User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 1

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.

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Ramon FVelasquez!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:Churchjf.JPG was uncategorized on 24 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Image:Mapbulacan2jf.JPG was uncategorized on 18 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Image:Parkmarianojf.JPG was uncategorized on 24 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Image:Plaridelbridgejf.JPG was uncategorized on 24 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Image:Maloloscathedral22jf.JPG was uncategorized on 30 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Image:Scphil999jf.JPG was uncategorized on 14 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Image:Scphil99jf.JPG was uncategorized on 14 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Image:Scphil98jf.JPG was uncategorized on 14 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Image:Maria1637jf.JPG was uncategorized on 15 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image:Din1607jf.JPG was uncategorized on 15 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Done

I added categories to the above, since I forgot to. Thanks.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. Probably, I forgot to add categories due to oversight, since I captured so many landmark images at Baler, Aurora, Philippines using a SONY Camera model DSC-T200, December 13-17, 2011.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG

File:Mlqmark2jf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mapbalerjf.jpg

File:Mapbalerjf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Churchbaler2jf.jpg

File:Churchbaler2jf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bayanbalerjf.jpg

File:Bayanbalerjf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Aurorahouse2jf.JPG

File:Aurorahouse2jf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Baler400jf.JPG

File:Baler400jf.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） ∙ +/−

Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I am new here, hence I respectfully submit to the discretion of older editors. --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ramon! We will be discussing the images in the respective deletion requests and see what the facts are. You are very welcome to participate.

Please do not take it as a attack against you - that is is not. :-)

Thank for your contributions here! And if you have questions I am happy to try to answer. --Saibo (Δ) 14:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A very prosperous new year to you! By way of rejoinder, actually, our Philippine copyright law is relatively new unlike our 1950 New Civil Code where rules on copyrights were thus amended. Government works are not protected but the law requires permission. The letter and spirit of the law on PHL copyright seems not to prohibit photography of church and building markers. For example, Courts and Government offices do have precious works like treasures; these are allowed to be copied or photographed with the permission of the museum caretakers. But markers, are not really within the ambit of the prohibition, since there is no wrong that could result from taking pictures of these markers. Anyway, we, as editors of an encyclopedia are not authorized to rule on these gray areas of law. For this reason, I, as new editor respectfully submit to the sound discretion of administrators regarding the deletion or keeping of these photos. Thanks.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your wishes, may the new year be a good one for you, too!

And thanks for your comments. You mention "treasures" - those are frequently not a problem since they are probably very old works (in the sense of copyright law) or no works (again by copyright laws) at all. However, the offices have a "right of the house" (or a similar thing) - so they can prohibit any photography in their premises.

Regarding "no wrong that could result from taking pictures of these markers": As you can read in Commons:FOP#Philippines there is e.g. a fair use exception in the PHL law - but fair use is not allowed on Commons. However, fair use certainly will apply if you take such pictures for your personal use. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, too. May I say that I began editing Commons here - English: The Church of Pulong, Buhangin, Santa Maria, Bulacan, Philippines, date 24 January 2010. I was advised to contribute my hobby or recreation pictures to this great encyclopaedia lately. I was told that uploading pictures in websites like blogger or facebook, etc. is only personal, while donating images to Commons is great since future generations like students will benefit from them. So, whenever I like to shoot, then, I spend time to edit commons, for I feel the urge to share my images to the new generation. I also found that images here are useless if not put into Wikipedia articles, for there, they are more viewed thereat by researchers. If you have time, therefore, please review my Wikipedia gallery contributions like Baler, Aurora, there since I found that you also have a page there and [1]. Commons is thus a meeting place between 2 editors from different parts of this planet. If you come to the Philippines, tour the most beautiful places I have shot with jpegs, like Baler, Aurora[2], etc. Peace and happiness this year!--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, nice story! :-) Yes, if you upload your (documentatory) photos at some private website they are likely to vanish at some point. Probably not so for the Commons images.

But I disagree that images have no use if they are not in Wikipedia. I think it is just important that your images are in the right categories. For example the Commons categories are often linked in the "external links" section of Wikipedia articles and people looking for photos will go to the Commons category. Example: de:Northeim#Weblinks. Another very useful thing is [COM:GEO|geocoding]] (but much more difficult than categories). Example: those or those photos - represented by Commons logos - have their photographer's position provided and can be easily spotted by looking at this map.

I have added the link to the Commons category now to en:Baler, Aurora and have added German and the coordinates at Category:Baler, Aurora.

Yes, I live in Germany - it is great to "meet" (and work together) with people from the other side of the planet here! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Verily, all of us live under stress, and editing in Commons is a best way not only to share wisdom of images, to meet editors to be friends in this great encyclopedia of knowledge, but more importantly to take off psychological and all kinds of stresses due to speed of time and routine; I have traveled all over the Philippines since 1992 and I found Baler, Aurora to be cool, quiet and serene: even if you just look at my images, you can be there, in Baler, Aurora, finding serenity not only in nature, but in the heart of the natives; practically there is no fast-food restaurant, no traffic aides and it is rare to find a police in there, as if time is frozen not only by the place, but by the images, more permanently. Cheers, too, and thanks for helping me as a starter in improving my Wikipedia articles inputs of gallery images.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2012 (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） ∙ +/−

ALE! ¿…? 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no opposition to the deletion

I apologize if I have uploaded the alien-related images. With good faith, however, I want Commons to be the first to view these. However, science today, cannot be satisfied with just the raw images, hence, I could not possible submit more proof, at this TIME. I am new here, and, so I respectfully submit to the mandate of the administrator, please delete all my alien-related uploads. There are images however, that are photographical orbs that may suffice the requirements of scope of Commons. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Apsjf.JPG

File:Apsjf.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I deeply understand that here in the Philippines, taking photos of portraits in Government or even in private schools, may not be permitted by laws, hence, there must be explicit permission from the authorities or owners, which is next to impossible, maybe. I respectfully submit to your sound discretion and implementation of the Commons rules. No opposition to the deletion. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2012 (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:

File:Apsjfa.JPG

And also:

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I deeply understand that here in the Philippines, taking photos of portraits in Government or even in private schools, may not be permitted by laws, hence, there must be explicit permission from the authorities or owners, which is next to impossible, maybe. I respectfully submit to your sound discretion and implementation of the Commons rules. No opposition to the deletion. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Rpapastaionjf.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 information 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 Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 08:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Done

I added the proper licensing or public domain grant from myself to all; I used the old upload, since the new beta upload failed often. Hence, I corrected and supplied the license template. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ffruizjf.JPG and File:Aruizjf.JPG

Hi Ramon FVelasquez, who is the sculptor of these statues? --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I took photos of these saints, inside the [3]Binondo Church, also known as Minor Basilica of St. Lorenzo Ruiz[4]; I found St. Jose Escriva alongside the other Saints images, while the main Patron Saint Lorenzo Ruiz, is at the Altar, and there is no indication of who the sculptor or owner is. I say that they were donated by one of the rich Chinese businessman in China town. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ramon, though both statues aren't really "high art", they may have to be considered as works of art and thereby copyrighted by their sculptor. I assume that both stautes are recent work and the sculptor still living. Regrettably, there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption in the copyright law of The Philippines. As I am not 100 percent sure whether the statues are copyrightable art or not, I will file one of the images for regular deletion (not speedy), which gives enough time to attract input and expertise from other users, which may help to avoid deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Túrelio. I am a new user here, even if I uploaded many photos, for photography is my passion. I would rather leave the decision on deletion to more experienced administrators and editors, especially on finer points of law. I respectfully submit, for the guidance of others, that: here in the Philippines, if the law is silent, ambiguous, or if the lawyer or client would like to be safe from legal cases, the correct procedure is to force the legal department of the Copyright office concerned, to issue in writing, a reply to a submitted query. Verbal submissions are not acceptable. Hence, it would be more prudent for Philippine administrators to file the necessary request or query on the matters of copyright law, for the future guide of Wikipedia Philippines. For these reasons, I would not participate in deletion discussions, for I might be subjective. I believe that if my uploads fall within ambit of the rules on deletion, I have no objection to their deletion. At any rate, I have contributed many photos and I am happy that most of them are retained for the future researchers. Cheers. --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Glasallejf.JPG

Hi Ramon FVelasquez, who is the sculptor of this statue and when was it created or installed? --Túrelio (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The same for File:Alasallejf.JPG and File:Avancenajf.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply

The truth of the matter, I just took the picture, since many students had been taking photos of these statues and there is no prohibition by the school on the matter. From the appearance, the statue is decades old, and is the property of the School, a private religious institution. I have no objection if they would be deleted, in view of the finer points of copyright law. Sincerely. --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Filenames

One other thing: I have seen that you haven chosen mostly meaningless filenames for your uploads. Please use descriptive filenames in the future. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Ffruizjf.JPG

File:Ffruizjf.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) 13:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive Reply

Republic Act No. 8293[5], on photographs of copyrighted works[6] has not been interpreted yet by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, nor by a lower court, as secondary authority. That being the case, the correct procedure, is: for any Wiki editor or lawyer to ask the legal department of the IPO., Sec. 6.1. The Office shall be headed by a Director General/The Bureau of Legal Affairs - for a legal answer to a legal query. That is how lawyers do it in Philippines, when questions of law or its alleged violation is involved. But, but and but, any opinion of the same office is subject to the opinion of the Department of Justice Secretary who is higher than all these. Ergo, I did photograph these works, on the assumption that the law does not prohibit much less penalize copying. One more point. Most of my photos, are pictures of statues or works that were sold to private persons, etc. So, there is no such thing as protection to any work sold or displayed in Churches or public places even if owned by the Government, by virtue of the law on sales and contracts. The spirit of the law, is to penalize thieves of works. Taking photos for Wikipedia which will benefit researchers, is not within the contemplation of the law. Only the Supreme Court of the Philiippines by virtue of its mandate under the 1987 Constitution, can say with finality what is and the meaning of a law, nobody or office can. Since there in none yet, the, I did photo the works sold or have no copyright what so ever.

- - - - Apology, and I stand corrected also, on my naming of photos. I will try to describe more fully the titles in due course. Thanks for the messages, sincerely and Respectfully submitted.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ramon, I would ask you to discuss this not on your talkpage, but at the deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ffruizjf.JPG. Also, please do not take a deletion request as a reproach against you. When we admins tag uploaded image for deletion due to suspected copyright violation, it is 1) to protect the intellectual property of the original artist or rights holder, and 2) to protect re-users of our image files from litigation for copyright violation by the rights holder. A situation as with your uploads happens quite often, as many people are simply not aware that works of art in public space may still be copyrighted.

As a short comment your "Comprehensive Reply": in nearly all countries of the world the copyright of a work of art belongs to the original artist for the duration of his/her life and a number of years thereafter (70 years in most countries, 50 years in some). If a country has no exemption from copyright for works located in public space, then the legal principle is to assume that the full copyright is also true for such works. --Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I respectfully stand corrected on my uploads, and I sincerely take the notice as a tool to let me learn more about uploading rules. Verily, due to stress, I often would not read the rules, leaving the matters to the better and older editors. Sincerely,--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Cayetanojf.JPG

File:Cayetanojf.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the message. I uploaded these photos, on good faith, since I asked the permission of the Supreme Court guards and authorities. In fact, Filipino journalists take picture of these daily, and I did so like them. Therefore, I respectfully submit to the better discretion of seniour editors here. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Abadjf.JPG

File:Abadjf.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the message. I uploaded these photos, on good faith, since I asked the permission of the Supreme Court guards and authorities. In fact, Filipino journalists take picture of these daily, and I did so like them. Therefore, I respectfully submit to the better discretion of seniour editors here. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2012 (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:

File:911 unknown object sanrafaeljf25.JPG

And also:

Response

Thanks for the message. I uploaded these photos, which were taken all in flash. But I was assisted by a known photographer here for 40 years who also took pictures but failed to catch the lights. Hence, in good faith, I uploaded these, which I placed in many categories. I submit that most of them can be placed under photographical orbs,and I may stand corrected when I say aliens or UFOs, for lack of scientific proof. However, these photos can be treated as exceptionally high art in view of the photographer's advise to me. At any rate, may I quote the template: "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." Therefore, I respectfully submit to the better discretion of seniour editors here. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ramon, as said on my talk page - please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ramon FVelasquez. Best --Saibo (Δ ∇) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the late reply. I just took a vacation. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

File:UPmanila333jf.JPG

File:UPmanila333jf.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） ∙ +/−

84.61.167.13 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I have no objection to its deletion, if the more experienced editors or admins. decide in accordance with Wikipedia laws. I am new here. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG

File:Smbaliuagjf243.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message. I respectfully submit to the discretion of editors and administrators on the matter. --Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Greenblelt5.JPG

File:Greenblelt5.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the message. I again respectfully submit to the sound discretion of the older editors on the matter of deletion, as I register no objection. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Smmarilaojf.JPG

File:Smmarilaojf.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the message. I again respectfully submit to the sound discretion of the older editors on the matter of deletion, as I register no objection. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Penshoppejf.JPG

File:Penshoppejf.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) 07:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Acasarealjf.JPG

Hi Ramon, who is the painter who created the shown painting and when did he live? --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message. Before I took these pictures, the public sign of this Philippine museum, stated that picture-taking is allowed. Hence, there is actual waiver of any right on copyright. The exception is if the photo is used for commercial purposes. This photo, if you zoom the picture, was made by High School students, about 13-16 years of age about 1996 more or less. It is amateur images. Thanks and Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Baliuagjf1656 06.JPG, File:Baliuagjf1656 04.JPG and File:Baliuagjf1656 08.JPG, File:Baliuagjf1656 05.JPG

Hi Ramon, sculptor and year of installation are missing? --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Túrelio. I just took a photo of these very old stone monuments Mariano Ponce[7] of Baliuag, Bulacan[8], as I ate nearby at Lin-Mers resto. I examined the markers, and it appears written in Tagalog, the Ponce statue was made by moneys of poor school Teachers, since the Mariano Ponce High School nearby has more than 20,ooo students and lots of teachers. It appears it is so aged, about 50 years ago, no exact date. The same with the monument of Andres Bonifacio[9], it is so old. These were built by past municipal administrations, long ago, we do not know the dates. They were not aware, and no NHI markers. I respectfully submit to your sound discretion, for I am not sure of the dates. Regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Manigong Bagong Taon sa Iyo!

You know, I am always asking for these data to evaluate whether photos of these sculpture/monuments might violate the copyright of the sculptor, as regrettably there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption (from copyright) in the Philippines. As per your above description, I assume these sculptures were built by non-notable or even today unknown sculptors. As a general note, please always put all available information about the sculptor and the year of installation into the description. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also. I take and took great care, now, after uploading some pics since 2010 to take picture of the "markers", especially Philippine National Historical Markers by our National Museum and NCCA. Some, I say, only some of our Churches, town halls and sculptures do have, say, about 10%, have dates from markers, but the rest, they are made by amateurs, hence, unmindful of the law. Usually politicians spend less money for these. In the Mariano Ponce and Bonifacio monuments, you will notice that they were very poorly done, even the paint is low class. The poor teachers donated the moneys. Even in our Supreme Court, it is very rare to find dates of markers, since most of the sculptures were made during the old days. The metal markers often do not have dates. What I notice is: dates often appear only at our NHI markers, usually below or even above. I have lengthily shared my views on Copyright with an editor[10], regarding copyright rules in editing Wikipedia.[11]. And even if many Filipino editors just copy paste many works, hiding the URLs, in creating Town articles, I took pains to use my own words, so as not to violate copyright laws. After November 2012, I carefully wrote the towns and added the hide and show images per templates rather than gallery.[12]. I also learned the art of photography: to take as many photos of angles of a church or town, for who knows, what photo may win the Picture of the Day. Cheers and thanks for your visit.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Arayat3322.JPG

The file was lost due to an server bug. Recovering is very expensive or even impossible. Please reupload this image if the source is still accessible to you. Yours sincerely McZusatz (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I will try to locate my old USB file to re-upload later this image. Regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, McZusatz, good evening. I opened my 4 USB, but I failed to locate the photo. I think but I am not sure if I still have the file in my other ancestral home many miles away. However, the 2 photos here of Arayat Town Hall and part of it, the right side, the Police station, are practically better if not superior to the bugged image. I was starting Wikipedia Commons photography last May 18, 2012 when I took photo of Arayat, Pampanga. And it is very sad that I took only very few pictures, not mindful of the importance of shooting as many photos, the many angles of the town and landmarks. Hence, today, when I shoot a town, I usually take not less than 50 photos, for security reasons of the treasure-photos of the past and culture of the place. It is very expensive to travel and time is more expensive when I shoot a town. I had to carefully take photos of the subject, waiting for the sun, no person thereat, and the many angles. For this reason, I found the hide and show template of inserting in Wikipedia articles my photos, leaving the editing and trimming of the same to more seasoned editors. But, but and but, most of my photos are treasures, meaning, very rare photos of towns that very very few articles do have them especially in Philippine articles in Wikipedia. I will try to come back to Arayat, Pampanga and shoot more in time and due course. Let me stress that the Town hall is very very dirty and dilapidated. So, I took less photos, and concentrated on the landmark Grotto, only to find later on that Arayat is so large, it is one of the biggest in Pampanga, and the majestic Arayat mountain is so fascinating, just that my photo is clouded. Many of Philippine and world readers of Wikipedia articles are not internet savvy, hence, photos must be very many (so I used the hide and show templates), so that one might not say that my Wikipedia inserting of photos is overdone, for the wisdom of Jimbo Wales in having the digital show and hide template enables readers to view more photos they need for research and at the same time, not distracting them from reading the paragraphs of the articles. My Wikipedia articles insertion of photos use the hide and seek template with very many images inside the gallery for security reason of the photos.[13] I will message you as soon as I get the Arayat or retrieve my USB miles away from my place now.

Here are my uploaded Arayat photos[14] vis-a-vis my more that 5,000 photos, here,[15]: at any rate, these 2 photos of the Town hall may be used, and I submit that they are more representative of the Town hall than the bugged one. -[16]10:44, 21 May 2012[17]10:44, 21 May 2012 Arayat Town Hall. Thanks and regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have your talk page on my watch list. --McZusatz (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Good morning McZusatz. Luckily my lost photo was uploaded or copied in a public site, so I downloaded the same and uploaded them again here.:: [18] - I uploaded all the retrieved photos, including the bugged or lost image of File:Arayat3322.JPG[19] the Arayat Town Hall, here:[20] Thanks and cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to see File:Arayat3322.JPG there are only the two lost versions. Did you upload the file under some new name? --McZusatz (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi McZusatz, I have no copy of File:Arayat3322.JPG (taken 10:45, 21 May 2012) and I cannot view it, so I am not sure which of the pictures is File:Arayat3322.JPG. However, since I put the description "Town Hall" (meaning the seat of political Government in all Philippine towns) therefore, one of the following just uploaded pictures today January 6, 2013, should be the bugged photo: Arayat Town hall photos, January 6, 2013:[21], this one also[22], or the Town Hall Office of the Mayor.[23] I used the Sony 2008 high end camera during those times, specifically on 18, 21 May 2012 when took these photos of Arayat Town Hall and other landmarks. Temporarily, I found uploaded photos of these pictures of mine in the internet, therefore, the photo details did not appear, the time, date and metadetails. However, if I can locate my original USB file in the future, I will forthwith upload the same. I could not use the same file name as the bugged one, since I am not sure which of the photos is the bugged one replaced. Alternatively, I can also re-take the photos, by going to the Town Hall in the future, if needed. Thanks and regards, sincerely,--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Preseclection of images

Hello!

Thank you for your willingness of releasing photographs by you under free licenses on Commons. But there are some image of you which are of substandard quality due to its chosen composition or because of a subotimal catch of the motive - for instance this one: File:SanMatiasParishChurchjf2427 08.JPG. As such, please look over your photographs you want to upload in order to check which ones are the best and upload only those.

Would be a great support if you do so!

Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise, visiting my page and your message. Let me explain, that, this 1962 Church, is so notable; but I had a great difficulty of taking pictures of the facade, the exterior, since there are lots of electric, telephone and other wires surrounding the church; further, this photo is "the" very few of the many I took, which has the sun on it, and less wires, the bell tower or belfry. In short, the exterior facade is so messy, including the fact that there are buildings or edifices blocking the exterior. Furthermore, when I began taking photos in 2010, I committed a great and expensive mistake of taking only about 10 pictures of landmark cultural treasures of Philippines. I found the idea of taking lots of angles of the town, church or edifice, that is so notable: since, in one instance, a Commons Picture of the Day (an angel sculpture) won; second, it is very expensive to travel to these places, hence, I would leave to more learned or senior editors and administrators which of my photos should be deleted or taken off; I apologize for not examining deeply the picture, but in most cases, before I upload I try to take off duplicates, bad photos or those redundant. I came back here in Santo Tomas and Minalin Pampanga since I shot last November, because, I failed to take photos of the 400 year old mural that was recently restored. I was misled by a Wikipedia edit which stated that the mural was inside the Church; but it was outside, that is in the convent. Hence, in returning thereat, I took pictures of this remarkable 1962 Church, as side trip, but as I said, the exterior is so messy, and hard to shoot which angles would really depict the grandeur of the modest edifice. Cheers, sincerely and best wishes!--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So which advantage do you see to have those [24] [25] nearly identical images on Commons? Upload the best one of them and put the other one on flickr and link it as a different version on the Commons file. --High Contrast (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and advise. I apologize for my indiscretion or judgment on the photos. Let me explain, that we are having problem with Philippines internet, the speed. When I take pictures of towns and landmarks, it is very very expensive ... hence, instead of taking few photos, I take many, but, I try to take the best of the town or place, landmarks, so to speak. Specifically, it is very stressful to upload 10 images, taking more than 1 hour, due to its big, but very beautiful file, that is, about 4,600 x 3,6000 size. Like today, I shot about 400 images of this fantastic town, Gabaldon, it is so beautiful, the mountains and the river, etc. It is hard to describe, the beauty. But it will take more than 24 hours to upload these, here in Philippines. I am an amateur photographer but I try my best. Actually, I do not use flickr since, the photos are are re-sized. Best regards and wishes and again, apology for my mistakes. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, the internet in the Philippines is quite slow. As such my adivce would perfectly fit: upload only one image of some structure of that beautiful town instead of 10 images of the same structure of that beautiful town. It would really help you in regards of this small internet. Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, High Contrast, thanks for your rejoinder. What happens is this: a) in Pangasinan before December 4, 2012, for 3 weeks, it took me from 11 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. to upload the photos. I had to use 2 computers, since the memory is very low. Added burden is the state of Internet providers' speed distribution because of alleged earthquake damages of fiber optics in Taiwan, inter alia of their system since 2006 and 2010. Now, after I sleep and wake at 10 a.m. to avoid stress, I travel to the specific towns arriving thereat about 3 p.m. I could only take photos until sunset there about 5:30 p.m.; b) the expenses of travel, etc. are enormous, but the town photography is priceless. 99% of my taken photos are original, only mine, and I solely upload and donate to Wikipedia for reasons of safety, posterity and education of researchers. I love photography: c) the sun upon the object, and d) Nikon underwater shockproof AW100 after I used Sony 2008 high end last 2012. If you peruse my photos of towns, I and only I was able to capture the insides of Session Halls, Mayor's Offices, Courts, Sanctuaries of 1600 to old old old landmark churches, the Icons. I waited for time, when persons or things are out of the subject, and if you notice, most of my photos are without persons and under the sun. This is my philosophy of photography: the most expensive Nikon or Canon cannot in any manner defeat a photo under the beautiful sun and the subject is so clean of dirt, garbage and of any unwanted person, so quiet so to speak. It breathes. But, veteran editors would love to insert images of my photos in Wikipedia where there are pestering dogs and drivers around. I believe, they love photos that are animated by animals and persons in downtown, streets, etc. So, I beg your indulgence to understand my difficult stress-laden situation, in the light of the tremendous expense in capturing a golden, historic town with scenic structures and bloody sunsets. When I first began to upload here continuously, starting from Baler, Aurora, 2011-12, I failed to take photos of very important structures and subjects, since I was just on pleasure travel. In one week with huge expense, dollars, or Pesos, I only captured 10% of the towns. Hence, I began to focus on numbers of images. The problem arises when it is about 1:00 a.m. to 3:00, like last night, I uploaded only 100+ images of the most beautiful Sierra Madre Mountains in Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija, its river, and Laur. The internet began to slow, since I use shared computers. Some would download thereby slowing the net uploading in Commons. In my eyes, 3 Dimension, Gabaldon, Laur, and Rizal, and all the towns and churches, landmarks sites and structures are so priceless, original therefore with meta details in the Commons. Rest assured that I will try my best to pre-select carefully the images to avoid duplicate or redundant images. Best regards and I deeply appreciate your devotion to make Commons a better seat of wisdom for permanence to our and your educators, researchers and tourists. If you have time, come and visit the Philippines: you will find that the most remote towns, barangays, even if the Wikipedia stub geo articles are bare, still my photos are evidence of the highest character, that South America and Philippines, with all due respect, are on top, the most beautiful in the world. I respectfully apologize again. Thanks.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So, do you now plan to do a preselection? --High Contrast (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for sure, I will try my best to judge which photos or images should be uploaded to Commons and the rest be considered as redundant or duplicates of same structure or object. Please notify me, regarding my discretion in preselection or final selection of images to be uploaded vis-a-vis the circumstances of the time, place and importance of the landmark places or beautiful scenery, including historical sites. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support! Best regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome and I deeply appreciate your viewing of my images. Actually I tried 10 times to be in this most beautiful town of Gabaldon, but, the cloudy weather and 5 hours trip bothered me. But, yesterday, the glorious sun cooperated, and I believe, I possess the best sunny weather photos of these rarest Philippine tourist spots that are virgin, unspoiled, hard to reach, and overwhelming. So, I created these 3 categories, among others, Dupinga River[26], Category:Stone 8 Resort and Recreation[27], and Category:Sierra Madre (Philippines)[28] of Laur Nueva Ecija and Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija[29]. In my future uploads, starting now, I am and will be trying my best to edit, trim and cut the number of photos without sacrificing the wealth behind these rarest photos. Thanks again, and sincere apology for my bad photo uploads. Best wishes!--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your categorization and upload efforts! I hope to see more of your delightful contributions. Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It warms my heart and fulfills my spirit, when you, from the other side of this planet, would gaze at Beautiful Philippines. Let me humbly stress, that there is no Filipino who traveled to the entire Province. Take for example, a resident of Bulacan or Nueva Ecija. All of them do age and die without even visiting all the 28 towns of the Province. I did like no one. And I want everyone to discover, that, penetrating the - inner sanctum of Town Session Halls, Mayor's Offices, Sanctuaries of Historic Churches, including the Golden and bloody sunsets, plus, the rivers, bridges, the mountain ranges, all these - when shot under the full sun, without persons, without dirt and garbage, and with big images, full resolution of Nikon, or Sony high end - solely for Wikipedia Commons and never uploaded to any website - truly become the best evidence, that Commons is supreme over all advertisement and commercial sites. Let me share with you, however, the pains of photography: in my 12,000 photos, 3 persons touched my heart. When I was about to leave the luxury resort of Category:Valley Breeze Resort[30], the manager told me that the owner is ailing. I talked to her, about the beauty of Gabaldon, the most beautiful ever and she confided to me that she has Stage 3 Cancer. And I took the photo of these 3 persons, as I never did before. She is notable, for she is very wealthy. But I cannot put her name here to satisfy the requirements of notability. I want her to be private.[31] The resort is a mountain resort, and this is rare, since Resorts in the Philippines are mostly in the plain or elsewhere. I believe in destiny, I did not object to the deletion, since, my faith compels me to have her image erased, maybe, forever, due to her sufferings. For this reason, you and I, from opposite parts of this planet, came to know each other, and the pains of this owner of the resort, amid the extreme beauty and mysticism of this Town. May Commons be the best place for us, best wishes for you and your family, Cheers!--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For your interest: We have a centralized image request site where images are listed which are needed on any Wikipedia/Wikimedia-article: see here Commons:Picture requests, eventually here Commons:Picture_requests#Philippines. Kindest regards, High Contrast (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a great honor to be informed of this, even if I am only an amateur photographer (my Nikon AW100 and previous Sony 2008). I will try my best to capture the requested images in Philippines, in time. Best wishes!--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines headquarters 16 images:Done, partially

About 2:00 a.m., or 16:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC) - I received the message from Commons Adminstrator High Contrast; Commons:Picture_requests#Philippines (Commons:Picture requests): *** Philippine Airlines headquarters - PNB Financial Center Pres. Diosdado Macapagal Avenue CCP Complex, Pasay City WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2011 *** Spirit of Manila Airlines headquarters - Roxas Sea Front Garden, Roxas Boulevard corner Ortigas Street Pasay City, 1300, Philippines WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2011[32]
3:15 - 3:42 pm Saturday, March 2, 2013, Philippines time, I rode and was at the [33]5th Avenue LRT Station[34] and then at [35]Gil Puyat LRT Station[36] en route to the site: General Headquarters: Philippine Airlines
4:35-4:40 p.m. I finished photography of the subject requested. The PNB other offices are located in the 3rd and 5th floor of the building, PNB, but they are for refunds and other matters. I could not go inside, they are closed at 12 noon. However, I submit that the requested photo of the PAL general headquarters is that in my photo, the facade and main office, on the ground floor. Respectfully submitted, Done, even partially.[37]
Notes: Since it is Saturday afternoon, the offices are closed and I was able to take picture of facade, which is most important. a) I failed to take picture of the requested Spirit of Manila Airlines headquarters - Roxas Sea Front Garden, Roxas Boulevard corner Ortigas Street Pasay City - for this reason: when I arrived at the site, 3 guards told me that the Airlines has no more office thereat. I opened the website last night and it shows that it closed before 2012 and opened on 2012. But when I called its Manila phone, it is not working. Roxas Sea Front Garden, as I saw it and was told, is a real estate subdivision.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Again: Why did you decide to upload these two images: [38] and [39]? They are of minor difference and redundant. It would have been better to upload only one version instead of two identical ones. --High Contrast (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake or rather, indiscretion. The Welcome Arch is the most important landmark of the town, and I was lucky to have it under full sun, the weather cooperated. There was an obstruction, thereat, a jeep with unwanted person blocking the view. Hence, I had to move right, so as not to take photo of the blocking vehicle and person, including garbage. For this reason, I wanted to get a perfect shot. However, I wanted to make sure, that I get the perfect shot, resulting however, in redundancy. Apology for this photographic uploading indiscretion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. odder (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the special privilege. Regards and best wishes.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:St.VincentFerrerParishChurchjf2285 01.JPG

File:St.VincentFerrerParishChurchjf2285 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.)

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） ∙ +/−

Ralgis^talk 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and notice. I explained my photography on the talk page.[40] And with all due respect, I have no objection to the deletion, submitting the matter to the sound discretion of the Commons administrators. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Greenbeltjf8.JPG

File:Greenbeltjf8.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection to the deletion. Regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Glorietajf.JPG

File:Glorietajf.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection to the deletion. Respectfully submitted. Regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:RobinsonsPulilan.jpg

File:RobinsonsPulilan.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） ∙ +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection to the deletion. Respectfully submitted. Regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Aliaga, Nueva Ecija jf4970 07.JPG

File:Aliaga, Nueva Ecija jf4970 07.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） ∙ +/−

Morning ☼ (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually, I took a photo of this, so that, if asked, I would be able to cite reference on the elected officials of Aliaga. As of now, the town has no website, and still is developing. It is a tarpaulin advertisement on the front of the town hall. Note that the May, 2013 elections there and in the whole Philippines is so hot. Hence, tarpaulin mess of candidates advertisements are proliferating like mushrooms in the place. Respectfully submitted, no objection to the deletion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:BalangaBataanjf2836 12.JPG

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:BalangaBataanjf2836 12.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:BalangaBataanjf2836 12.JPG]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

P199 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. This is a photo of a framed map displayed inside the Office of the Governor of Balanga. Before I took a photo of this, I asked the executive secretary of the Governor of Balanga for permission to take pictures of the Office, etc. She and other staff asked me to take a photo of the big map and this one. I told them that I will just take photo of this one since the big map is not of Balanga but of all the Philippines. The map and the frame is their property and the permission is verbal. At any rate, I have no objection to the deletion, and I respectfully submit to sound discretion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:BalangaBataanjf2836 11.JPG

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:BalangaBataanjf2836 11.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:BalangaBataanjf2836 11.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

P199 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. This is a photo of a framed map displayed inside the Office of the Governor of Balanga. Before I took a photo of this, I asked the executive secretary of the Governor of Balanga for permission to take pictures of the Office, etc. She and other staff asked me to take a photo of the big map and this one. I told them that I will just take photo of this one since the big map is not of Balanga but of all the Philippines. The map and the frame is their property and the permission is verbal. At any rate, I have no objection to the deletion, and I respectfully submit to sound discretion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Gabaldon,NuevaEcijajf9366 15.JPG

File:Gabaldon,NuevaEcijajf9366 15.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） ∙ +/−

Morning ☼ (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection to the deletion. I did not describe the persons in the photo due security reasons. I uploaded the photo since the Owner of the landmark resort is in there. As 4th class very poor Municipality, a) the luxury resort is income generating for this poor town and gives jobs to poor resident; b) also, it is very rare in Tourism of the Philippines, that a mountain resort is in the middle of the town or at its centre, and c) the mineral springs of the pools came from the mountains. There is a great gap between rich and poor here. And for this reason, I would not like to put their names to protect their persons from ... At any rate, and with all due respect, I have no objection to the deletion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:ChurchofTondojf1245 08.JPG

File:ChurchofTondojf1245 08.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） ∙ +/−

McZusatz (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. This is a calendar of the Church that serves as verifiable link for facts about the priests, etc. :No objection to the deletion, since copyright might require express permission, Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:ResortsWorldManilajfjf9934 01.JPG

File:ResortsWorldManilajfjf9934 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.)

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） ∙ +/−

Jespinos (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No objection to the deletion. May I please note, with due respect, that, before I took the picture, I asked permission, and many children and even old persons lined up to sit there and take facebook photos. The owners of the Mall or Resort-Casino do own the subject or object, and I presume they bought that from the owners. At any rate, I respectfully submit, without objection to the deletion.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi Ramon, you cannot take other people's images and upload them as "own work" as you did with File:St.MichaeltheArchangelParishChurchofOrionjf 05.jpg, which is taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/29581730@N05/6999939632/ (unless of course you are the same person as Flickr user dy3bdr, but I don't think so). If other editors find more images taken from other websites among your uploads, then all your images may be deleted as a precautionary measure (COM:PRP). Every time you upload an image, there are clear instructions what is acceptable to upload and what isn't. An experienced Commons user like you should know this. --P199 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection to the deletion. And with all due respect, I rarely (with my 17,000+ edits) get photos from other sites or internet. Here, at midnight until 4 a.m. the internet slows down, and I test the speed uploading pictures from free sites (those pics from flicker, etc.), instead of using the slower speedtests. Now, the Commons uploader wizzard and the ordinary has flicker uploader. Hence, I ponder that I could use the same which is faster than the speed test. As you and editors notice, I took pains in taking photos of towns, churches and landmarks from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. when the sun still is. Then I upload about 20 pictures in 1 1/2 hour due to our slow internet. I rest at 5 a.m. and wake at 11 a.m., travel to the Bataan, Pampanga, Bulacan, La Union, Pangasinan, Aurora, and not Metro Manila Wikipedia Church articles on churches and landmarks. And I solely upload these hard-earned images to Commons for Wikipedia stubs articles. I understand that there are free flickr images, and we have as I said the flicker uploader here. In fine, I have no objection to the deletion. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most images on Flickr are NOT free, read Commons:Flickr files. --P199 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Rotating images

Please rotate those images you upload which are not aligned properly. It saves time, because otherwise someone else needs to rotate them, and for you it will be a matter of just a few clicks. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will, once this Philippine internet becomes average fast. It is quite slow now and often. Cheers.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are uploading pictures off some Web server, yes, this will be a problem (and naturally Internet speed will be a factor). I was hoping you were transferring the photos from your local computer, where the rotation process would just be natural. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I have already rotated. Actually, there was a problem from time to time in Internet here in Philippines since this week and even when I was in Pangasinan last year until December 4. Especially last night until this morning, I was able to upload only about 10 images in 2 hours. Now it is intermittent, slow, then fast. Our PLDT provider's cable in Taiwan was reportedly damages from 2006 and 2010. Now they are distributing to internet users. [Actually, I personally take the pictures using a memory card in my Nikon, then put it into a card reader then put the same in the internet, copy paste in local disc D or my documents. Then, I upload using this Commons Upload Wizzard. In the average, about 20 images per hour. Hence, after taking photos from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., I travel home,then start uploading about 10 pm to 4 a.m. It is quite stressful. But worth the time and expense, since, I love photography of landmark places and sites. Note further, that I am not very updated with the intricacies of Internet and Computer, hence I ask aid from internet employees here. I do not buy personal laptops or computers, since they are slow. I only pay here in Internet shops, shared computers. Best regards.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You can also use Help:RotateLink. This is fast and easy and does not require action to be taken on your computer. --McZusatz (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I see you already found this feature. --McZusatz (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advise and help. Even now, I still, am not yet so familiar with the technicalities and machines of Commons. I rarely rotate my images, except ones which I insert in Wikipedia. I found the some administrators and very good editors rotate my images in time. Actually, when I upload my images here in Philippines, I use 2 computers (shared ones in shops, and the average speed is rather slow compared to Italy and other developed countries. So, it takes about less than 2 hours for 20 images to uploaded except when I find a faster one. When I open a link in new window to rotate the images I uploaded it would affect the speed and Google chrome would often crash. Therefore, when I finished uploading for the day or days, editors would have rotated. In the future, I will try my best to rotate the images as soon as our paid computers would allow me. Best regards, and thanks for your help.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 1

Tip: Categorizing images

Done

Thanks

Thanks for the message

Notification about possible deletion

Thanks, I have no opposition to the deletion

Thanks for the message

Notification about possible deletion

Thanks for the message

Done

File:Ffruizjf.JPG and File:Aruizjf.JPG

Reply

Filenames

Comprehensive Reply

Response

Response

Notification about possible deletion

Response

Reply

Reply

Thanks

Reply

File:Baliuagjf1656 06.JPG, File:Baliuagjf1656 04.JPG and File:Baliuagjf1656 08.JPG, File:Baliuagjf1656 05.JPG

Preseclection of images

Philippine Airlines headquarters 16 images:Done, partially

Autopatrol given

File source is not properly indicated: File:BalangaBataanjf2836 12.JPG

File tagging File:BalangaBataanjf2836 11.JPG

Copyright violations

Rotating images

Navigation menu

Search