City Clark Angelesfvf 11.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:617ajfSM City Clark Angelesfvf 11.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
File:617ajfSM City Clark Angelesfvf 10.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:617ajfSM City Clark Angelesfvf 10.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- The The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted But a careful examination of all these photos subject of nomination for deletion - 23 May 2015, 14:14:54 and 29 January 2014, 10:20:45 29 January 2014, 10:25:23 - the Legal Bar already did set in, hence, Extinctive prescription prohibits the deletion of all these photos; there is no Iota or dust of doubt whatsoever about the freedom of these files; ;4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez
- Tons of SM Malls and other Malls photos would be stricken off and erased from Commons; tons of these published photos are now absolute properties of Commons for sharing of Wisdom towards the Newer Generations to come; future researchers and users will suffer irreparable damage and injury if the The precautionary principle is misapplied, misread or misinterpreted in the altar of technicalities; due care and utmost diligence should be exerted in the process of deletion or non-deletion of these photos; besides, these photos are Commercial establishments; SM Malls Prime Holdings have advantage in advertisements and business profits by publication of their Malls in Commons and others like Flickr, Photobucket inter alia;
- Once deleted, this will be not only a test case but precedent for Mass Deletions to be started again and again by the Smart One and principal-child-parent-alter account who is just watching and carefully waiting to turn these deletions to Moro-moro, a farce, so to speak;
- Who can prove or guess that the Smart Guy who apologized (and who has alter or Check user accounts in Commons and using Alibi, which is the weakest defense) ...
- Keep I object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law expressly contains the Extinctive prescription of 4 years unlike 3 years in American Jurisprudence; so from 2016 uploading, any and all photos of Commons can no longer be deleted much less be brought to the Special Court even by the creator artist or assigns of the artist sculptor, Dura lex sed lex; the IPO, DOJ and the Special Court will forthwith throw the case by Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Quash due to Prescription; even Commons lawyers will agree with our Copyright Law proviso on Extinctive prescription read in connection with the Implementing 2019 Circular on Special Courts' creation and jurisdiction over Copyright cases including FOP here; with this I register a very strong Legal objection to the Deletion regardsJudgefloro (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I asked permission to take photos including this Director Ludovico D. Badoy as Executive Director III, NCHP he told me that as a lawyer and judge I should know that the law expressly allows photography of all Historical sites landmarks and heritages; I told him that in many Barangays it is extremely dangerous, without any written letter, since they are ignorant of the law; so he ordered me to take his picture and to show it to the Filipino folks morons and otherwise; 22 January 2014, 13:59:59 Category:Ludovico Badoy Casa Real (Q55231339)
- Museum of Philippine Political History is owned and operated by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines under the National Commission for Culture and the Arts of the executive branch of the Philippine government
- Keep I object to the deletion on the ground that our Copyright law does not prohibit taking photos of all these Historical properties of the Government; Judgefloro (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dunkin' Donuts in the Philippines
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chowking restaurants in the Philippines
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
File:FvfGlobalFortCity0279 08.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfGlobalFortCity0279 08.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
File:07051jfJ. P. Rizal Mabini Street Market Puregold Ever Maypajo Caloocan Cityfvf 07.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:07051jfJ. P. Rizal Mabini Street Market Puregold Ever Maypajo Caloocan Cityfvf 07.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
File:06581jf6th Avenue Sagrada Familia Barangays Grace Park C-3 A. Mabini Caloocan Cityfvf.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:06581jf6th Avenue Sagrada Familia Barangays Grace Park C-3 A. Mabini Caloocan Cityfvf.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Taco Bell restaurants in the Philippines
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Taco Bell restaurants in the Philippines
Affected:
And also:
Extended content
|
|---|
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- These photos are unimportant but educational since under Commons Category of Category: Fast food menus in the Philippines, they are valued photos to teach generations about top food restos in Philippines and Cuisine of Metro Manila hence I submit to the sound discretion of Commons editors to consider them De Minimis sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk page trimming
Hi Judgefloro, do you mind if you opt-in to Fæ's talk page trimmer? Your talk page is close to exceeding the template transclusion (and if it does exceed, it will cause notifications of the deletion of your photos to be unreadable, until enough messages are moved out of your talk page), and I thought that Fae's talk page trimmer could help you. The trimmer removes the complex templating and replaces it with a simpler message. The resulting message still tells you that one of your photos have a problem and is nominated for deletion, and you could simply click on the photo in question or the linked nomination page to see more information why. Thanks, pandakekok9 06:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good afternoon here from Bulacan; believe me I am a senior 67 years old, and despite my uploads, I really am poor of understanding Computer technology; I just read it but it says permission must be asked; would you mind to be the one to edit my talk page regarding this; I am afraid to commit mistake, since I do not comprehend this, happy Pasco-vid 19, so, believe me today is Christmas Day Dec 19, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well in that case I will opt you in. If you ever decide that you don't want your talk page trimmed, please let me know. Thanks and advance Merry Christmas, pandakekok9 06:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome and best of luck in your hard work - please edit my talk page the way it should be - again I really don't know how to, my passion is food and all these alien ufos photography - thanks very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
About Church Properties
- Good afternoon, I just met Bishop Jun Moya Christian born again of Sampaloc San Rafael Church; he informed me that all Christian churches buildings chapels and accessories are owned by their Sect or Denomination - all architects engineers moral rights are ipso facto transferred absolutely to it before solemnization and creation; the only difference between us, Catholics and them, is that they do not have statues for it is forbidden for them; in Santuario de San Ezekiel Moreno (Oratory, Villar SIPAG, C5 Extension, Pulang Lupa Uno, Las Piñas City), I talked to the Office Chapel, I was told that this, being the largest Church in Metro Manila cannot be converted to Parish since the Villars do not want to part with ownership; this is what Canon Law teaches - all rights or architects or engineers are absolutely transferred to the Titutlar head Bishop or Archbishop of the Diocese; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Judgefloro, I would like to chime in two users who are involved on copyright and FOP related issues, as the inputs from the church might conflict anything indicated at Republic Act No. 8293 as interpreted by IPOPHL. @Clindberg and Aymatth2: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- You may also inquire with your nearby Parish Priest or if you have time, visit the Malolos Cathedral Office of Bishop Dennis specifically with the Parochial Vicar in charge of the Temporalities - and if you have more time you can inquire as I did talk before his death, Archbishop Oscar Cruz;
- There is no conflict whatsoever between what the Catholic (and Christian church command on this, Canon Law, Christian Doctrines, 41,ooo non-denomination born again religions) on the one hand and Republic Act No. 8293 as interpreted by IPOPHL.; these laws are inter-related as I had studied in Conflict of Laws in 1979, there is no change in the Jurisprudence; the only thing is that you may have forgotten what you stated in sending the email or final draft FOP by IanLopez to IPO Director or DOJ Sec. my classmate; Commons cannot be satisfied with mere WebObinars Virtual FB but hard paper the Reply; if I may - I am Armed with the Photo permission of Director Badoy, the 2 IPO Letters without reply and the long Discussion with IPO Lawyer - personal - telling me that as Badoy and Tourism said, Commons FOP uploading is a grey area and IPO Directors 3 of them are very afraid to release any opinion written without any SC Ruling or Circular; IPO is not ready to face a criminal case under RA 6713 or 3019, Anti-graft; meaning, if they Reply with wrong answer with consequent deletion or non-deletion, Dilemma so to speak they might be suspended; the issue of FOP is so delicate; will IPO wait for someone to file a case against them in the Ombudsman under 3019 or 6713 Codes? Memento homo or remember in FOP new discussion - that one admin said that he or she is not into law - FOP deletions affect the very hear to Commons meta files; one deletion of a Church façade or sculpture like in Bayambang tallest statue has Domino effect; all the Luzon churches and statues including all Luzon SMs will be deleted;
- I appeal to Commons editors to PUT ON HOLD all Deletion Requests on FOP until the IPO Director or DOJ secretary my classmate or even Exec. Sec. Medialdea the spouse of my classmate and schoolmate for years issues or declines a Reply; please wait for, as you said, Wikimedia Commons to initiate the talk or just click the button, email FOP until the IPO Director or DOJ secretary;
- Finally, may I interject: will someone wait for someone to file a Cybercrime 2012 case against .... just countering the misplaced reliance of precautionary principle - this principle on deletion in no uncertain terms provides its application if there is no doubt - here Commons is waiting on the FOP Replies .... Judgefloro (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- See Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Freedom of panorama. I have commented there.