This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Keep Keep Because the Rizal Park Open-air Auditorium is a tourist spot of the Government; and Statue of boy on water buffalo, San Isidro has no copyright whatsoever being manufactured by laborers; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; In support of my stance, opposition to the delition and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
How does an 18th Century Statue of Pampanga De La Merced which is a National Treasure be clothed with Copyright? How, How and How?" sincerely respectfully submitted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thanks for your visit and messages ... I leave these grey area finer points of law on FOP as I ponder to be, to the consensus of Commons more expert editors on this; although I opine that, even if those for deletion editors would, only only and only those heirs, assigns and creators have locus standi or the right to question these matter of FOP in Court or other forum including Commons and other media; as the law and jurisprudence remains that - what is not prohibited clearly in the 4 corners of the Copyright law, is permitted and one or all have to wait for the SC final say on the matter;
I humbly reiterate my request for filing of the IPO or DOJ Letter on FOP since with bated breath, I am too excited to still wait for the Replies of these 2 gentlemen on Commons FOP pending Deletions or Undeletions: it is requested that pending this, the deletion be PUT on Hold
Addendum: in my first afternoon as RTC Judge of Br. 73, Malabon, NCJR, I announced that I will resolve cases in just 3 months in accordance with the 1998 New Circulars of the Court; further, I stated that ahead of my times as Judge, I will use the USA dispute resolutions arbitrations and alternative methods to eliminate long court proceedings; now, all these ADRs and pre-trial modes akin to Blended Learning in Modules are fruits of my prophecy; but, but and but, the webinars are just time being matters of law and not jurisprudence; maybe the gullible who would-be followers of Mass Deletions teleserye will get and taste this cake and cite them to Rolly-Siony wipe out by push button deletions the Litany of Mass Deletion photos in my Talk Page by a creator of an account with a single purpose of Cyber stalking or even 2012 criminal activity;
In additions, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020! Please help with this survey
Wiki Loves Monuments logo
Dear Judgefloro,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2020, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again for a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 200K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world.
You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thanks for your visit and messages ... I leave these grey area finer points of law on FOP as I ponder to be, to the consensus of Commons more expert editors on this; although I opine that, even if those for deletion editors would, only only and only those heirs, assigns and creators have locus standi or the right to question these matter of FOP in Court or other forum including Commons and other media; as the law and jurisprudence remains that - what is not prohibited clearly in the 4 corners of the Copyright law, is permitted and one or all have to wait for the SC final say on the matter;
By the way: I note that the Copyright law like all criminal and civil or special laws are governed by the Statute of limitations or Prescription of actions and laches: the reckoning time is the Publishing in Commons of the photo subject of deletion, 4 years from Uploading Copyright infringement is extinguished by law
Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases - WIPOPrescriptive period of 4 years most if not all the Mass Deletion Requests by the Knight with a Shining Armor, who was told by gullible: You're My Hero - the Smart One who like Mary Magdalene asked for Apology, and I state that I have no power to Forgive the Mass Deleter; in my and in the photos of User:Ramon FVelasquez and others, the Mass Deleter's tons of Requests have no more LEGAL leg to stand on due to the 4 years Commons Uploading Prescriptive period;
Addendum: In addition, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thanks for your visit and messages ... I leave these grey area finer points of law on FOP as I ponder to be, to the consensus of Commons more expert editors on this; although I opine that, even if those for deletion editors would, only only and only those heirs, assigns and creators have locus standi or the right to question these matter of FOP in Court or other forum including Commons and other media; as the law and jurisprudence remains that - what is not prohibited clearly in the 4 corners of the Copyright law, is permitted and one or all have to wait for the SC final say on the matter; Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases - WIPOPrescriptive period of 4 years the Supreme Court and the Copyright Law strongly, heavily and without any iota of doubt by its latest circulars, require the Complainant or any person who questions or allege copyright infringement to specify and allege his or her rights to file the Complaint in the newly created courts; with Logic, how can anybody who has no Locus standi question any Uploading in Commons, Flickr or internet sites ?
In this photo the glass obstructs the tarpaulin copy hence no copyright exists; this is what legal experts like from Sycip Law office call De Minimis, the Philippine laws do not deal with trifles
Addendum: In addition, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerelyJudgefloro (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thanks for your visit and messages ... I leave these grey area finer points of law on FOP as I ponder to be, to the consensus of Commons more expert editors on this; although I opine that, even if those for deletion editors would, only only and only those heirs, assigns and creators have locus standi or the right to question these matter of FOP in Court or other forum including Commons and other media; as the law and jurisprudence remains that - what is not prohibited clearly in the 4 corners of the Copyright law, is permitted and one or all have to wait for the SC final say on the matter; Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases - WIPOPrescriptive period of 4 years the Supreme Court and the Copyright Law strongly, heavily and without any iota of doubt by its latest circulars, require the Complainant or any person who questions or allege copyright infringement to specify and allege his or her rights to file the Complaint in the newly created courts; with Logic, how can anybody who has no Locus standi question any Uploading in Commons, Flickr or internet sites ?
In this photo the glass obstructs the tarpaulin copy hence no copyright exists; this is what legal experts like from Sycip Law office call De Minimis, the Philippine laws do not deal with trifles
Addendum: In addition, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerely
By the way: I note that the Copyright law like all criminal and civil or special laws is governed by the Statute of limitations or Prescription of actions and laches: the reckoning time is the Publishing in Commons of the photo subject of deletion - prescriptive period of 4 years from Commons Uploading - thereafter Copyright infringement is extinguished by law - per latest Supreme Court Circular 2019 and Jurisprudence: Hence, No Deletion Request would have Legal Leg to Stand on
Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases - WIPOPrescriptive period of 4 years most if not all the Mass Deletion Requests filed or copy pasted by the Knight with a Shining Armor, who was told by the gullible: You're My Hero - the Smart One who, like Mary Magdalene asked for Apology; and I state that I have no power to Forgive the Mass Deleter; in my pictures and in the photos of User:Ramon FVelasquez plus others, the Mass Deleter's tons of Requests have no more LEGAL leg to stand on due to the 4 years Commons Uploading Prescriptive period;
Addendum: In addition, may I reiterate my plea to Commons editors to finalize and finish the draft letter to submit the same to the IPO or DOJ for issuance of Reply, to put a rest on all these, instead of Undelitions which are so hard and time wasting; In the time being, I appeal to Put on Hold or all Mass Deletions; with these I respectfully submit to sound discretion of older editors very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Judgefloro (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Malolos City at the Old City Hall expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and Rizal monuments; only the heirs of the sculptor may question any FOP infringement in the Special Courts, as strictly provided by the 2019 New S.C. Circular, implementing the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws in the Civil Code; with more reason, any editor here has no Legal rights whatsoever to question any Uploading; besides, the Aguinaldo Monument like Rizal Monuments in the Philippines and Cavite are owned by the National or here the Local Government Code; hence, under this Special Law, the Artists alleged creators have no Copyright rights since they were paid by the Municipal Goverment; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; In support of my stance, opposition to the delition and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
How does an 18th Century Statue of Pampanga De La Merced which is a National Treasure be clothed with Copyright? How, How and How?" sincerely respectfully submitted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Capas Tarlac when I visited Judge Alipio C. Yumul of the Capas Regional Trial Court at the Capas Town Hall - expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and Rizal monuments; this is a National and Capas Treasure, Government Property; only the heirs of the sculptor may question any FOP infringement in the Special Courts, as strictly provided by the 2019 New S.C. Circular, implementing the Copyright and Intellectual Property laws in the Civil Code; with more reason, any editor here has no Legal rights whatsoever to question any Uploading; besides, the Aguinaldo Monument like Rizal Monuments in the Philippines and Cavite are owned by the National or here the Local Government Code; hence, under this Special Law, the Artists alleged creators have no Copyright rights since they were paid by the Municipal Goverment; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; In support of my stance, opposition to the delition and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
How does an 18th Century Statue of Pampanga De La Merced which is a National Treasure be clothed with Copyright? How, How and How?" sincerely respectfully submitted; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page; I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
167 images I took this while riding in a jeep from BPI Lawton to Pier - hence, as you see the camera pans under this tunnel which really is eerie since many died here during the war; no objection to the deletion and I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of editors;
4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions
May I, if you please, interject an important matter but off-tangent here: I have still too many pictures to upload, hence I could not yet put inputs and discussions in the more than 50 Mass Deletions of my Photos in User:RamonFVelasquez; may I underscore as Legal Impediment of Deletion the clear and unequivocal S. C. New 2019 Circular on Copyright and Intellectual Property amending the previous CJ circulars - this is for the Special Courts created; in the Hierarchy -a) the highest is this Circular - which puts a Legal Bar by virtue of the 4 years Prescription under the Civil Code and specifically the Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Laws in many Code of the Philippines; b) second is S. C. Jurisprudence on the specific issue of Uploading in Commons, Flickr etc on FOP c) DOJ Secretary Opinion on FOP if not declined d) IPO New Director Opinion on my 2 Letters if ever issued e) secondary authority from CA here or USA S.C. Jurisprudence and then Federal Rules Jurisprudence like the Circuit Courts of CA; f) Learned treatises like that which I cited, Sycip law office inter alia; I opine that this New SC Circular on 4 years prescription (from Uploading by RamonFVelasquez, my Photos taken by him and me and uploaded edited by said Wiki Break User; that is, on 2015 more or less, all photos of mine there can no longer be deleted - since each Mass Deletion Request falls squarely under the 4 corners of 2012 Cybercrime law cognizable by the DOJ per the NBI Cybercrime Division) so all the Mass Deletion Requests of the Smart One thereat Ramon, tagged since September until today, should be Denied outright and I note that the Smart One has been repeatedly ordered to stop the Mass Deletions; I am just waiting for the Right Time to file the proper Pleadings ... on the matter; due to the Declaration against Interest of the Smart One and tons of Evidence of Cyber Crime Mass Deletion); I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus I repeat the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ... thanks Judgefloro (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and help especially in the collapse template; I am too poor and old to understand Wikimedia technology, hence even from the start P199 helped me a lot in creating Pangasinan Categories since I did not know how to create Categories in User:Ramon FVelasquez; but I am learning; I am a Mystic and I discern; it is just that I cannot convince anyone here that I know the Smart One, I know the Child or alternate account; my talk page is bombarded the It take 2 to Tango Mass Deleter and Child; I know that you do not believe in my Mystic Immortality; may I just interject that a) I was told by my classmate recently that my former best friend told her that I AM STRONG; b) In PinoyExchange where I published my 2008 Jan 9 Blue Madonna "The Philippines will not be spared in the Scattered Global Annihilation !" one forum member who is a great Psychic in America retiring with high honors in US Military stated that I could move his computer at Tanauan, Leyte and that I predicted that he is doomed among others; my birthday gift at November 5 and 7 is the Yolanda Coded Annihilation; now my masterpiece photos of this Prophecy at Calumpit, Macabebe and Hagonoy; all my Legal Notes here, long and winding often off-tangent are CODED messages against the Mass Bombardment of my Talkpage since September 2020; and nothing has been done to stop this; if I write short, that is Keep it Short, whom will I convince?
May I underscore that there are man Ways to Skin a Cat: I repeatedly pleaded that photos Uploaded before 2015 of mine per User:Ramon FVelasquez should not be deleted due the New S.C. Circular on FOP, Intellectual Property Law Courts - 4 years Prescription; but I do not see anybody here that can comprehend the Supreme Court ruling which deals on DE Minimis: allow me to take by Human Terms Explanation: a) A killed B in 1980, and the heirs of B and police filed a Complaint for Homicide or Murder in 2002 - result, Complaint dismissed for being barred by Criminal Prescription in 2001; b) A zeroxed books of B, Justice Juan de La Cruz at the Ateneo College of Law in Buendia Extension in 1980; the Librarian Jun Orence belatedly prohibitted xeroxing; the heirs of B filed a Copyright vio in the Special Courts created by the 2019 S.C. Circular result Case Dismissed because of Copyright Law Prescription; c) A, Judge Floro took photos of FOP and uploaded them in 2015 at Commons under User:Ramon FVlelasquez : the heirs of the Artists filed Copyright Violations in Special Court to Delete these photos - Result : Prescription bars the case and therefore DISMISSED for Prescription and De Minimis under the New S.C. Circular d) who has greater right - the heirs of the Artist or the Smart One, his her or its Child with alternate account? is the spring greater than the River? e) Is there a clear violation of the 2012 Cybercrime Act by the Smart One and Child? f) Rather than in Commons, it is too simple to Remedy this Deletions: Very simple: Only paper emailed either at the DOJ or the Cyberdivision of NBI for Criminal violation of the 2012 Cyber law and Cyberstalking squatting versus John or Jane Doe alleging the essential ingredients under the New S.C. circular; the DOJ finds probable cause and files the Information with the Special Courts of Intellectual Property; the Criminal Warrant of Arrest is issued and pending the NBI detection the Warrant waits and it has a lifetime of 20 years because of the Stiff penalties of Cyber Law; Very sincerely and again thank you Judgefloro (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Keep Because the Rizal Park Open-air Auditorium is a tourist spot of the Government; and Statue of boy on water buffalo, San Isidro has no copyright whatsoever being manufactured by laborers; in addition the façade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of National or Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the future elections, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law; In support of my stance, opposition to the delition and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
