Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia

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

Removed updates[edit]


I'm marking this as closed procedurally (i.e. with no statement of consensus) given the substantial progress that has been made on the page, the lack of further progress in the discussion, and the lack of a clear question that the RfC started with. Please continue to work on this important issue, and, if needed, make a request for comment on specific questions or post at COM:VPC. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original RfC[edit]

Alright, removed updates here. dwf² (runding) 04:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If you wish to update it, fine. But have the courtesy of discussing substantial changes on Commons, not elsewhere. Consensus on another project about processes on this project is not relevant. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Okay. Since you have read the entirety of our copyright law, which part "does not match with the text of the 2014 law (i.e. claims of being in public domain)"? Please remember that the current version of the page is even worse than my update and has never reached any kind of community consensus, so I would be genuinely interested to hear what are you thinking of showing this version as current Indonesian copyright policy for Commons. dwf² (runding) 04:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On a techinical matter: firstly, if you wish to rewrite it, use the current layout. The page is supposed to be a summary, not an extensive list. If people need extra specifics, point them to the law. (for example: please see: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands Also, please maintain the translation syntaxes.
    Now to the content. The issue I have is with how it is worded. Specifically with the conflation that article 43 places works into public domain. It doesn't. It does not deny all government works or other works enumerated in the article copyright. What article 43 and its subsections provide is forms of a free licence. Subsection (a) clearly does not allow for derivatives (in the sense of modifications). Subsection (b) is a little less clear on the matter of derivatives and modification, but that is up for debate unless a court has made a clear ruling on the issue. Subsection (c) is ND as well. Subsection (d) is NC, unless the copyright holder provides no objection, but has a limitation on the medium, which runs counter to Commons priciples. Subsection (e) -- unknown, but there are non-copyright restrictions (which Commons does not consider). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, I would rather not do that. A summary could be interpreted differently by different persons, and the Indonesian copyright statutes has been a source of extensive ruckus for the past few years. I would rather put everything relevant in detail. dwf² (runding) 05:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If not, at least place back the translation keys you deleted when editing the text. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @David Wadie Fish-Freburg: I have reverted changes purely on a technical basis. Please read the notice on the edit page Transclusion and translation: Sections named "Copyright tags", "Currency", "De minimis", "Freedom of panorama", "Stamps" and/or "Threshold of originality" are transcluded to other policy pages. Please do not rename or delete them. This page is marked up for translation using tags like <translate> and comments like <!--T15-->. Please do not move or remove the tags and comments. You are free to make changes, but please maintain the sections and translation tags. I am willing to work with you to improve the page, but technical elements on the page must be maintained and an exhaustive list really doesn't help. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @David Wadie Fish-Freburg: Additional note: the intro to every one of these pages states that they are overviews (i.e. summaries). I know and understanding that you are against this, but that is the nature of this page and others like it: "This page provides an overview of copyright rules of Indonesia relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. [...] If there is any doubt about the copyright status of a work from Indonesia, refer to the relevant laws for clarification.. It is not supposed to be an extensive list of every detail of the law. Just an overview. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I do not trust overviews of the law written by anyone. Let the statute talk for itself, in its own official language, publicly posted where it is clear and easy to read. Throughout the years have seen Commons admin deleting tons of Indonesian files while sticking to the "summary" of Indonesian copyright law, which is either incomplete, woefully outdated, or just outright inaccurate. A nuanced discussion on the interpretation could only be possible if the parties know what they are talking about and could easily refer to point of their disputes easily---preferably on the copyright rules page. Sorry, I'm trying really hard to maintain AGF here, but the jungle law of Commons and the history of how contributions from Indonesia are treated here just doesn't convince me that an overview would be enough. dwf² (runding) 01:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would argue that it is indeed public domain. Art 43 does not mention about derivatives and modification, but Art 44 (and its Elucidation, which is part of the law) does---very clearly, I think. The only requirement is to "mention or cite the source in full", which Commons fulfill. dwf² (runding) 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So article 44 does, and allows it under certain circumstances (I don't think I've every disputed this point). But parts of 44 are more akin to free-use or fair use than to public domain. On the other hand, Article 43 does not enumerate any allowance for derivatives and modification. I will admit, subsection (c) may, but they are not enumerated. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The way it work in (reading of) an Indonesian law, Art 44 is applicable to conditions enumerated by Art 43. It is in the same chapter. It tells you how to apply and enforce a certain provision and its requirement. dwf² (runding) 06:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is in the same chapter, which is copyright limitation but the chapter does not extinguish copyright. Furthermore, as previously stated, derivatives and modification are not enumerated in Article 43, but is it in Article 44 "Use, retrieval, Reproduction, and/or change of Works and/or Related Rights products in whole or substantial part are not regarded as a Copyright infringement [...]".[2014 Art. 44(1)] --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, and the definition of "Works" is in Art 1 (3), which is broadly defined. If you look closely, Art 44 apply to the whole law, not only 43; thats why it uses the term "Works" as defiend by Art 1 (3). It is an operative provision regulating the use of enumerated provisions. Look, can we make it easier and whip up an agreement here? If it is not a public domain, it is definitely a free-use. It's CC-BY-SA. Even absent that, Commons falls under 44 (1) a ("education, research, scientific writing, report writing, writing of critique or review of a problem without prejudicing the reasonable interests of the Author or the Copyright Holder"). We can create a special tag for that. dwf² (runding) 06:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Not possible because of COM:L. Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. and only non-revocable licences that guarantee the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it, the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it, the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression, [and] the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works. Article 44 appears to be in line with the freedoms, but allows such "freedoms" for certain purposes, while Article 43, again, does not enumerate any allowance for the last freedom (modifications and derivatives). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • In that case, every single PD-IDGov that are not NoCopyright is screwed up, then. Wonderful. dwf² (runding) 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • ...aand all of this should be taken seriously. Only Indonesian national symbols could survive this madness. Regional emblems are copyrighted, gov websites are copyrighted, all official portraits are copyrighted, all of the pictures in Indonesian biographical articles should disappear because the photos did not have the consent of the pictures depicted. Crisco 1492 and Davidelit uploads would almost all disappear because most of their uploads were photographs of identifiable people and they haven't obtain the permission to use them (and Indonesian laws requires it). We would also lose dozens of featured images. Farewell images. Farewell featured and good articles. You would always be remembered forever. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 03:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State-owned enterprises works[edit]

I've found a lot "misuses" of this PD-IDGov templates, see this example case. He has uploaded lot of images of airports and military facility. Some from state-owned enterprises's site (with .com or TLDs) and, which can be replaced with free and own-work images. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: add to the template:PD-IDGov/doc Do not use this tag for images which were created or owned by Indonesian state-owned enterprises (badan usaha milik negara) as those are not government work. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaFaDa20631: why would it not be government work? dwf² (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: There are two different versions of statements according to state-owned enterprises work:
  • Copyrighted corporate work: Indonesian SOEs, mostly with a Persero status, is a "civil legal entity" (badan hukum perdata). Government of Indonesia does not own its assets other than stakes, obligations, or profits (kekayaan negara yang dipisahkan). This was taken from this 2014 Universitas Padjadjaran seminar, w/ Felix O. Soebagjo as a speaker. Hence, works created by SOEs are corporate assets, not government assets. This may be violates Art. 43(2) of the 2014 Indonesian Copyright Act (atas nama pemerintah, not atas nama badan hukum perdata).
    • Public informations which was belongs to SOEs does not include works of photographs of its business sites commissioned by SOEs, according to Art.14 of the 2008 Access to Public Information Act.
  • PD or Copyrighted Free Use work: All assets owned by SOEs, either copyrighted or not, are automatically state-owned, which is everyone can reuse or distribute it without permission according to Art. 43(2) provision. See this 2013 statement of Erik Satria Wardhana. Will we made a {{PD-ID-SOEs}} or {{Copyrighted-ID-SOEs}} for this? RaFaDa20631 (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an interesting article from CCID about public domain, but it does not address works done by SoE. Maybe somebody should clarify this to them. dwf² (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright tags[edit]

To be clear, I would like to update COM:TAG Indonesia, since some of the provisions are still according to the now-repealed 2002 Copyright Law. Please raise any objection below. dwf² (runding) 05:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: Yes, and we need to accomodate published images, published computer programs, and published adaptations and published compilations of anthology prior to 1971 and published folk songs, dramas, dances, puppet shows, pantomimes, and broadcast works, inter alia for radio, television, and film as well as video recordings, published discourses, lectures, speeches, etc, published maps, published cinematographic works, published voice or sound recordings, and published translation and interpretations before 1946. All of those things mentioned were public domain before 1996. Laws were a bit different back then. Article 27 of the law sounded like:
(1) Copyright on the following works
(a) performances such as folk songs, dramas, dances, puppet shows, pantomimes, and broadcast works, inter alia for radio, television, and film as well as video recordings;
(b) discourses, lectures, speeches, etc.;
(c) maps
(d) cinematographic works;
(e) voice or sound recordings:
(f) translation and interpretations
shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of the first publication.
(2) Copyright on the following works
(a) photographic works:
(b) computer programs;
(c) adaptations and compilations of anthology;
shall be valid for 25 (twenty five) years as of the first publication.
(3) The copyright on works referred to in Article 26 paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (1) which are owned or held by a legal entity, shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of the first publication, except for copyright referred to in Article 27 paragraph (2) which shall be valid for 25 (twenty five) years.

Aand also accommodate:

Public domain

For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.

The first question, as usual, is what defines publishing? If a work is not anonymous (i.e. has a clear explanation on whose the author) but is published in a magazine, does that make the work owned or held by a legal entity? Does the author of the photo transferred rights to the legal entity (i.e. company, institution, etc)? Regards, Jeromi Mikhaell (Jeromi Mikhael) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Jeromi Mikhael: Per the U.S. copyright office, "Under copyright law, publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display also constitutes publication." Under the 2014 Indonesian copyright law, Publication means any reading, broadcasting, exhibition of works using any means, either electronically or nonelectronically, or performing in any way so that works can be read, heard, or seen by others. [2014 Art. 1(11)] A work is not necessarily owned or held by a legal entity. The legal entity may be the owner of a "copy" of the work (i.e. the tangible embodiment of the work), but the owner of the work itself (i.e. the intangible intellectual property) under U.S. law remains with the author (known or unknown) unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, an employee who created the work as part of their duties as an employee, etc.) or by written agreement or conveyance that expressly and explicitly transfers the copyright AND is signed by the first copyright holder as defined by the law. This seems to be similar under Indonesian law. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nat: Thank you for your explanation. AFAIK Indonesian media held true the an employee who created the work as part of their duties as an employee. That's why, for example, we could see pictures taken by the en:Kompas newspaper as KOMPAS/<insert name> here. Does this insertion of the publication name before the author's name as a credit indicates that the author created the work as part of their duties as an employee? Regards, Jeromi Mikhaell (Jeromi Mikhael) 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take example of this news: You could see the main image there's a credit: KOMPAS.COM/AFDHALUL IKHSAN. Does this indicate that Ikhsan took this photo as an employee who created the work as part of their duties as an employee?
  • The name appears most likely due to the recognition of moral rights under Indonesian law. According to Article 5(a) of the 2014 Copyright law, The moral rights as referred to in Article 4 are rights that are eternally inherent to the Author to: continue to include or to exclude their name on the copy with respect to the public use of their Works; [2014 Art. 5(a)]. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this is the best example I could get reasonably. Before 2002 (or even until now duh), it is common for Indonesian newspapers to not credit the newspaper. There is a lot of uncredited newspaper pictures at Category:History of Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we will also upload above-ToO logos created before 1972 (or 1926 PD in U.S.). Such things are considered PD in Indonesia 50 years after publication, but it is still trademarked even if the product is still produced or the company still uses the logo. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: The text that you added for FoP states:

Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive. The 2014 Copyright Law is silent on the matter of FOP. It is stated that "unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a publication of the works in a public exhibition or a reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the author".[1] The provisions regarding the publication of works as referred to in Art 15 (1) "also apply to portraits insofar as they do not contradict the provisions as referred to in Article 12"[2], which stated that:

  • Commercial use, reproduction, publication, distribution and/or communication of a portrait taken for commercial billboards or advertising purposes without the written consent of the persons in the portrait or their heirs is prohibited;[3]
  • Commercial use, reproduction, publication, distribution and/or communication of the portrait as referred to in the previous section, containing portraits of 2 (two) or more persons, are obligated to request the consent of the persons in the portrait or their heirs.[4]

The only scholarly work about FOP in Indonesia to date based its research on the now-repealed 2002 Copyright Law, which has similar provisions, and concluded that "it is possible for other people beside the authors of copyright-protected works to display or reproduce photographic works, although in a very limited manner", but concluded that it "does not mean that the freedom of panorama is prohibited".[5]

  1. Art 15 (1), 2014 Copyright Law.
  2. Art 15 (2), 2014 Copyright Law.
  3. Art 12 (1), 2014 Copyright Law.
  4. Art 12 (2), 2014 Copyright Law.
  5. Sudharto, Alifia Qonita. "Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works." Victoria University Wellington, Master of Laws dissertation (2014).

Silence on the matter does not mean that it is permitted. The statement of "unless agreed otherwise, the owner and/or holder of a works of photography, paintings, drawings, architectural work, sculpture or other artistic works have the right to make a publication of the works in a public exhibition or a reproduction in a catalog produced for exhibition purposes without any consent of the author" is essentially a licence, but one that is not appropriate for Commons per COM:L

The other issues addressed in the text above concerns itself with non-copyright restrictions per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My formulation and interpretation of the statute is based on the general principle of law that "everything which is not forbidden is allowed. I don't know whether that's good enough for Commons. If it is not, then I couldn't help but think of a mass extermination of everything Indonesian in Commons. dwf² (runding) 01:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nat: Other than his own interpretation of Law, Freberg also incorporates an external interpretation. This is taken from Sudharto, Alifia Qonita, p. 39-40:

Photographic works are protected under the Indonesian Copyright Law 2002 as artistic works and the photographers’ copyright of the works is protected for up to 50 years after the works are made available to public. The term of protection for photographic works under the Law is different from the term for some other copyrightable works, such as architectural and sculptural works, which last for 50 years after the authors’ death. However, there is an exception for the use of photographic works, which do not require prior permission from the authors of copyright-protected works. Article 23 of the Indonesian Copyright Law states:

Unless agreed otherwise between the Copyright Holder (the Author as the Owner of the Copyright, or any person who receives the right from the Author, or any other person who subsequently receives the right from the aforesaid person) and the Owner (a person who holds the copyright-protected works but does not automatically have copyright over the works) of a creative work in the form of a photograph, painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture and/or other artworks, the Owner shall be entitled to without the consent of the Copyright Holder to display the work in a public exhibition or to reproduce it in a catalogue, without detracting from the provisions of Article 191 and Article 20 if said work of art is in the form of a portrait.

...The type of photographic works that are included in this provision is not limited to “portraits”, but this provision and art 23 of the Elucidation of Indonesian Copyright Law 2002 does not state whether photographs of architectural or sculptural works are not excluded from it.

There is no similar limitation available in either the copyright laws of the United States or New Zealand, as the Indonesian Copyright Law 2002 did not clearly state that the freedom of panorama was available in Indonesia. However, that does not mean that the freedom of panorama is prohibited under the Indonesian Copyright Law. Unauthorised use of copyright-protected works allowed under the Law, other than the one provided for in art 23 of the Law, is “fair use”, and the freedom of panorama is not included or even mentioned in that exception. That may confuse some people who are interested in taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works in public places in Indonesia as to whether they would infringe the architects and sculptors’ copyright and whether they can own copyright over their photographs. One of the downsides of this confusion was made evident when Wikimedia Commons, one of the largest information resources on the internet, decided to delete pictures of architectural and sculptural works in Indonesia, including those of works permanently situated in public places.

This disaster was probably not a new thing, considering that this already happened 8 years ago. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 06:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooh wait, there's more! You could see note no. 156 of this text regarding the Commons, and it stated that: This information was obtained from Wikimedia Indonesia Chairwoman in 2012 and it affected some of Wikipedia articles about Indonesia. The problem is now solved with the understanding that the freedom of panorama is applicable in Indonesia under the legality principle. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeromi Mikhael: Believe me, you're wrong, see Special:Diff/527649763. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, does the acceptation of freedom of panorama in Commons is officially recognized as an "office action"? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 06:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nat: FYI this is the 1 current official stance of Creative Commons Indonesia regarding the FOP issue, written by Hilmanasdf. dwf² (runding) 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It appears that the article, if I'm not mistaken, accepts the situation that the law does not comply with Commons' policy concerning FoP (in that there is FoP in Indonesia, but only for educational purposes and non-commercial use, which conflicts with COM:L). Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nat, David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, and Hilmanasdf: Let me summarise your stances on FoP...
- OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK: Wikimedia Indonesia official position (based on Sudharto, Alifia Qonita, p. 39-40), supported by Jeromi Mikhael
- Symbol unsupport vote.svg Inconclusive: Supported by David Wadie Fisher-Freberg and RaFaDa20631
- OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK: Creative Commons Indonesia's official position, supported by Hilmanasdf, Liuxinyu970226 and Nat
@Nat, Jeromi Mikhael, and David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: To be honest, those articles of acts look like what we met in COM:FOP Ukraine, to which a "fair use"-like article was misleading some people to "believe that FOP is available in Ukraine" which isn't really true. So IMO I would support Cretive Commons Indonesia's position that FOP isn't really available in this country, best regards. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: You can't use the FOP Ukraine as a precedent. There hasn't been any relevant discussion relating to the matter. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeromi Mikhael: If you means that why I agree that no FOP in Indonesia, that's per that Creative Commons Indonesia link, unless if you can tell me why their statements are wrong, there's nothing more I should explain. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a matter of who support which option. It is a matter of which kind of legal interpretation will be accepted by Commons as a general guidance. Having read CCID's official position, I largely concur with the legal judgment and agree with the main solution proposed, but it would need a large degree of intervention from the government to clear the inconclusive interpretations of the Copyright Law (and its subsidiary legislations). I am of opinion that it will not be clear in near future. Owing that, I think Commons should accept the most relaxed interpretation available, in order to ensure access to thousands of Indonesian files that would otherwise be deleted under "strict" interpretation of the unclear laws. dwf² (runding) 07:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case, it would be better to let me know how Indonesian courts of justices judge the related cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK there are no case law involving FoP in Indonesian courts yet. Court jurisprudence does not play important role in Indonesian law, written statutes are. dwf² (runding) 07:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: A 2020 journal is now published regarding Indonesia FoP cases, it is still compares Indonesian Copyright Act with U.S. Copyright Act and 1994 NZ Copyright Act, much resembles Sudharto's thesis. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: that discussion was done under the 2002 Copyright Law, which has been superseded by the 2014 Copyright Law. dwf² 09:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyoto University[edit]

Also asked [1] here

What do you mean by Kyoto University's official position on Indonesian FoP, dwf² 07:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second the question. Please give link, reference, or delete that part. Bennylin (yes?) 14:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah totally don't know that, maybe a troll claiming, removed unless they can provide evidences. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation tags[edit]

Pardon, why this talk page is "marked for translation"? Are we really willing to translate this talk page? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]