User talk:Ramon FVelasquez/Archive 6
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. |
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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 02.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 03.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 04.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 05.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 06.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 07.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 08.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 09.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 10.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 11.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 12.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 13.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 14.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8283 15.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 01.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 02.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 03.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 04.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 05.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 06.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 07.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 08.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 09.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 10.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 11.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 12.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 13.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 14.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 15.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 16.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 17.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 18.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 19.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 20.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 21.JPG
- File:JoseRizaljf8328 22.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 36.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 37.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 38.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 39.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 40.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 01.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 02.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 03.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 04.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 05.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 06.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 07.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 08.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 09.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 10.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 11.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 12.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 13.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 14.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 15.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 16.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 17.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 18.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 19.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 20.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 21.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 23.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 24.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 25.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 26.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 27.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 28.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 29.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8313 30.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 02.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 03.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 04.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 05.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 06.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 07.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 12.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 13.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 14.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8373 15.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
File:MarikinaCityHalljf9164 07.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:RizalShrinejf1643 07.JPG
- File:RizalShrinejf1643 08.JPG
- File:RizalShrinejf1643 11.JPG
- File:RizalShrinejf1643 12.JPG
- File:RizalShrinejf1660 10.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:RizalParkjf8267 22.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 23.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 24.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 25.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 26.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 27.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 28.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8267 35.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:CCPjf0095.JPG
- File:CCPjf0111 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0111 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0111 12.JPG
- File:CCPjf0111 13.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 01.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 02.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 03.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 04.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 05.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 06.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 09.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 10.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 11.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 12.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 13.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 14.JPG
- File:CCPjf0126 15.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 02.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 03.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 04.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 06.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0140 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 01.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 02.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 05.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 06.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 09.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 11.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 12.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 13.JPG
- File:CCPjf0186 14.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 01.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 02.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 03.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 04.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 06.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0204 11.JPG
- File:CCPjf0221 09.JPG
- File:CCPjf0221 13.JPG
- File:CCPjf0221 14.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 01.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 02.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 03.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 04.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 09.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 10.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 11.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 14.JPG
- File:CCPjf0236 15.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 03.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 04.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 06.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 07.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 08.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 09.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 10.JPG
- File:CCPjf0251 11.JPG
- File:Culturaljf.JPG
- File:LVTjf0091 04.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf0280 04.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf0280 08.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf0280 09.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf0280 10.JPG
- File:Quirinojf9988 12.JPG
- File:Quirinojf9988 13.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:6antipolochurchjf.JPG
- File:Antipolo22jf.JPG
- File:Antipolo2jf.JPG
- File:Antipolochurchjf.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 09.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 10.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 10.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 14.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 09.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 14.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 09.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 10.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 05.JPG
- File:Antipolojf.JPG
- File:Antipolojf4.JPG
- File:Black Nazarene of Antipolo Church.jpg
- File:Rizaljf5339 02.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 03.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 04.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 05.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 06.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 07.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 08.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 09.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 04.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 05.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 06.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 07.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 08.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 09.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 10.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 11.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9391 12.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9407 04.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 01.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 03.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 04.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 05.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 06.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 07.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 08.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 09.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 10.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9415 11.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 01.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 03.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 04.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 06.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 07.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 10.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 11.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 12.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 14.JPG
- File:ParishoftheHolySacrificejf9431 15.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 03.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 04.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 05.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 06.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 07.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 10.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 11.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 12.JPG
- File:UPChapeljf9392 13.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:MalateManilajf9508 03.JPG
- File:MalateManilajf9508 04.JPG
- File:MalateManilajf9508 05.JPG
- File:MalateManilajf9508 06.JPG
- File:MalateManilajf9508 07.JPG
- File:MalateManilajf9508 08.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 08.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 09.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 10.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 11.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 12.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 13.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 14.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 15.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 16.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 17.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 18.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 19.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 20.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 21.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 22.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 23.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 25.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 26.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 27.JPG
- File:MalateParkjf7791 29.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf9463 31.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf9463 43.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf9463 44.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf9463 45.JPG
Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:MuseumFilipinojf9709 03.JPG
- File:PHArenaBocauejf9888 01.JPG
- File:PHArenaBocauejf9888 02.JPG
- File:PHArenaBocauejf9888 05.JPG
- File:PHArenaBocauejf9888 16.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 02.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 03.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 04.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 05.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 06.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 08.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 09.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 10.JPG
- File:Solaire Resort & Casino0983 12.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 02.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 03.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 05.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 06.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 07.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 09.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 10.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 12.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966 13.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0979 02.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0985 01.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0985 03.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0998 01.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0998 04.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0998 05.JPG
- File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0998 06.JPG
- File:Sunsetjf1007 09.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:CorazonAquinojf4067 03.JPG
- File:CorazonAquinojf4067 04.JPG
- File:CorazonAquinojf4067 08.JPG
- File:CorazonAquinojf4067 09.JPG
- File:CorazonAquinojf4067 10.JPG
- File:TarlacCityjf4085 01.JPG
- File:TarlacCityjf4085 02.JPG
- File:TarlacCityjf4085 08.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 01:09, 1 October 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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:50, 1 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Intramurosjf0475 44.JPG
- File:Intramurosjf0475 45.JPG
- File:Intramurosjf0500 01.JPG
- File:Intramurosjf0500 02.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 01.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 04.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 05.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 06.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 07.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 08.JPG
- File:JuanLunajf0501 09.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:03, 1 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:6antipolochurchjf.JPG
- File:Antipolo22jf.JPG
- File:Antipolo2jf.JPG
- File:Antipolochurchjf.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5235 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 10.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5263 14.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 09.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 11.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 12.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 13.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5277 14.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5304 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 07.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5318 08.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 05.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5319 06.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5331 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 01.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 02.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 03.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 04.JPG
- File:AntipoloChurchjf5333 05.JPG
- File:Antipolojf.JPG
- File:Antipolojf4.JPG
- File:Black Nazarene of Antipolo Church.jpg
- File:Rizaljf5339 02.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 03.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 04.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 05.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 06.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 07.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 08.JPG
- File:Rizaljf5339 09.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:01, 1 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:CapasNationalShrine1abcdjf4271 01.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrine1abcdjf4271 02.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrine1abcdjf4271 14.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrineabcdjf4256 10.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinejf4224 10.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinejf4224 11.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinejf4224 13.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinejf4224 15.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinejf4239 01.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 01.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 02.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 03.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 04.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 05.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 06.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 07.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 08.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinev1jf4301 09.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 02.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 06.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 07.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 08.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 09.JPG
- File:CapasNationalShrinevjf4286 10.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:38, 1 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 02.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 03.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 04.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 05.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 06.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 07.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 08.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1800 09.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 02.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 03.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 04.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 05.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 06.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 07.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1857 08.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 01.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 02.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 03.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 04.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 05.JPG
- File:Churchofgesujf1914 06.JPG
- File:Churchsjjf1913 01.JPG
- File:Frreuterjf2096 05.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:02, 5 October 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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:26, 5 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:UPDilimanjf2622 15.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 01.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 02.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 03.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 05.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 08.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 13.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf2638 15.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf3476 05.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf3476 06.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf3476 07.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf3476 09.JPG
- File:UPDilimanjf3476 10.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:43, 5 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 03.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 04.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 05.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 06.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 07.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 08.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 09.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 10.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 11.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 12.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 13.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 14.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 15.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 16.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 17.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 18.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 19.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 20.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 21.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 22.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 24.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 32.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 33.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 34.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 39.JPG
- File:CCFPasayjf1270 40.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 04.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 05.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 08.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 09.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 11.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 12.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 14.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 15.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 19.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 20.JPG
- File:CCFPasigjf1305 22.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf1304 01.JPG
- File:MetroManilajf1304 02.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:29, 5 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:24, 7 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:54, 7 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:38, 7 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Landmarkjf.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:59, 9 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Oliverosjf.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:56, 9 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
File:OurLadyoftheAbandonedParishjf9827 14.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
|
Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:QuezonAvenuejf681.JPG
- File:QuezonAvenuejf687.JPG
- File:QuezonAvenuejf9718 07.JPG
- File:QuezonAvenuejf9718 24.JPG
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Bulacanjf8597.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Pampangajf9071 12.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
File:Pampangajf9071 35.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:15, 24 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:31, 24 October 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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:35, 24 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1507 03.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1507 06.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1507 08.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1507 09.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 02.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 03.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 04.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 06.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 07.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 10.JPG
- File:LuckyChinatownMalljf1518 11.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:59, 24 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 09.JPG
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 10.JPG
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 11.JPG
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 12.JPG
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 13.JPG
- File:Biñan,Lagunajf9153 14.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:23, 24 October 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 25.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 26.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 30.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 39.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 41.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 43.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 02.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 03.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 04.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 09.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 11.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 25.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 26.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 05.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 21.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1438 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1452 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1452 07.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1462 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1462 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 02.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 03.JPG
- File:Binondojf0505 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 16.JPG
- File:Binondojf0505 28.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:46, 9 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 02.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 05.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 06.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 11.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 12.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 15.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 16.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 19.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 25.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 26.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 27.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 28.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 29.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 30.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 32.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 33.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 34.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 35.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 19.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:25, 9 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:TUPjf9805 01.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 16.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 18.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 22.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 25.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 27.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 28.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 29.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 30.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 32.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 33.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 03.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 08.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 25.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 26.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 27.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 28.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 29.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 30.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 31.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
File:CCPjf0186 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:56, 9 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:04, 9 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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:RizalParkjf8225 12.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8225 14.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8225 18.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8607 09.JPG
- File:RizalParkjf8607 10.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
File:Pampangajf9116 15.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
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 - WIPO Prescriptive 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)
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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 03.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 05.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 06.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 07.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 08.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 09.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 11.JPG
- File:Silang,Cavitejf9881 12.JPG
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 08:55, 19 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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
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 - WIPO Prescriptive 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;
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
- Keep " FOP matter update: Rejoinder Comment with Query: if the IPO or Bureau Director and or DOJ Secretary would rule in my or our Favor (saying that all the Deleted Photos should be Undeleted and Categorically would Rule and not Decline, that - Uploading of Photos covered by FOP in Commons or anywhere is not Infringement of Copyright Laws or Rules and are Trifles or De Minimis and would never reach the Courts) would all the Mass Deletions and or Deleted Photos be Undeleted ? I respectfully suggest that you can bring this matter to the New Discussions on FOP, the Commons Admins or Village Pumps which ever is the turf appropriate
- 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;
- You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
- Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
- 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) 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- 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) 09:19, 19 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. |
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
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 - WIPO Prescriptive 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;
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
- Keep " FOP matter update: Rejoinder Comment with Query: if the IPO or Bureau Director and or DOJ Secretary would rule in my or our Favor (saying that all the Deleted Photos should be Undeleted and Categorically would Rule and not Decline, that - Uploading of Photos covered by FOP in Commons or anywhere is not Infringement of Copyright Laws or Rules and are Trifles or De Minimis and would never reach the Courts) would all the Mass Deletions and or Deleted Photos be Undeleted ? I respectfully suggest that you can bring this matter to the New Discussions on FOP, the Commons Admins or Village Pumps which ever is the turf appropriate
- 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;
- You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
- Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
- 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) 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
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
- 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 thanks Judgefloro (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
File:EDSAjf3292 08.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:EDSAjf3292 08.JPG Howhontanozaz (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because No Copyright whatsoever exists or is in favor of any artist who creates anything in a Catholic Church; reason is the Ecclesiastical and International Law agreements and Conventions regarding ownership of Church property and accessories in the titular Roman Catholic Bishop or Bishop or in this case the Archbishop of Manila Pabillo; when an artist creates he transfers by operation of Canon Law vis-à-vis exception to Copyright Law all his rights for he has been paid as Commissioned by the Bishop Titular;
- Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
- rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
- De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder |
---|
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)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
|
- 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) 03:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Liwasang Bonifacio
Affected:
And also:
Extended content |
---|
Local government property like National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS and the 4 Years statute of limitations bars the Deletion of these photos
- Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.
- Keep Keep Because the Tourism Office of Manila when I visited the Offices, expressly gave me permission to take photos of their monuments and memorials, like this and their public properties; this is a Local tourist attraction, Local Government Property; and only the heirs of the sculptors or architects 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 Government; 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 deletion 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:
- All these photos are DE MINIMIS and as I repeatedly and legally wrote - Courts and Laws do not deal with trifles or nonsense suits or crying by those who do not have any right or LOCUS Standi to question these Commons photos;
- Prescription - Statute of limitations Copyright infringement has a three-year statute of limitations indicating that “No civil action shall be maintained under the [Act unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. §507(b) criminal prosecution for copyright infringement extends to 5 years, civil prosecution is limited to 3
- Presidential Decree No. 49, s. 1972 “Decree on Intellectual Property.” Section 58. No damages may be recovered under this Decree after four years from the time the cause of action arose.
- rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
- De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
- Keep " FOP matter update: Rejoinder Comment with Query: if the IPO or Bureau Director and or DOJ Secretary would rule in my or our Favor (saying that all the Deleted Photos should be Undeleted and Categorically would Rule and not Decline, that - Uploading of Photos covered by FOP in Commons or anywhere is not Infringement of Copyright Laws or Rules and are Trifles or De Minimis and would never reach the Courts) would all the Mass Deletions and or Deleted Photos be Undeleted ? I respectfully suggest that you can bring this matter to the New Discussions on FOP, the Commons Admins or Village Pumps which ever is the turf appropriate
- 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;
- You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
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-à-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.
- Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
- 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 gullible 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 sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC) sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Agoo Basilica
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Children with bicycles in the Philippines
Affected:
And also:
Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
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 here and in 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
- 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 Never return Adiós Judgefloro (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
File:EDSAjf3292 08.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:EDSAjf3292 08.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity by its long history (as evidenced by Historical markers, has no architect or sculptor and no Copyright exists: like all Philippine churches: Category:Bayanihan built the church by evolution having been destroyed by fire and earthquakes: the past or recent Restoration and Retrofitting by tons of people including designs by architects or engineers and politicians do not create ipso jure Copyright or moral rights unto anyone due to the Evolving Category:Bayanihan and the Titutar Owner of the Church, accessories including any moral rights of : are by Canon and International Law, per Category:Bayanihan are absolutely transferred to the Titular Bishop or Archbishop
- Keep Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity Originated in 17th Century In 1660, Andres Malong, Zambals attempted to set fire to the church 3 times but failed] was built in Category:Churches in the Philippines begun in 1578 with bamboo and nipa by Fr. Juan Bautista Pizarro, See The Franciscan priests Fr. Juan Baptista Lucarrelli and Fr. Sebastian Baeza established Agoo in 1578 In 1887, Fr. Casimiro Melgosa (OSA) a bell tower built heavily damaged by earthquake of 1892 repaired under the supervision of Fr. Aquilino Garcia (OSA) in 1893 C hurch was later demolished in 1975 Category:Agoo Basilica historical markers in 1578 and 1598 the Our Lady of Charity Image was already enshrined in the Agoo Basilica The Agoo Church was consecrated in 1978 as Construction began and the Church was blessed in 1983 the 405 Anniversary of Agoo Municipality Category:Churches in the Philippines damaged by the 1892 Luzon earthquakes Construction in January 8, 1976 built not by architects buty mainly from funds of Jose Aspiras and family and again Category:Bayanihan by the Agoo workers and folks Consecrated on December 8, 1978 and as Basilica on December 1982 as proof of No Engineer No Architect But Category:Bayanihan Msgrs Sison and Tiongson plus the Folks led by Public Officials contributed to finish this Basilica Destroyed by the Category:1990 Luzon earthquakes
- See Category:Manila Cathedral-Basilica Re-Opening (April 9, 2014 Eucharist after Restoration and Retrofitting) 186 photos by myself : as evidence of No Existing Copyright in Roman Catholic Churches even by successive or past Restoration and Retrofitting
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder |
---|
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)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
|
- Speedy keep all Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully respectfully
... respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)