User talk:Judgefloro

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


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

Welcome to the Commons, Judgefloro!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

SieBot 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, it is great to be here since any picture we upload would be of benefit to humankind for the future and research. Sorry for this late reply, I did not notice this, too busy.

--Judgefloro 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Image:Judgefloro.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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

Size of this preview: 392 by 600 pixels Public domain

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Image:Panlilio cash.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The same for

--GeorgHHtalk   17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Sir, with all due respect, the pictures:

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

The Philippines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sincerely,

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


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

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

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

Image:Panlilio cash.jpg[edit]

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


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

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

Image:Philippine eaglet.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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

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

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

Images from the Supreme Court Website[edit]

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

Newspapers[edit]

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

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

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

Your uploads[edit]

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


Reply 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flicker photo[edit]

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

Image:Meycauayan Church old.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | français | galego | עברית | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


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

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

Explanation[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

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


Reply:

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

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

Notice[edit]

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

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

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


Image:Floro poron gray.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

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

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


Image:Floro July 7years.JPG[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

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


Image:Filipino_dwarfs_floro.jpg[edit]

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

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

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

Your photos[edit]

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


Image:Florentino floro papers DSC 3314.JPG[edit]

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

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


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

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

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

Pictures of the Philippines[edit]

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

Merry Christmas, Sir[edit]

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

Your userpage[edit]

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

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


All your images[edit]

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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


File:Florentino_Estrada_Oaths.jpg[edit]

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

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

I am temporarily back from vacation[edit]

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

File:FvfSVS0126 11.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfSVS0126 11.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

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

Balara Filters Park (Nature And Wildlife)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrity[edit]

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

autopatroller[edit]

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

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

File:FvfSablanBenguet0362 06.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfSablanBenguet0362 06.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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


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

IPO Letter FoP[edit]

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

IPO Letter FoP

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

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

Name cat[edit]

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

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

File:FvfIntramurosChurch2851 04.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfIntramurosChurch2851 04.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

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

Welcome arches-signs on Philippine roads[edit]

Hi Judgefloro,

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

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

'Bridges in Bulacan' and 'Road bridges in Bulacan'[edit]

Hi Judge or Ramon,

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


Hello Briarfallen,

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

Checking the names of places and rivers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

File:FvfBulacan9999 17.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfBulacan9999 17.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

LGA talkedits 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

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

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

Categories divided into provinces[edit]

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

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

Copyright status: File:FvfTarlac0158 43.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfTarlac0158 43.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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

Copyright status: File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 32.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 32.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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

Copyright status: File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 33.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 33.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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

Copyright status: File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 34.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:FvfMalacanangMuseum0040 34.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

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

Replies[edit]

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

Proper categorization.[edit]

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

Category cycling[edit]

Please also follow the hierarchy rule regarding categories to prevent the "cycling" of categories (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)., which is a no-no per Commons:Category#Principles. Like what you did on the Category:Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Category:ECJ Building (Intramuros). You put Eduardo as a category of ECJ building and vice versa, thereby creating a loop. Eduardo Cojaungco is the main root category as he owns ECJ. This is not the only instance that I find you cycling categories. So please refrain from doing it as it is the rule of Commons. Thanks. - Briarfallen (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Replies and request for some help[edit]

Thanks Briarfallen: first of all, these days, I have had some problems with checking the blurry photos, I am trying my best; to be clear, there are some photos that I take in moving vehicles for vantage position but when I open them zoom them, some are blurry; if you have time, please put the template delete for I need time to upload a new version as I plan later; second, I verily appreciate your great efforts in the putting of my photos for people to easily find them; in the course, I make some mistakes; I deeply understand how you feel; as you see, I learned a lot from your and P199 when I now put just One category per photo; however, in the creating of categories there are times that I make mistakes, hence, bear with me; I ponder also just I think you and others advise, that I would not create new categories, but just put them in the general category instead of sub-categories; however, the photos really should be there for easy finding; I will try my best with your kind help; in sum, like in churches, I found your categorizing very useful hence I follow the pattern; in fine, I would rather let you and expert editors add or create the finer points of putting my photos in sub-categories. Thanks a lot.--Judgefloro (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfPulilanP9104 16.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfPulilanP9104 16.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Saqib (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. No objection to the deletion with all due respect. Regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfSantan0726 05.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfSantan0726 05.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ies (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

File:FvfSantan0726 04.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:FvfSantan0726 04.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ies (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology, I failed to have checked this image and/or selected the wrong filed. Please delete. Thanks.--Judgefloro (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:UFO_sightings_in_the_Philippines_(San_Roque,_Paombong,_Bulacan)[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:UFO_sightings_in_the_Philippines_(San_Roque,_Paombong,_Bulacan) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

P 1 9 9   17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:UFO_sightings_in_the_Philippines[edit]

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

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

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


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

P 1 9 9   17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

File:JfUFODSC05347SanRafaelBulacanfvf.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:JfUFODSC05347SanRafaelBulacanfvf.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no objection to the deletion: I have captured several angles of the facade of this notable Chapel of Saint Roch and I failed to find any round circling UFO or anything in the other photos; since I believe that Commons must be supported by objectivity to the extent that evidence of UFO photos must be supported by hard evidence, I have no objection to any deletion; In Time, however, We hope that a better and objective UFO can be seen and uploaded, Best regards.--Judgefloro (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

File:JfCholHills6935BoholCarmenfvf 08.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:JfCholHills6935BoholCarmenfvf 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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection. Actually, I was invited to shoot and visit this Bohol, but I refused for busy reasons; therefore, I asked my relatives to instead donate to me Inter Vivos and for my own personal property Unconditional these photos as my own work, whereby we agreed that I commissioned them with full details of instructions; No objection to the deletion, with all due respect; one more thing, may I request thee to put the proper name of the Churches thereat, for my relatives did not bother to take the names of the heritage Churches. Thanks so much for your guidance, help and improvement of my photos, I stand corrected. Magandang Gabi po. Salamat po.--Judgefloro (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JfBoholChocolateHills18jpg.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:JfBoholChocolateHills18jpg.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JfBohol76873ProvinceHillsfvf 25.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:JfBohol76873ProvinceHillsfvf 25.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   16:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection. Actually, I was invited to shoot and visit this Bohol, but I refused for busy reasons; therefore, I asked my relatives to instead donate to me Inter Vivos and for my own personal property Unconditional these photos as my own work, whereby we agreed that I commissioned them with full details of instructions; No objection to the deletion, with all due respect; one more thing, may I request thee to put the proper name of the Churches thereat, for my relatives did not bother to take the names of the heritage Churches. Thanks so much for your guidance, help and improvement of my photos, I stand corrected. Magandang Gabi po. Salamat po.----Judgefloro (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

File:JfBoholChocolateHills13jpg.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:JfBoholChocolateHills13jpg.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 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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

P 1 9 9   13:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have no objection. Actually, I was invited to shoot and visit this Bohol, but I refused for busy reasons; therefore, I asked my relatives to instead donate to me Inter Vivos and for my own personal property Unconditional these photos as my own work, whereby we agreed that I commissioned them with full details of instructions; No objection to the deletion, with all due respect; one more thing, may I request thee to put the proper name of the Churches thereat, for my relatives did not bother to take the names of the heritage Churches. Thanks so much for your guidance, help and improvement of my photos, I stand corrected. Magandang Gabi po. Salamat po.----

I already found that the Categories of the photos of Bohol I uupload are -- Baclayon Church in Baclayon, Bohol and the South Palms Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol including some photos of Tagbilaran City; in due course and time, I desire to put them there in the photos. Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta categories and others[edit]

Please do not categorize your pictures or another category on Meta categories, in other words category titles that end in "by country" or "by province", etc... Like what you did on the category Category:9th President, Sr. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC, Solemn Investiture, you placed them on the following categories: Category:Presidents of universities and colleges by country and Category:Ceremonies by country. This is not the first time you have done this, but I must let you know if you are not aware of it. You should not just leave them there. This would have not happened if you check the categories after you place anything there, if it's an appropriate category. Why would you place Category:9th President, Sr. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC, Solemn Investiture on the category Category:Presidents of universities and colleges by country??? The solemn investiture is a ceremony not a president!! User:P199 have already told you about this when making new categories when you were editing as User:Ramon FVelasquez. And please don't deny that you are not him. Your actions are pretty tell us you are the same person. Wikipedia and Commons is very transparent, you cannot hide anything here. (Like you have been banned before under different names.)

You also put these new categories Category:Sr. Ma. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC and Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC on Category:Presidents of universities and colleges by country. You do not even check if they are appropriate in the category (Because if you did, you would immediately see that they belong there.). Please check Category:Presidents of universities and colleges by country and see if they belong there. I won't be correcting anymore of your mistakes, I will post them here next time so you can make the corrections yourself. If you want to be a Commons editor, please don't be lazy. Make the category "Presidents of universities and colleges in the Philippines" yourself. Don't pass the work to other editors. All of us are volunteers here and have other important things to do than be a fix the problems you created. You have made categories before. You have been editing longer that me. If your cannot categorize them correctly, please do not upload them. And please stop OVER-CATEGORIZING!! I have told you several times before to stop that practice. You are trying to put your pictures in as much categories as possible. Sometimes even in categories where they don't belong.

And then you started making unnecessary categories just so you can put your files in as much categories as possible, not following Commons:Categories when to make a new category... You created Category:Sr. Ma. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC and Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC, what are their credentials? There are no Wikipedia articles about them. Are they notable enough to be included here? And the pictures you put in the categories are the same pictures from Category:St. Paul University Manila. The same pictures repeated twice or three times in other categories, but in the same root category Category:St. Paul University Manila. That is over-categorizing. I would like to thank you for taking all this pictures, but I do not want to see the same pictures every time I open a category or its subcategory. I have refrained from opening any categories from Category:Bulacan as they are full of over-categorized pictures. There is no prize in the end for having them in the most categories, it's not even part of the statistics. What you are doing is just self promotion or greed to proliferate your pictures. Please do not use Commons to do that. You have admitted previously that don't care the categorizing. Please respect Commons and follow its rules. I judge people by their actions, not with hat they say who they are or who they are not. You claim that you are a judge, but your actions tell us what you are. Please follow Wikipedia rules. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

St. Paul, Srs Evangelin and Tolenttino - I edited by putting this Category:Ceremonies in the Philippines [8] here; I added Category:Ceremonies by country thereto; at the time of the edit, I could not find Category:Ceremonies in the Philippines in the Category:Ceremonies by country;
I created both Presidents Tolentino outgoing and is the present Head of 449 St. Paul sisters which has separate article in Wikipedia, she is replaced by incumbent Sr. Evangeline; Presidents of Universities are very notable for Commons since even if they have no Wikipedia Articles like Ateneo Presidents Bernas and even lower Law Dean Sedfrey Candelaria and many more in UP, St. Paul Presidents stand on the peak of notability on par even greater than Law Deans I mentioned; they are sub-categories of the Investiture and also Part of St. Paul mother Category; I created instead Category:Presidents of universities and colleges in the Philippines and added their 2 names thereat from Category:Presidents of universities and colleges by country; By way of another comment, let me stress that this is not an error or violation of Criterion of Categories in Meta, but simply an option to create a Philippine category instead of putting a President in an general Category; as editors, I and others commit repeated mistakes and we stand ready to be corrected; we do not take offense in other editors who, with kindness help Commons make a better place for researchers; I stress however, that my mistakes, like uploading blurry images are slowly being enhanced by my review; I put fewer even one category in my photos; If any editor wishes to correct by his or her thinking as mistakes my Categories, I to not revert and even help each other to make this Commons a wiser tool of knowlege for the future; I state that I am only an uploader and editor; I do not claim that I am this or that person for security reasons and due to the harsh Libel and punitive laws of many countries; we editors must be protected for security reasons such that if we go around, nobody will harm us; all the images I upload were Donated Inter Vivos unconditionally by Judge Florentino Floro; this account had been permitted by him to upload his picture, on the sole condition of ONLY for Commons, no other place or website to be uploaded; please message me forthwith if you have any other concerns and I am willing to make this Commons a good place for others to beneift in the future. Sincerely.--Judgefloro (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Briarfallen, I have given up on Judgefloro/RFVelasquez. He just does his own thing, thinking that his pictures will make "Commons a better place for researchers", "a wiser tool of knowledge for the future" and "benefit in the future". Obviously he is thinking way too much of himself and his pictures! But really, he is using Commons as his personal storage device. We have told him many times to be selective, to categorize properly, even to add better descriptions. Even after pointing out the problem, he still doesn't go back to his uploads to correct them, but leaves it to others to clean up after him. That shows that either he doesn't understand English, or he is too arrogant to care. We should just dump all his pictures in a special category like Category:Photographs by Ramon FVelasquez or Category:Photographs by Judgefloro, and there nobody will be able to find them or make sense of the mess... --P 1 9 9   13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Magandang gabi po, User:P199. Salamat po for your concerns. I deeply understand you position. I also thank you for your philosophy and work in clean-up contents and uploading as you stated in your talk page. I believe in Time, meaning a time for everything. As uploader, I state for a fact that I upload the photos donated inter vivos to me by Judge Florentino Floro. It is a tough job harder than taking photos. As you said or opined, it is harder to be Adminstrator due to the disputes, arbitration; the same with Judge Floro; he stopped amid his controversial dismissal due to dwarf consultation and beliefs, and instead followed for the moment the path of photography; it is his judgment call to put his photos here at Commons by way of invitation by an Adminstrator; he disagreed since it is the same in Court, and here and in other sites, the problem of persons, circumstances of time and place; I value so much your great work in cleaning up not only my and other uploads but in you beautiful photos of Philippines; I am sure that you and I differ only in the philosophy of inclusion and exclusion; tersely, in the matter brought up by Briarfallen on St. Paul University, it is not the Over-categorization but a non-creation instead of Category:Presidents of universities and colleges in the Philippines; hence I created one so that Briarfallen's complaint of putting Tolentino and Successor Anastacio would be placed in the same Category as Presidents like Banaga and the UP President; second, on the notability of Tolentino; they are respectively a) the newly appointed Provincial meaning head of the 449 sisters, of the 2nd if not 3rd largest Order, the Sisters of Charity of St. Paul Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres) and 9th President of St. Paul University Manila; Regarding the complaint and comment of Briarfallen that I over-categorize Bulacan pictures, I beg to disagree; I usually put only 1 category for every picture, for example, in Santa Clara, Bulacan, one of the Barangays of Santa Maria, Bulacan, except in Boundary photos which covers 2 categories; rest assured that I am taking all steps to upload and at the same time follow the rules of Commons; Sincerely.--Judgefloro (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad categorizing[edit]

Why would you categorize Category:School children in the Philippines on Category:Mambog Elementary School (Malolos City, Bulacan), Category:Mambog, Malolos City, Bulacan and Category:Malolos City? Besides over-categorization, it is wrong categorization. Even though most of the pictures are from those categories, you are cycling the pictures by adding the last three categories as category of Category:School children in the Philippines. You can't do that. Also, what if other people would put pictures of school children from Cavite or Manila in the same category. What would be their relationship with Malolos city?.... NOTHING! Please correct this problem. I already removed the category from Mambog Elementary School. Please remove the other one. - Briarfallen (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for your messages all of which are duly noted. I am considering your suggestions, complaints and others for further study and I do refer them to an administrator.

First, by way of reply:

On Mambog, Malolos - at first, I thought that the Category:School children in the Philippines would only contain pictures about Malolos City; however, when I opened Commons on the matter of School children, I found that School children photos are so educational such that one can put in that Category, pictures of these children from as many notable schools. Hence, I stopped putting Categories of, let us say, Mataas na Parang, Santa Maria, Bulacan, and other, as I left only sample sub-categories, to let other editors like you, to edit by removing or adding more school and town and barangay sub-categories. I find it a fine or gray area of Commons rules, that is, debatable if sub-categories are added or not. Let us say, only 4 or 10 photos are put in there; I see no mistake in putting a Category of say Cavite Elementary School, and there is no harm if you or others ponder to remove them, giving way to other editors even Adminstrators to check on edits. Please free to exercise your editor's power of review and editing, I respect your opinion on this, but I beg to disagree that I did over-Categorize; for this reason, I did not revert your edit or removal; finally, I only discoved by research this Category of School children in the Philippines. I thought many times if I would put them there instead of in the Town or Barangay; often, I exercise my judgment by adding photos in say Malolos, the school and these Children, because, some would ask me, where can we find photos of natives or Filipinos, like school children; I ponder that Commons is dealing with Class C and D readers too who would benefit if they can discover photos we upload and I found that there are greater chances for these low classes in our Philippines espcially in the far barangays to reach our photos if they are put in 2 or even 3 categories; but, with all due respect, any editor including you can have adverse or opposing opinion and consider my actuations as over-Categories, hence your removal of some of these. Ergo, please message me at the earliest opportunity on your concern, so that I can promptly eithr correcty or have you review my eidts in due course; these Mambog uploads and edits were done since 24 August 2014. Very truly yours.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Judgefloro, I don't care about what you think. This is Wikipedia and Commons and we have rules to follow for better organization. And there are reasons why we have these rules. It doesn't say, 'feel free to change them.' If you do not get why we have them, and then do your own thing, then please stop uploading and stop using Commons. Let me clarify this, WE CAN put pictures in 2 or 3 or even more categories.... but NOT from the SAME ROOT CATEGORY! (I already told you about this before). You said, "I only discoved by research this Category of School children in the Philippines". Please check the History of the page - YOU CREATED THE PAGE! That shows that you are also a liar.

For example, this picture File:FvfCalumpitBarangaysBul0903 07.JPG can be found in three Category:Calumpit, Bulacan, Category:Santo Niño Quasi-Parish Church (Santo Niño, Calumpit, Bulacan) and Category:Santo Niño, Calumpit, Bulacan, one is a subcategory of one another. Do you really think that by putting the picture in these 3 categories, sub-categories of one another (SAME ROOT), it has a better chance of being seen by, according to you, "these low classes in our Philippines espcially in the far barangays" by putting it in three nesting categories. How would it help? They will probably be pissed off because each category has the same pictures. It's like watching TV, each channel you choose shows the same TV show. How would you feel if that's the case? different channels, same picture? Are you really a Christian? Why would you look down on other Filipinos by calling them 'low classes'? Is that showing love to thy neighbors? Is that following God's rule? You should be ashamed of yourself. DO you think Jesus would say that?

You said, "Please free to exercise your editor's power of review and editing". But what if somebody keeps breaking the rules and does not even check his own works for errors. Then you are passing the dirty job to others who are trying so hard to maintain the Philippine part of Commons. If you want to be a "prima donna", please go somewhere else. Where is 'showing humility' on that? Everyone is a volunteer here at Commons and we are all equal here. We have to check and clean our own errors and mistakes, not something left by a lazy editor who makes several excuses or plays dumb. - Briarfallen (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You said,"at first, I thought that the Category:School children in the Philippines would only contain pictures about Malolos City." Hello, it says Category:School children in the Philippines not "School children of Malolos"! Please stop making dumb excuses. I also checked Category:St. Paul University Manila there are still pictures of the solemn investiture in the main category. Please removed the over-categorization. I will not stop bothering you about this - to clean up your own mess. - Briarfallen (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Briarfallen, first, I appreciate (as I noticed how you painstakingly edited and finer categories on my uploaded photos of San Pedro Bautista Church in Quezon City, the Martyrs, and the like, as you examined my other Church and like photos) your diligence and hard work, including P199’s barnstars for you. I personally am not bothered by your mesages; on the contrary, in life, I learn from others like you, to do better, by listening; we have differences in photography – like my so inclusive stance that is not to exclude unless bad photos but following the Rules also; please bear with my stance on 1 or 2 photos of maybe 30 in 2 categories; for example: in a Wikipedia artricle like Santa Clara, Bulacan in Santa Maria, Bulacan, I took 400 photos; now I pre-selected 100 and examined each, the blurry ones and bad ones; I saw other editors here who take angular and many sides of one subject or area; to be specific, I take from a jeep, from a tricyle or van the subjects, the barangays of the barrios; this Santo Nino Church in Calumpit is very notable; before you complained on this, I usually put 2 to 3 of 100 in the mother category of Calumpit not in Bulacan, so that Classes B to E, not making them low, but as SWS says the lower classes, to get a chance to find them; as you see, I never promote my photos, but solely desire to have them reached by future Classes B to E Filipino and even other country tourists and natives; there are barangays and far far areas which are truly notable like Guyong, Bulacan with Wikipedia article and Calero, Malolos City which has a sub-article of Barangays in Malolos Wikipedia article that I walked in the burning sun for 2 hours foot walk for there is not other means of transportation, and it is beautiful to take just 100 photos; I could take off many of the photos and instead put many in Okra, Nypa fructuans, or Tiger grass categories, Fishponds in Bulacan, etc. That are so educational; Notice too, that I followed your suggestions – I ponder that 90% of my 101,000 files uploaded since you stressed on Categories, I just put 1 category for the pictures except on boundary photos like photos covered by both Caniogan and Santo Nino arches; as you see, I do not believe we are all equal here: I am only an uploader, like a general doctor, not a dermatologist, I am faithfully uploading Judge Florentino Floro’s photos under strict conditions for Commons only, no other site; for this reason, I listen to each and every other editors like you, as I notice your times spent to put specific categories; and please, specify the mistakes that you think I make so that I can correct them earlier; let me repeat that in Tolentino and Anastacio of St. Paul, my only bad judgment is not to create Presidents of universities and colleges in the Philippines and merely put these notable Presidents on par with Adamson President Banaga and UP President upon a more general President by country, hence, I obeyed your advice on this so I created the new category and it is not fixed; finally, in the Category:St. Paul University Manila I put some of the Investiture, under the condition that the subject thereat are the a) auditorium, which is tightly guarded, and how can I take picture of this unless on this occassion, but give me time, and I will try to take off some; in fine, please give me some more room – I am not submitting an excuse to you, that I actually spend P 2,000 or about 50 UsDollars per one day shoot of a barangay or town, and if your are in my shoes, you will also be so greedy as avid and passionate photographer to put all of them in Commons not elsewhere (there is re-sizing, there is no Rule on deletion, any time your photo can be deleted by you or others), when you as walked for 2 hours continuous under the sun as in Calero, Malolos and others afraid of the sun going out; I also pre-study by zooming the pics before I upload so no more blurry; in Bohol photos, these were taken by relatives of J Floro, Jr. and paid by him I uploaded them and P199 was kind enough to put them in Baclayon as I was notified that it was South Palm Beach; I believe that, as I suggest, you would specify to me the photos that need to have editing by me so that I can easily correct as you please and desire; I admit as P199 my problem in in English language, and you are well versed in this, advance Merry Christmas to you and your family, Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the excuses just follow Wikipedia rules, this is not about what you think and make your own rules. Please don't be selfish, you are not the only one making sacrifices for the betterment of Commons and Wikipedia. Do not add "fixing the problems you created" as part of it. I never see you fix your mistakes. Please follow the rules of Commons and Wikipedia!!!! Even if it's just 2 or 3 representative photos in the main category like towns and find them in the subcategories of that category like barangay, that is still over categorization! - Briarfallen (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Briarfallen, from your last message hereat, 29 October 2014, please note, that, as User:P199 noted my language difficulty in understanding your stance, I religiously put only 1 category per photo; that is, even if a photo is under the jurisdiction of 2 towns or barangays or provinces, I just put one; further, I followed your suggestion to put only 1 category instead of 2 or 3, as I did before, since I did suggest more chances of finding the photos; furthermore, I pre-selected and reviewed the photos; that is, out of 1,000 photos, I selected the best without blurry and encyclopedic, even putting some in biology or scientific categories like herbs and flowers, instead in the town, unless it is needed. If my efforts are still wanting, please send me more specific message and I welcome your ways of making Commons its rules faithfully followed without passing the editing correction to others.--Judgefloro (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad categorization 1[edit]

Why would you put Category:Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas on categories Category:Churches in Metro Manila? It is a denomination not a particular church, not all churches in that category is in Metro Manila! You have one subcategory Category:Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas (Balasing, Santa Maria, Bulacan) in that category, Is that in Metro Manila? NO. Then that category Category:Churches in Metro Manila should not be there. Why would make it a subcategory of Category:Cathedrals in the Philippines? It is denomination not a cathedral. Only that one particular picture maybe is the cathedral, not the whole category. It is also not a branch of United Methodist, I believe it is just Methodist. So I would not put it under Methodist. Please study the categories before you add them as a subcategory of the bigger category, because all files you add to that category should meet the criteria of the bigger category. Please do not just carelessly add them because it is somewhat similar. Again, please follow Commons rules. You always have the urge to put them in categories where they don't belong. Because you have this perception of "having more categories, the better" even in categories where they don't belong. NO, it is not. Let me repeat, there is no prize or Barnstar having your pictures in more categories. Really, you are disrespecting Commons by disobeying its rules and category integrity." Please follow Wikipedia and Commons rules not because 'you believe this, you believe that.' If you don't like Wikipedia rules, please be a gentleman and quit Commons and Wikipedia. - Briarfallen (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for the Categories: a) Category:Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas, although as a Church or Denomination, is technically under or can be there Category:Churches in Metro Manila, since, like INC and other big Church Denominations, they too have many churches in Metro Manila, even if, they have all chapels everywhere in towns and Barangays; b) In Category:Cathedrals in the Philippines, I placed this in the major Denomination or Church, for, I adjudge that Commons is about technical subjects not about beliefs of Religion; that is, Roman Catholic Church, INC, Aglipay denominations do have Cathedrals, and the sub-category of Cathedral can be put inside the major Category of these Denomination Churches, Cathedral fits in all of them; not all Denominations have cathedrals, like in San Jose, Iglesia Kay Kristo Hesus, which has a Kingdom, but for Commons it is a Cathedral; hence, as I look at Wikipedia, the editor thereat put the picture of its Cathedral, hence I put the sub-cateory of Cathedral, as I judge it proper; c) as I read the Wikipedia Article, and other links on the Web, I ponder that this Denomination is part and parcel of the United Methodist and Evangelical Churches, being Unified by these, in fact it belongs to the Union of Churches in the Philippines, the main office or Cathedral is along EDSA Kamuning; [9] here and [10] as part of its admission in its History in the Wikipedia article; the Protestant Churches include these Evangelical and Methodists in one Umbrella Union of Protestant Church; hence, I believe my edit is correct, although a gray area for other believers in the technical definition.--Judgefloro (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop defending you mistakes, IT IS NOT A CATHEDRAL!!!!! CATHEDRAL IS DEFINED AS A BUILDING! The problem is you are too lazy to check the categories after you put some files or category there. If you did, you would have noticed that they belong there. The contents of of the Category:Cathedrals in the Philippines are cathedrals of the Catholics, Episcopalian, Anglican, Aglipayan and other denominations.
Above, You said, "the editor thereat put the picture of its Cathedral, hence I put the sub-cateory of Cathedral, as I judge it proper; c) as I read the Wikipedia Article..." Then, you should have just put that ONE particular picture only NOT THE WHOLE CATEGORY!!! No, your edits are incorrect, there seems to be something wrong with your reasoning, and I beginning to doubt you were really a judge in the Philippines. You have a subcategory there, the IEMELIF in Santa Maria, Bulacan. IT IS NOT A CATHEDRAL! Is the Santa Maria Church a cathedral???? NO. Therefore the Cathedral category does not belong there. Please stop playing dumb just so you pass the tidying up to other editors. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pampanga River[edit]

Could please clean up the category Category:Pampanga River? I have already talked to you before regarding verifying your river pictures and make sure that they belong there - (Checking the names of places and rivers). The Category:Pampanga River is about the particular river called "Pampanga River" and not about the "Rivers of Pampanga" as some of your pictures you placed there do not belong in that category. If you check the map of the river, by the time it reaches Pampanga province, the river is already very wide, not some of the pictures from San Vicente in Santa Rita or San Fernando. The river does not even touch those towns, why would you include them as Pampanga River. If you are unsure, please don't categorize them anywhere, this is not a guessing game.

This is again an example of you carelessly placing your pictures in categories where they don't belong, just so you can put them in as much categories as possible, even inappropriately without regards to the integrity of the Commons category. Please do not pass the problems you created to others as you always assume that somebody will fix it for you, or everybody has the time to clean-up for you. You have to learn to correct your own mistakes. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanations: a) Before I put the photos or sub-categories, I read Wikipedia article and its links, as I verified them by asking the people around the places: for example - Calumpit Bulacan and others - although Calumpit River is by Bagbag, still part of Apalit-Calumpit Bridge and Rivers are not Bulacan nor Angat River, but Pampanga River, due to the Jurisdiction taken by starting from Gatbuca to Sulipan in Apalit; many of the Barangays of Bulacan, in Calumpit, are covered by Pampanga River as I verified from the Barangay officers vis-a-vis the article I quote tersely: Pampanga River Rio Grande de Pampanga - Great River of Pampanga) is the second largest river in the island of Luzon, next to Cagayan River It is located in the Central Luzon region and traverses the provinces of Pampanga, Bulacan, and Nueva Ecija. Source - location Sierra Madre, Central Luzon Mouth Manila Bay - location Hagonoy, Bulacan, Central Luzon The Angat River joins the Pampanga River at Calumpit, Bulacan via the Bagbag River. "The Pampanga River Basin"; b) I recall your message regarding discussions of Tawira-Ubihan-Taliptip triangle bridge and river; you discussed about Meycauayan River; now, Ubihan River of Barangay Ubihan if part of Meycauayan City River, beside Tawiran Obando River and Bulacan, Bulacan River in Taliptip; these are specifics; I took the pains to ask the Town officials and Barangays on the proper name of the River and Bridge, which I followed before editing; I tell you that due to 7 feet floods they do not care to put names on the bridge due to sudden erasures; hence, I discovered lately that the technical name of all these are Obando-Marilao-Meycauayan River System which I put the photos thereafter; there are many Churches and Bridge, including Religion photos that are very difficult to address and categorize; one way or the other, some sects may be offended if their Churches are not in the photos; this is the difficult judgement of an uploader-editor; Pampanga River is so comprehensive like Angat River; please note that I did my best in verifying and ascertaining the facts by links and by interview of the reliable persons in the locale, sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
NO, you must use reliable sources like maps not people! I told you that before. This is what you get for using them as sources, misplaced files! You don't have to add links in your reply. LENGTHY reply does not make your answers right. I am very familiar with Pampanga River. Next time please use a map like I told you before. Please remove those files that don't belong there like San Vicente, San Fernando...etc. I am sick and tired of you, passing the cleaning up to other editors. By putting files where they don't belong, you are makings Commons as an unreliable source or reference. You are ruining the INTEGRITY of Commons. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Done; I edited Pampanga River Category, and corrected the bad categorization; note too, that Bulusan, Calumpit panorama is that of the Pampanga River for it is in front of Masantol and Macabebe, Pampanga, although Calumpit River of Angat, Bulacan connects thereto and the same with Meysulao and Calizon, Calumpit, including the Pampanga River under Calumpit-Apalit Bridge that collapsed; also in [File:PajotaGuerillasCabuRaidCabanatuan.jpg Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija], it is Pampanga River adjacent to Angat River; I underscore the putting of Creeks in the Philippines Category in photos that are not Rivers but seemingly Rivers due to dry spell; the distinction between River and Creeks of Pampanga becomes a gray area in dry seasons but becomes apparent in rainy seasons; Regards and feel free to message me in other cases I have to review my edits or uploads, thanks.--Judgefloro (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Footbridges in the Philippines[edit]

Could you please check Category:Footbridges in the Philippines. Why is there a picture of a church in the category? Is File:FvfCarilloH0466 22.JPG a footbridge? No! This is to verify that you don't check the categories after you place something there. You expect somebody else to clean it up for you, again? I have seen this several times before. And I have to bring this up. I just want to show your carelessness or laziness to even verify your work. What kind of editing do you think this is? Please, clean it up. - Briarfallen (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Rejoinder: I am not defending any mistakes; it is your stance that my edits on these matters are incorrect; I already replied exhaustively, and you have so decided, that, I am judged by you as you above-messaged; hence, duly noted; I am not a Judge in the Philippines, this User:Judgefloro is my own account, as an editor like any Commons editor under Admininistrators; if you read the above messages, months age, I am here to be in Commons, to upload pictures by way of the 2010 invitations of some Users years ago, who convinced me about the wisdom and sharing philosophy of Commoins; incidentally, I also upload some and not all of Judge Florentino Floro pictures which were "Donated Inter Vivos" to me on the condition of sole Upload to Commons for free and in no other site; He told me that before he decided to donate his Photos which he gave me on this condition, he was invited by Commons Administrators and He and I desire to protect our identities like you and User:P199, and many others, for photography is as dangerous as war; and as part of personal security and we do not ponder to be bothered by those whose philosophy is different from that of the Wise ends of Commons; on Pampanga River, will you specifically point the photos that you stated do not belong to Pampanga River; I pointed to you the Wikipedia article itself which delineated the jurisdictions of Pampanga River, specifically those Bulacan jurisdictions by the side of Calumpit River, too close to call; now, after you have done so, I will study the matter, and I will adjudge by verifying if these photos really should belong to other Pampanga River Category or to others or so; for these reasons your messages are hereby duly Noted.::Done, on footbridge Very truly yours--Judgefloro (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't done anything yet in the Category:Pampanga River! Please correct your mistakes. Like I told you before, by the time Pampanga River reaches Pampanga province it would by a very, very wide river and not narrow like a canal. It does not even pass through San Fernando, yet you have a picture of a stream in San Fernando inside that category. Please remove them, before somebody might use one. Please do not lower the standards of Commons by having your picture in categories where they don't belong, just so you you can have your them in the most number of categories, this is about quality not quantity. I am sick of correcting your errors because you're not checking the results of your works. You're always thinking that someone nice will fix it for you. -- Briarfallen (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will review the San Vicente, San Fernando, Santa Rita, and the like in CategoryːPampanga River.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Checking the categories first before dumping your pictures there[edit]

Please browse your target categories first to make sure that the images you would be placing there are appropriate in those categories. Like what you did with Category:Manila Cathedral-Basilica Re-Opening (April 9, 2014 Eucharist after Restoration and Retrofitting), just because the words "retrofitting" and "restoration" appear in the category title doesn't mean its appropriate to put them in the Category:Restoration of buildings in the Philippines and Category:Seismic retrofit construction. If you check the contents of those categories and their root categories, they contain pictures of ACTUAL construction and retrofitting, not the finished building. Like I said before, please check the results of your work to make sure there are no mistakes. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC) ːːFirst of all Briarfallen, let me thanks you for your having carefully and with hard work put Judge Florentino Floro's Church photos, inter alia, in the proper Categories. As editor, uploader of his images, from time to time, I did notice how you created very specific sub-categories on these like Votive candles, and the like; rest assured that from the last time you did message here, I a) put only 1 category per photo except in boundary archs or signs but just one or two photos; b) the photos are checked from 1,000 then, segregated the best of a town or barangay, the notability, especially Chapels, if there are Dedications, finally the best about 50 to 100 more or less of the 1,000; Judge Floro had been since last year looking for one who could upload his remaining say 900 of the 1,000 photos to Flickr or other best sites, but even with offer of payment, he has not yet found one; b)there are very very rare blurry photos and if you notice, the photos were taken in full sun, unlike before, where Judge Floro would take pictures despite the lack of good Sun; hence, he takes photos only if the sun permits and then the uploading later on; in Manila Cathedral, it is quite a hard subject for Categories, hence, I ask your deep understanding and help on the matter, and thanks for your editing them.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


I was requesting you to please CHECK YOUR EDITS EVERY TIME you finished editing. And you did it again!.....

Could you please check what's wrong with your reply above? I did not find your reply at first. You see if you check edits, you would notice that something is wrong with the format of your reply. Please, always check your edits each time you finish editing. Also, you are actively uploading and editing in Commons this year. Could you please remove your the "Wikibreak" notice at the top of this TALK page. You are not trying to mislead people, are you? Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply and Rejoindeɹ[edit]

I tersely stated that I edited Pampanga River Category and basically removed many photos that appear to be rather Creeks than River though draining to Pampanga River and during the rainy season and even big floods, appear bigger than Rivers. I replied above on the very paragraphs subjects of your messages than here below. Alright, I will reply hereunder next time for easy perusal. I also took off the Wikibreak template. Regards again.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though they drain to Pampanga River, they are still NOT Pampanga River. - Briarfallen (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed and edited Category Pampanga River, putting some photos in the proper Creeks in the Philippines, inter alia. Thanks.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a picture of the flyover?[edit]

This file File:JfBaliuag9814foodfvf 08.JPG, a picture of a papaya, is inside the category Category:Baliuag Flyover (Baliuag, Bulacan). Is this a joke? This would never happen if you check the categories after you place your files on them. As a responsible uploader and editor at Wikimedia Commons, please make sure you're not making any mistakes. Please don't pass your mistakes to other editors. - Briarfallen (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and helping my photos be in their best presentation. Done. I checked the error, corrected and uploaded the proper image. Sincerely.--Judgefloro (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ramon/Floro, I haven't been involved for a little while, but now it's time that I speak up again in support of Briarfallen. As Briarfallen continues to point out, your uploads are a mess! After you re-uploaded File:JfBaliuag9814foodfvf 08.JPG to supposedly correct a category problem, you created new problems: the file name and description do not match the image! Don't you check anything afterwards??? And that is a problem with all your uploads, the file names and descriptions are useless. I already mentioned this before, asking to correct it, but you never have gone back to correct even one! Stop uploading a massive amount of images that show nothing and only create a mess. Instead upload only a few good photos with proper filenames and description! --P 1 9 9   14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning Po. Thanks for your time. Since the last message of Briarfallen, I stated that I had been uploading only the pre-selected best encyclopedic photos since Last October; that is, I selected the best about 20 per cent of the 100 per cent; I also checked from time to time some mistakes in Categories like Tibag, Pulilan removing the identical name photos of Tibag, Baliuag; in Category of Pampanga River, I noted and them corrected the seemingly not Rivers into smaller bodies of water; my mistakes are just about very few photos of the 110 photos I uploaded for the photographer Judge Florentino Floro who Donated inter Vivos his specific photos for Commons uploaded by me; I had asked Briarfallen and more importantly you, if you have time, to message me on photos that are not properly described and put into correct categories. Regards, and I reiterate my gratitude to you for you great works on Pangasinan and the 300 Town that Judge Floro photographed, including the now, about 500 Barangays of Bulacan and Pampanga, inter alis that he photographed; I am not submitting excuse for my mistakes; but let me stress that the photos were taken in full sun, piling up to 10,000 and it is a great deal of job rather than before, taking 1,000 photos uploading and then taking another 1,000 in bad weather; please notice the best photos are under the sun and they are the rarest of the innermost of the Barangays, never picture ever before in the internet. Best of Seasons and I remain Very truly yours.--Judgefloro (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again! Please always check your edits for errors[edit]

Last December 13, 2014, you categorized the Category:Apalit Public Market (San Vicente, Apalit, Pampanga) under Category:Markets in the Philippines. Please check the category Category:Markets in the Philippines, you would notice that it is categorized by PROVINCE and Category:Apalit Public Market (San Vicente, Apalit, Pampanga) is out-of-place and should be under Category:Markets in Pampanga. If you inspected your edits for ERRORS you would have noticed the mistakes you made instead of passing them AGAIN to other editors to make the corrections for you. Please correct the mistake yourself. Other editors have other better things to do than spend the time correcting the your errors. Please be a more responsible editor and help Wikimedia Commons by not contributing anymore errors by SIMPLY inspecting the categories after you placed files or sub-categories if they are appropriate to be there.

Also if you put Category:Apalit Public Market (San Vicente, Apalit, Pampanga) in the Category:San Vicente, Apalit, Pampanga, you must not put it in the Category:Apalit, Pampanga as that is OVER-CATEGORIZATION again as Category:San Vicente, Apalit, Pampanga is already inside the Category:Apalit, Pampanga. HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS??? PLEASE FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA RULES AND STOP MAKING YOUR OWN RULES!!! -- Briarfallen (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Churches in Bulacan[edit]

Please start categorizing your 'Churches in Bulacan' by Municipality as you are now have churches on the 'barangay' level (or any provinces where you start doing BARANGAY-level Churches). Please check Category:Churches in Hagonoy, Bulacan and use it as a guide. Please don't forget to SORT the 'barangay church' category to the top of the 'Municipality' category by adding a SORTING KEY. And please don't forget to inspect the categories for errors like sorting or unrotated pictures. -- Briarfallen (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding categories where they doesn't belong[edit]

When you created Category:The Nazareth United Methodist Church (Santo Rosario, San Luis, Pampanga) last October 12, 2014, you added six categories, which included Category:Santo Rosario, San Luis, Pampanga and Category:San Luis, Pampanga - that is OVER-CATEGORIZATION as Santo Rosario is already inside San Luis, Pampanga. You also added Category:Nazareth churches in the Philippines, which is correct. But then you also added Category:Church of the Nazarene churches. If you have inspected this category, you would have known that IT DOES NOT BELONG THERE! Church of the Nazarene is the name of A specific church. Please stop adding categories where they don't belong! Just because the word 'Nazarene' is there, that is NOT good enough to put it in that category. I already removed the category. NAKAKAHIYA, your putting us Filipinos in a bad light by adding a Methodist church inside that category. Do you want us to look stupid? Seriously, PLEASE quit Commons.

Wikimedia Commons is not here for you to PROMOTE your pictures! Please stop adding categories where your pictures don't belong. Check Category:Paciano Aniceto. Why is there a picture of Our Lady of the Rosary in that category? I have seen this happening in so many other categories, please don't be lazy, inspect the categories where you just placed your pictures. -- Briarfallen (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Replies[edit]

First of all thanks for your devoted improvement of Pampanga and Bulacan images, Categories and Second, Happy Holidays. I am starting to make more specific the 'Churches in Bulacan' and Pampanga, by Municipality; I usually rotate the pictures except if there is no Words picture manager in the computer I use here in Baliuag, Bulacan; on adding Apalit, Pampanga, I decided to add so, since, in many instances, it would be very hard to find the Town Proper market, if one wishes to research, by sorting each and every barangays; for example, in Baliuag and Malolos, if one has to find Baliuag Market in each of the more than 25 barangays, instead of looking it inside the Baliuag town Category it would be easier; but, starting this day, I will follow your suggestion;

On Category:The Nazareth United Methodist Church (Santo Rosario, San Luis, Pampanga) - I ponder or think to have added the Town Category of San Luis in addition to the Barangay for the above-reasons of difficulty but I will, starting today, not add anymore the Town Category for simple categorizing; I did check the other pointed errors as you did message and I edited them according, Sincerely--Judgefloro (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)