User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 9

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:0021jfLandscape Quezon City Santa Mesa Manila Boundary Magsaysay Aurora Boulevardfvf 19.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

File:05458jfQuirino Avenue Metro Manila Skyway Makati Barangays Paco Manilafvf 03.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!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Good evening from hereat Bulacan, Philippines amid the Blue sky and mystic serenity ... I have no objection to the deletion: may I just underscore that in the Second image for deletion, I note its importance since at the center is a wheeled vehicle used for construction, but at that time of uploading I could not find the specific Category for the subject photo; that wheeled vehicle is important in the construction and movement of the other matters thereat, very sincerely your and thanks for your messages Judgefloro (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright
File:05057jfMagumbali Fields Chen Wen-Yu Melon Paralaya Candaba Pampanga San Miguel roadsfvf 01.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted package.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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)  +/−

Solomon203 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright
File:04997jfMagumbali Fields Chen Wen-Yu Melon Paralaya Candaba Pampanga San Miguel roadsfvf 31.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyrighted package.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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)  +/−

Solomon203 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Judgefloro, should this be redirected to Category:Narcisa de León? Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I do agree on your suggested redirection to Narcisa de León sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon hereat Bulacan, Philippines; It is respectfully submitted that the purpose of obtaining the Bustos Permit is to take educational and tourism photos of Bustos Heritage and landmarks, at any rate I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages and good afternoon hereat Bulacan, Philippines; It is respectfully submitted that the purpose of taking 2019 version of Rizal Park is to update on the Tourist aspect of remarkably different spots for Rizal Park was renovated and well cleaned unlike before at any rate I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and Good afternoon from here at Bulacan, Philippines with gloomy July 30- Philippines COVID-19 infections 89,374, of which, 22,327 are active 3,954 new COVID-19 cases; before I took picture of these subjects, I was given express permission by SM City Baliuag, more particulary the Administration and the same was put up there by SM City as owner producer maker, is for Mall goers to take Selfies in celebration of SM Events ; at any rate, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons regarding the matter and very sincerely yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Category discussion warning

Pasig River Ferry Station (Hulo, Mandaluyong City) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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


JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your visit and messages; it is very gloomy and funeral smell here in COVID Philippines emerging as Epi center of SE Asia Pandemic amid seeming recession of economy and dire poverty; it is very sad that I could not anymore travel to La Union and Ilocos or CALABARZON due to this Global scattered annihilation which even humbled the Superpowers; and I and Commons now value my tons of photos preserving History of Luzon landmarks; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, good morning from here at Bulacan, and thanks for your message; please allow me to respectfully submit a concise Reply-discussion on the Nomination, on Copyright Infringement which requires the Nominator to provide burden of evidence shifted on the nominator that the law has been infringed by the Photos - thus the Law requires that "in order to prove copyright infringement, one must show that he has a valid copyright in the work allegedly infringed and that the perpetrator infringed the victim’s copyright by copying protected elements of the latter’s work", thus: a) the photos I took of the Monument were taken at a considerably far or as you may, socially distant or several feet away from the subject, so as not to put the matter within the prohibitions of Copyright law of the Philippines; b) as of now, 2020, even after Director Blancaflor, when I 2x filed Letters at the Philippine Intellectual Rights Office at Global Fort, years ago, there still is no Court ruling or jurisprudence of the matter of Panorama except La Concepcion College vs. Catabijan and ABS-CBN vs. Willing Willie ; hence may I reiterate that 2 legal officers thereat of Blancaflor who was absent, lectured to me that I can take photos as long as they are not so close to the subject; their reason is that taking too close photos may allow scammers to copy cat the arts and copyright subject for their own commercial purpose thereby stealing whatever is protected for the Copyright holder; c) Dure lex sed lex or the Law is harsh but the law, is applicable due to absence of landmark ruling of the Courts and or definitive Circulars, or Issuances of the Office of Blancaflor and his now successor; d) therefore, Philippine Jurisprudence teaches that the Supreme Court of the Philippines Rules of Statutory Construction and reading of the Copyright law preamble to determine the Spirit of this Law that killeth not but gives life, should be applied to this Panorama subject; Statutory interpretation e) in this relation, Statutory Construction due to absence of S.C. or C.A. ruling or any Circular for this matter allows photographers to take photos withing a reasonable distance from the subject or De Minimis inter alia; with these thoughts I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons editors to review and take judgment on the nomination as I remain very truly yours and cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, good morning from here at Bulacan, and thanks for your message; please allow me to respectfully submit a concise Reply-discussion on the Nomination, on Copyright Infringement which requires the Nominator to provide burden of evidence shifted on the nominator that the law has been infringed by the Photos - thus the Law requires that "in order to prove copyright infringement, one must show that he has a valid copyright in the work allegedly infringed and that the perpetrator infringed the victim’s copyright by copying protected elements of the latter’s work", thus: a) the photos I took of the Monument were taken at a considerably far or as you may, socially distant or several feet away from the subject, so as not to put the matter within the prohibitions of Copyright law of the Philippines; b) as of now, 2020, even after Director Blancaflor, when I 2x filed Letters at the Philippine Intellectual Rights Office at Global Fort, years ago, there still is no Court ruling or jurisprudence of the matter of Panorama except La Concepcion College vs. Catabijan and ABS-CBN vs. Willing Willie ; hence may I reiterate that 2 legal officers thereat of Blancaflor who was absent, lectured to me that I can take photos as long as they are not so close to the subject; their reason is that taking too close photos may allow scammers to copy cat the arts and copyright subject for their own commercial purpose thereby stealing whatever is protected for the Copyright holder; c) Dure lex sed lex or the Law is harsh but the law, is applicable due to absence of landmark ruling of the Courts and or definitive Circulars, or Issuances of the Office of Blancaflor and his now successor; d) therefore, Philippine Jurisprudence teaches that the Supreme Court of the Philippines Rules of Statutory Construction and reading of the Copyright law preamble to determine the Spirit of this Law that killeth not but gives life, should be applied to this Panorama subject; Statutory interpretation e) in this relation, Statutory Construction due to absence of S.C. or C.A. ruling or any Circular for this matter allows photographers to take photos withing a reasonable distance from the subject or De Minimis inter alia; with these thoughts I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons editors to review and take judgment on the nomination as I remain very truly yours and cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Pay attention to copyright
File:02123jfClothes shirts pants in Philippinesfvf 04.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)


Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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)  +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 1989.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, good morning from here at Bulacan, and thanks for your message; please allow me to respectfully submit that this is a gift from my sibling to be given to the poor children hereat Bulacan; this is a very cheap clothing from say Ukay ukay, and the maker is unknown, I opine that this is manufactured by machine, hence, no copyright violations, at any rate I respecffully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours and cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Judgefloro: you may want to reach out User talk:1989 who tagged the said photo for copyvio. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, good morning from here at Bulacan, and thanks for your message; I remember that this cloth has been bought from nearby ukay ukay market, and there are plenty of copycats here, trademark violators, therefore this I believe is a very very cheap or fake from original since it is priced only at 2o pesos; by the way you're also from Bulacan, .... maybe what Barangay ...as I remain very truly yours and cheers sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, De728631 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; thanks for the messages; please allow me respectfully submit my concise reply to wit: I am a Roman Catholic, and before I took pictures of the EDSA Shrine and its components, I asked permission from the Rector of the Shrine, who told me that the Shrine belongs to us Catholics who fought at EDSA, and we are considered not only heroes of the EDSA Revolution but as co-contributors of the building of the Shrine by our donations though how big or petty; I was thus expressly permitted to photograph what is ours in our Religion; further, the Bishop of Cubao and Mandaluyong gave us express permission to take photos as part of our Christian Faith, at any rate, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons since the photos are Landmarks and National Cultural treasures, very very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, De728631 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; thanks for the messages; please allow me respectfully submit my concise reply to wit: I am a Roman Catholic, and before I took pictures of the EDSA Shrine and its components, I asked permission from the Rector of the Shrine, who told me that the Shrine belongs to us Catholics who fought at EDSA, and we are considered not only heroes of the EDSA Revolution but as co-contributors of the building of the Shrine by our donations though how big or petty; I was thus expressly permitted to photograph what is ours in our Religion; further, the Bishop of Cubao and Mandaluyong gave us express permission to take photos as part of our Christian Faith, at any rate, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons since the photos are Landmarks and National Cultural treasures, very very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Rejoinder: Thanks for your deep concern on these photos of Philippine Cultural Heritage and Landmark - EDSA Revolution I - memorial; as Regional Trial Court Judge of Malabon and Ateneo Law Alumni, please allow me to hereby state that this is a grey area or one of the finer points of Philippine law vis-a-vis a) Canon law of the Catholic Church b) International law c) USA Federal Law and Copyright law of the Philippines Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, to wit: i) International law recognizes the Property rights of Vatican City, the Holy See vis-a-vis Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila Broderick Pabillo Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator, who has exclusive jurisdiction over the EDSA Shrine headed by its Rector but under said Pabillo ; ii) there appears no conflict whatsoever between Commons following the Copyright Laws of Philippines and USA Federal Laws on one hand and Canon Law, on the other, which is recognized by International Law; as a Separate State from Rome, Vatican City by its Holy See, Pope Francis is Supreme of the Hierarchy of World Laws on Church properties; iii) it is well known that private chapels and Shrines cannot be elevated to Parish Churches unless the land and buildings with all accessories and its Torrens Title under Property Registration Decree PD 1529 are transferred not to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila in this case, but to the Auxiliary bishop Sede vacante Diocesan administrator Pabillo, as incumbent; the Title of Auxiliary bishop of Manila appears in the Torrens Title of the Lot, land and all the buildings and improvements thereon, registered with the Registry of Propery of Quezon City, not in the name of Bishop Pabillo, but in the fee simple of Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila; iv) when thus titled, the processes or process of issuing the Decree of Parish Church or Shrine of EDSA is thus issued and even approved by elevation to the Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, at Manila Cathedral for Imprimatur; v) the Decree permanently creates the Parish Churh or EDSA Shrine and the Solemnization Mass and Blessing of the Church follows; vi) afterwards, all properties, whether statues, crosses, relics, art, sculpture, towers, bell, and all incidents become functus officio, the properties of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila by fee simple both under Canon Law, International Law and Civil Law including the Copyright Law, 1987 Constitution and settled Jurisprudence both the Jurisprudence of Catholic canon law Philippines and International law; vii) following these points are the Rules of Statutory interpretation and the Laws on Property which include Copyright law: the maxim of Accessory follows the principal governs:: all the properties whether sculptures or additions are or become inherent properties of the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila, and nothing is left to anymone; no right therefore remains whether moral, wise or otherwise to the makers, sculptors or any and all the works inside the Church; viii) by operation of Canon Law vis-a-vis Copyright Law, all the rights of the Sculptors are tranferred to the Diocesan administrator Auxiliary bishop of Manila as Titular, from the moment of its creation and after payment of the art fees or after signing the Deed of Donation by the Sculptors tranferring in fee simple all their moral and remaining rights in the works to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila; no permission therefore is needed to copy or to photograph any and all things whether facade, microscopic, macro or De Minimis from the Bishop or heirs of the Sculptor, for the arts belong to the Auxiliary bishop of Manila and or the Faithful, WE, the Catholics, who are co-owners thereof with the Auxiliary bishop of Manila ; ix) at any rate, when I photographed the Manila Cathedral which is the Seat of the Auxiliary bishop of Manila, I was told by the Rector of the Cathedral about the foregoing, stated in Lay man's terms and I was granted permission, thus; a final word perhaps - not once but 3 times I wrote a Letter to the Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) at Fort Bonifacio to clarify the Matter of FOP but, as expected, they would not issue any reply due to the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet ever since RULED on the matter for no justiciable controversy has been elevated to the High Tribunal on FOP, x) Finally, I made extensive angle by angle photos of the EDSA Shrine for I am ahead of the world's time::: There is a clear and present danger, for Filipinos to greatly fear that this Shrine was already on table planned to be demolished to give way to the BUILD, BUILD, BUILD infrastructures road transport LRT MRT extensions or otherwise; ergo, I humbly suggest, that if these photos would be deleted, please, before the deletion, upload them in Flickr and another safe haven, where these photos would remain in the Portals of Eternity; with these, I respectfully submit my legal opinion not as Judge but an Senior Citizen of Commons, literally, as I am 67 years old, and I share the Wisdom of Commons creators' philosophy, very very sincerely yours, Judge Floro Judgefloro (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

File:09371jfSalamanca Neptune Street Kalayaan Avenue Hotels Makati Cityfvf 44.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!

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvert ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controversy ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Philippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)