User talk:Judgefloro

--Judgefloro (taBold textlk) 06:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Commons some later time.

Due to personal issues, Judgefloro will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time.

Welcome to the Commons, Judgefloro!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

SieBot 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Total edit count:1,706,440+

This user has made over Total edit count:1,706,440 contributions to Commons.

This user has been on Wikimedia Commons for
17 years, 4 months and 17 days

Category talk:Photographs by Judgefloro Categories created by User:Judgefloro - January 1-31, 2017 255 Categories and May, 2017; June 1-June 30, 2017; July 1-July 31, 2017; August 1-August 30, 2017; September 1-September 30, 2017; October 1-30, 2017; November 1 to December 31, 2017; Categories created by User:Judgefloro - January 1-31, 2018 and Category talk:Images uploaded by Judgefloro Categories created by User:Judgefloro - February, March and April, 2017; Categories created by User:Judgefloro - February 1-28, 2018; March 1-31, 2018; April 1-30, 2018; May 1- December 30, 2018 Category:Photographs by Judgefloro, 2019 – January 1-August 30, 2019 Category:Photographs by Judgefloro, 2019 – July 1 to December 31, 2019; January 1-31, 2019 Category:Photographs created by Judgefloro, 2020 Category:Photographs created by Judgefloro - October-December, 2020-2021 Category:Photographs created by Judgefloro : January-December, 2021

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

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

Category:Video_gaming_in_the_Philippines

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

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

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

PaulGorduiz106 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and good afternoon from hereat blue sky Bulacan; I created this considering that all countries use this Video games developed in Category:Video games developed in the Philippines ; I created Category:Video gaming in the Philippines since I followed the Wikipedia Articles; Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nagtahan_Boulevard

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

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

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagtahan Boulevard

I created this in view of the Category:Nagtahan Interchange from the creation of 9 October 2017 (New article) vis-a-vis my created 11 September 2016 Category:A. Lacson Avenue-Mabini Bridge Fly-Over; ergo, this can be considered in renaming or changing the alleged incorrect or nonexistent Nagtahan Boulevard; I created this due to the overwhelming Call of the folks out there, whom I interviewed; I suppose there is a confusion; but I checked them twice or thrice De Ocampo Memorial Medical Center (Manila) 14°35'59"N 120°59'58"E and I quote "A private level 2 hospital with 20-bed capacity, Philhealth accredited, located at 2921 , Sta. Mesa, Manila 1016, Philippines"; Category:Wikimapia Wikimapia Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:03555jfCollege EARIST Mabini Bridge Flyover Pasig River San Miguel Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg

File:03555jfCollege EARIST Mabini Bridge Flyover Pasig River San Miguel Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:03555jfCollege EARIST Mabini Bridge Flyover Pasig River San Miguel Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was double photographed as assurance that I get the road sign, no objection Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landscapes of Doña Imelda, Quezon City & Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Pedestrian Footbridge, Manila MRT Line 2 - Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard - Gregorio Araneta Avenue Extension, Skyway Stage 3)

Category:Landscapes of Doña Imelda, Quezon City & Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Pedestrian Footbridge, Manila MRT Line 2 - Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard - Gregorio Araneta Avenue Extension, Skyway Stage 3) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Construction of Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 7 - Fairview and North Fairview pedestrian footbridge - Commonwealth Avenue, Novaliches, Quezon City

Affected:

File:2873Commonwealth Fairview, Novaliches, Quezon City Landmarks 05.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard Categories may be options of renaming;

I happened to discuss matters with my Geodetic Engineer and another Civil engineer even if my sibling is a Mechanical engineer from UST; I am in no position to submit a highly technical opposition or none, considering that these photos should rather be examined by the Mapping people like Wikimapia, DPWH Engineers and those in the Geodetic mapping;

As a specific example, though subject of another topic but related herein; the naming of Roads, bridges and Highways depend upon the name appearing at the Bidding; thus when I was studying at the Ateneo, I happened to pass Nagtahan Boulevard near De Ocampo Memorial Hospital and College; jeepney drivers do have as I vividly recall, karatula Nagtahan Boulevard; for us, editors, it would be better to re-categorized Category Former boulevards, heritage, though, instead of using speedy deletion; but since, I am not an expert on roads and bridges, and it is your forte, I would no longer ask for Undelition, for it is no big deal;

A final point, perhaps: in my extended photography of Bridges, I found the bridges do have Bridge ID and the names of Bridges change depending on the DPWH final bidding notice which is required by law; so, like our previous long discussion on Taliptip Bridge in Bulacan, before I categorized it I asked the Mayor's office and folks including the Barangay Captain; and I cannot put a better name until the DPWH officially puts a name and Bridge ID thereat; I defer these matters to more learned Wikipedia engineers geodetic and civil submitted Judgefloro (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Communion of Saints (Pulilan Church)

Affected:

File:0393Diocesan Shrine and Parish of San Isidro Labrador - Pulilan 03.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:0393Diocesan Shrine and Parish of San Isidro Labrador - Pulilan 04.jpg File:0393Diocesan Shrine and Parish of San Isidro Labrador - Pulilan 06.jpg File:0393Diocesan Shrine and Parish of San Isidro Labrador - Pulilan 13.jpg File:0393Diocesan Shrine and Parish of San Isidro Labrador - Pulilan 28.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you brought our this very important point: I personally went to the Baliwag Tourism and PIO Office so that I can get photos of the Episcopal Coronation on February 2, since I only have photos which are not too close to the events for I was not able to get a pass; I was offered to get the photos without permission, since I was told that the Mayor F. Estrella before hiring photographers or even architects, as conditio sine qua non, would oblige the photographer for written transfer of Copyrights; I did not agree but asked for Written permission; I counter that today, the Camera would have watermarks and in the Wikimedia Commons metadetails, the Photographer would appear and beneath, is the "Copyright Holder";

In our Roman Catholic Diocese of Malolos, the Titular Bishop Dennis C. Villarejo, predecessors and successors, ipso facto, acquires Copyright and moral rights of all those architects and painters; I would like to point here that One Photographer who was already paid by a Parish (name witheld, pending complaint to Bishop) would still stupidly put watermarks not of the Bishop like Malolos Sandigan, but the Watermarks of illegal under Canonn Law mentioning the name and copyright rights in the Metadetails; I am underscoring here, that the Copyright or moral rights are all inherent in the Titutar Bishop; and the Bishop Oliveros Church Circular on photography disallows only taking photos during mass and using Tripods without permission;

But since about Feb 15, there is the Rotations of Priests, that is transfer to other assignment, if you can wait, I will talk to the New Parish Priest and advice him of Canon Law strict proviso that all architects and engineers who were hire or paid by the Parish automatically transfer their Copyrights to the Titular Bishop Villarejo; or if you wish, I can ask for permission from the architect; a final point, I saw with my 2 or 3 eyes that talking of the Architect with Fr. Mario Jose C. Ladra (son of Mateo and Elpidia Ladra from Calauan, Laguna born on February 4, 1953); so I conclude that the painter transferred all his moral rights to the Titular Bishop; Submitted Judgefloro (talk) 07:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nota Bene: Allow me to state with certainty that my sibling who is a big donor of Church construction, especially in Green Meadows Christ the King Parish Church and even National Shrine of Divine Mercy, was approached by the Parish Priest (name withheld) to "palitin" 500,t checks for the construction of part of the Marilao National Shrine; and I vehemently scolded him since that was improper on their part; why should the Parish Priests not withdraw their tons of money and donated it to the Shrine instead; may I stress that Pope Francis repeatedly admonished many priests: "It pains me to see priests having new cars"; but I did photographed in many of my photos of 2,000 Parish Churches that priest have big cars not car; so, I do not see any logic, why a Catholic painter should not transfer moral rights to the Pulilan Church;

And this painting objectively is dwarfed by Willy Layug who painted the Betis Church; if he did not transfer his Copyrights law, I would raise the matter to the Malolos Hierarchy for determination of Canon Law requirements, including, how much was paid, if any to him; this is my legal standpoint Submitted Judgefloro (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Judgefloro (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:05892jfQuezon Memorial Transports Elliptical Road Quezon Cityfvf 30.JPG

6 January 2017, 15:01:28 Ateneo University where I studied for 4 years from 1971-October 1974 and Miriam College especially its Myriam College High School MCHS was tightly guarded due to many outsiders entering the premises and even communicating with students; On 6 September 2015, 14:50:53, while I was at the QC Memorial Circle, I took photo of this since Wikipedia has this article Miriam College with its baby Myriam College High School MCHS however, some teachers allegedly preying on students "A petition was recently made to take away the teaching licenses of the teachers who’ve committed sexually predatory behavior. As of writing this, over 2,000 people have signed the petition." Aug 3, 2020 News;

ergo, Vide: Category: Billboards in the Philippines Category: Billboards - Advertisements in Metro Manila I decided to create this notable Category; it is the Silver Anniversary Ad and Notice of the School and might be used by many of its Alumni as Recuerdo or Memory of Silver Age of Miriam vis-à-vis the Predators haunting it, called Consuelo de Bobo; a) I created Category:Myriam College High School and added b) the Category: Billboards - Advertisements in Metro Manila which was empty but has now a photo, Category: Anniversaries in the Philippines Category 25th anniversaries Category Class reunions; if EVER I will be able to enter Miriam College High School after all the Issues thereat are closed, then I would like to take Photos to add to this Photos under Deletion; Respectfully submitted to the discretion of the Commons Community Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:07894jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 14.jpg

The image was taken off or far from the subject and the building ground floor is the object, hence De Minimis to the discretion of the Commons Community Noted Judgefloro (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject is the copyrighted advertising posters with underlying portraits. There is no permission from the graphic artists of the posters in your licensing of your images to public domain. Also, de minimis cannot be abused to the point of saying "far from the subject" yet the posters are clearly the focal (the main motif) of the images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to a regular DR, together with the image below. @Judgefloro: FYI. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:07879jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 12.jpg

The image was taken off or far from the subject and the building ground floor is the object, hence De Minimis to the discretion of the Commons Community Noted Judgefloro (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:07894jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 14.jpg

File:07894jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 14.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:07894jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 14.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: File:07879jfManila Creeks Chinese Filipino Parks Binondo Streets Landmarksfvf 12.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization and very long category names

Please avoid overcategorization. For example, for Category:Pacific Centre Building, Category:Ramada Manila Central, and Category:Sy Chi Hiong Goods Depot Building (C. M. Recto Avenue, Binondo, Manila), there is already a subcategory named Category:Buildings in Binondo, Manila, and yet you added "Category:Binondo, Manila" which is already a parent category of "Cat:Buildings in Binondo, Manila". Another one: Category:Sincerity Café and Restaurant has already been categorized under Category:Manila Chinatown, yet you failed to remove "Cat:Binondo, Manila", from which "Cat:Manila Chinatown" is subcategorized. Lastly, for Category:Félix Resurrección Hidalgo, Category:People from Manila is already sufficient; adding "Cat:Binondo, Manila" only causes overcategorization.

And I would like to take this opportunity to tell you to avoid very looooong category names. Like what happened to Category:Landscapes of Doña Imelda, Quezon City & Sampaloc-Santa Mesa, Manila villages (Pedestrian Footbridge, Manila MRT Line 2 - Aurora Boulevard - Magsaysay Boulevard - Gregorio Araneta Avenue Extension, Skyway Stage 3), which by name itself doesn't conform with COM:Categories and already duplicates numerous categories in which it is associated like Category:Construction of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment, Category:Manila Line 2, and Category:Magsaysay Boulevard. The system to proceed "categories for discussion" failed to perform properly because of very looooooong name, and I had to manually file the discussion page, trimming the last half of the category name. Please comply with COM:Categories, and also avoid redundant categories. Lastly, be selective in uploading images. Thank you for your understanding. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magandang hapon po I feel nostalgic of my idol Eddie Peregrina who became movie star, cast with the leading ladies of the 1970s, including Vilma Santos and Nora Aunor and his Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino is the newly appointed justice of the First Division of the Court of Tax Appeals in a car accident in 1977 when his Ford Mustang collided with a trailer truck on the EDSA-Shaw underpass and died a month and a week later (April 30, 1977) at the age of 32; when I studied Ateneo Law, I drink 4 San Mig Pale Pilsen nightly and daily I listen to Eddies songs and of course as Norania, who inspired me to dream and fail to be a Horserace Jockey; I deeply appreciate your working on Categories;

For one, remember that I am an uploader of 2,000 photos valued ones and I would spend 16 hours travel (6 am to 9 pm), the edit 2 hours with 1 San Mig Grande Pale Pilsen; next day, I would spend 10 hours editing and uploading; I am sure you can never comprehend that during our times, there was no internet unlike now even small boys are masters of ML Dota Fb and IT technology; I learned from my mentor here Administrator how to create Pangasinan Categories and I was often scolded for Over Categorizing; but now I slowly learned;

Note however that, my great burden and yoke are not easy; like when I walked photographing Nagtahan Boulevard where I did pass years ago, along Mabini Flyover now Nagtahan interchange, and believe me, I started from Legarda Laurel to Paco; there is Magsaysay Boulevard; it seems Crazy for me to comprehend what Category will I name ... of course like you, if you spend hours in making simple category, I have no luxury of time vis-à-vis my valued photos to do as you expertly do;

So, I learned from many Admins here that there is such a thing as Beginning Simple Category vis-a-vis the hierarchy of Categories; like now, OSoul is an expert on Food but I put special categories on his or her Beginning Food Category;

When I started at Pangasinan, I misunderstood Commons; I thought I should not take picture of Churches since many are atheists, only to discover that there are lots of Churches; further, I thought that I should only take few photos of LGUs; I was wrong for in an afternoon I took Cabiao, San Isidro and San Antonio; YES only 1 photo of the San Antonio Town Hall which was totally razed by fire afterwards; then, after I finished all the towns, I have no option but to have discovered that I can take Sitios, villages and Barangays;

IN SUM, since you have more LUXURY of time to Categorize specifically and especially your Forte, the Roads and Highways, then I do ask that you perform the adding more Specific Categories or subtracting not needed ones or eve Doubles, since I do not have the expertise and Luxury of time that you and other have; the point is - the more specific the Category rather than Over Cat, the easier for future users to find the photos; Salamat po balik sana kayo as Jollibee's immortal but failing business in COVID Noted sincerely .......Judgefloro (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:09620jfQuiapo Central Church Plaza Manila Bridge Riverfvf 05.jpg

Magandang hapon po, no objection just that the photo is not of good quality, though sincerely .... Judgefloro (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empty streets and establishment closures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Baliuag: 396 photos + 57 and 478 pictures

Hello po; I just desire to Record a Writing which Guinness cannot and will never even write: even during the times of Confucius, Taoism, Marx, Christus and even Moses or Noah, the streets did have populus but NEVER EMPTY even at night; Vide the Category:Barangays of Bulacan; no Commons editor nor any in Google Maps, Maplandia Wikimapia and all those good dogs of Googling ever did have Eggs to come out and shout: Magpipikture ako kahit LakDown; but I did; I was Arrested 6 times by the angry enforcers; and they shouted at me asking my I.D.s.; I gave them my 2 Judges RTC IDs: "Pasensya po, kahit po saan sa Pinas pwede kayong magByahe!" Nauunawaan ko po ang inyong Baliwag Pusong Malasakit, even if the New Law and S.C. Circular exempts Judges and others on Protocols in view of the Prestige of the Judicial Position; therefore, I wrote Commons History of Empty Streets which will Never Never Never again perhaps perhaps happen as I pray so that I can take photos outside Bulacan of Empty Streets;

Category:Empty streets during the COVID-19 pandemic : 51 photos worldwide and patak-patak o konting2 litrato of History Once In the Cosmetic Universe; Alam ko po na malapit sa puso ninyo ang mga Karsada lalo nang kung Overcast which I hate; Vide: Category:Barangays of Bulacan and 13 Category:Barangays in the Philippines by province except Zamboanga of the total 14, including Category:Roads in the Philippines by provinces Category:Pan-Philippine Highway from Guiguinto to Cordon Isabela and Category:MacArthur Highway from Monumento Calokohan to Rosario La Union and even NLEX Category:North Luzon Expressway from Kalokohan City to Rosario, La Union TIPLex; I will no longer mention my sad 11 hours traffic in SCTEx Star Tollways that I covered from Race 1 to 16 in Horse racing parlance;

I would no longer put here the 1.8 million photos that I took and uploaded; kaya po, marami akong mga pagkukulang lalo na sa Category or Hierarchy; for example in Category:Dinalupihan, Bataan and all of Category:Bataan: I was amazed that an editor cleaned my Stub starting Categories but until now, I do not know Po how to do the same since I do not have the luxury of Time to study and do the Specific Categories; look at my Category:Baliuag, Bulacan with 221 Categories; if only you or the Bataan editor would touch the Categories, we would be happy with that; and it would be easier for the Nxt Gen to see our photos; very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empty streets during the COVID-19 pandemic : 51 photos worldwide and patak-patak o konting2 litrato of History Once In the Cosmetic Universe; Alam ko po na malapit sa puso ninyo ang mga Karsada lalo nang kung Overcast which I hate; Vide: Category:Barangays of Bulacan and 13 Category:Barangays in the Philippines by province except Zamboanga of the total 14, including Category:Roads in the Philippines by provinces Category:Pan-Philippine Highway from Guiguinto to Cordon Isabela and Category:MacArthur Highway from Monumento Calokohan to Rosario La Union and even NLEX Category:North Luzon Expressway from Kalokohan City to Rosario, La Union TIPLex; I will no longer mention my sad 11 hours traffic in SCTEx Star Tollways that I covered from Race 1 to 16 in Horse racing parlance; I would no longer put here the 1.8 million photos that I took and uploaded; kaya po, marami akong mga pagkukulang lalo na sa Category or Hierarchy; for example in Category:Dinalupihan, Bataan and all of Category:Bataan: I was amazed that an editor cleaned my Stub starting Categories but until now, I do not know Po how to do the same since I do not have the luxury of Time to study and do the Specific Categories; look at my Category:Baliuag, Bulacan with 221 Categories; if only you or the Bataan editor would touch the Categories, we would be happy with that; and it would be easier for the Nxt Gen to see our photos; very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:0239Ornamental plants in the Philippines 14.jpg

Copyright status: File:0239Ornamental plants in the Philippines 14.jpg This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 10:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and done; I put the Public Domain License; surprisingly, this happened only today, I really don't know why, maybe it is the Upload Wizard error, sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:03508jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg

File:03508jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:03508jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 15.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verily this is not a quality photo, Sincerely ....x....Judgefloro (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:03409jfEspana Mabini Landmarks Barangays Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 10.jpg

Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:03391jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Barangays Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 12.jpg

File:03391jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Barangays Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 12.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:03391jfMabini Flyover Santa Mesa Landmarks Barangays Lacson Sampaloc Manilafvf 12.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I took this photo, I focused on the so-called flares orCategory:Sunlight through structures Category:Sunlight in the Philippines Category:Crepuscular rays in the Philippines Category:Clouds in the Philippines Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0367jfAurora Boulevard Immaaculate Mariana Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 06.jpg

File:0367jfAurora Boulevard Immaaculate Mariana Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 06.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0367jfAurora Boulevard Immaaculate Mariana Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 06.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0428jfAurora Boulevard N. Domingo Street Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 02.jpg

File:0428jfAurora Boulevard N. Domingo Street Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 02.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0428jfAurora Boulevard N. Domingo Street Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 02.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took the Photo, because I asked the folks to tell me the limits and bounds of Balete Drive and when I saw No. 14 Balete Drive, it is still so, and I wanted this Trucks in the Philippines, Category:Delivery trucks in the Philippines Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:St. Paul University Manila

Affected:

File:FvfStPaulBuffetSP8988 02.JPG

And also:

Extended content
File:FvfStPaulChapeljdg8959 29.JPG File:FvfStPaulChapeljdg8959 30.JPG File:FvfStPaulManila8929 24.JPG File:FvfStPaulManila8929 25.JPG File:FvfStPaulManila8929 26.JPG File:FvfStPaulManila8929 27.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this University Event, since Dr. Nilo L. Tolentino at Category:Tolentino Clinic, Baliuag whom I healed asked me to heal her sister the Head or Provincial Superior Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC who in turn, at the birthday of their niece, asked me to heal all of them top St. Paul Sisters about 30 of them; and Category:9th President, Sr. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC, Solemn Investiture asked me to heal her of a certain Cancer (withheld); she even asked me to take her picture and mine in her Office of the President but I politely denied her;

Both the President Anastacio and Head or Provincial Superior Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC even assisted me in taking photographs of the sculptures and all there, sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:FvfStPaulManilaInvestiture8914 20.JPG

I went to this University Event, since Dr. Nilo L. Tolentino at Category:Tolentino Clinic, Baliuag whom I healed asked me to heal her sister the Head or Provincial Superior Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC who in turn, at the birthday of their niece, asked me to heal all of them top St. Paul Sisters about 30 of them; and Category:9th President, Sr. Evangeline L. Anastacio, SPC, Solemn Investiture asked me to heal her of a certain Cancer (withheld); she even asked me to take her picture and mine in her Office of the President but I politely denied her;

Both the President Anastacio and Head or Provincial Superior Category:Sr. Lilia Thérèse L. Tolentino, SPC even assisted me in taking photographs of the sculptures and all there, sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hotel H20 (Manila Ocean Park)

Affected:

File:09681jfHarbor View Rizal Park Hotel H30 Ocean Park Manilafvf.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously your argument is not legal, and you have to remember that DM is subjective (there is no law that define the limits of this). But simply put: copyright is protecting who and how a work may be used. De minimis exception is defined by law and that its application is of course objective (in Germany, for example, de minimis is regulated by sec. 57 of the German Copyright Act and there are countless court decisions that interpret this law). Try to understand the legal background of the application of de minimis on Commons under U.S. copyright law. I'm not sure why you would pursue the FOP and what is your intent? As you repeatedly echoed, you are Pro-freedom of Panorama, and not a Deletionist, but you are still trying to get this image deleted?" Allow me to quote if it pleases the Commons Community a learned "Rest assured that as an admin, I try to apply Commons policies as conscientiously as possible, but I am no copyright lawyer. For legal advice, you better consult a lawyer" xxx "I admit I am no lawyer, though I have always referred to Republic Act No. 8293 or IP Code of the Philippines in many FOP or DW-related request. But the matter whether DM applies to the Philippine cases may no longer need debate, if a potential dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia happens. (IPOPHL, in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan last November 2020, said they are open for such dialogue, though I don't know if Wikimedia is aware on this, considering that IPOPHL expects a WMF-initiated dialogue on FOP).

"IMO it is actually ridiculous that mere users need to establish the legal policies to which Commons must adhere. One would expect the Wikimedia lawyers to take care of this. I guess that would be my starting point... "

I underscore that I am a Lawyer and of course an incumbent Regional Trial Judge by virtue of the Granting of My Appeal but the Court NOTED without Action my Reimbursement of Back wages; still, the IPO are just my Peers; I would not go to their level since Directors come and go, and if you check their Alumni Records, none of them can even hold the Candle that I hold as Justice Regino C. Hermosisima scolded me to stop healing, horses and hula or Prophecies; I repeatedly stated that the Law is the Law Dura Lex Sed Lex: only the Copyright holder within 4 years has the right even here to delete En masse;

How can Wikimedia Non-lawyers discuss the Grey areas of FOP with the Directors of IPO or Bureau of Copyright? Well the Answer lies here: xxx I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them. xxx and You as I underline stated " Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me. I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue."

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a vey Strong Objection to the Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP I guess that would be my starting point...Judgefloro (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Emilio Aguinaldo Monument in Malolos, Bulacan

Affected:

File:0461jfSanto Barasoain Church Historic House Malolos City Bulacanfvf 12.JPG

And also:

Extended content
File:0461jfSanto Barasoain Church Historic House Malolos City Bulacanfvf 13.JPG File:0461jfSanto Barasoain Church Historic House Malolos City Bulacanfvf 14.JPG File:Emilio Aguinaldo monument at Barasoain Church grounds - Malolos - Bulacan.jpg File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG File:FvfMalolos1335 02.JPG File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG File:FvfMalolosCity1317 16.JPG File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oaths of Offices, and as authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I humbly submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-a-vis Substantive laws both Civil (Copyright Law amending the Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law (1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both Cybercrime Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions - on a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Philippines Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription: 4 years); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked with a) the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan in 1999 whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, at that time incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo had acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creators of the Statues transferred all their rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon Law on Parish Creation; ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed-written contract between the paid official photographer who have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

iiI) 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] This also 10 November 2012, 11:27:18;18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor opined otherwise, and even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, and even possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Queries and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor's lawyer on the matter, still, the Laws, I cited hold, whoever sits at the IPO; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise and any of the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms or IPO Communications for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) IBP President at Pasig City Main Office and or b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights Head; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Rights to question their issuances individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office; this is a substantive Constitutional Due Process of Law, that is redress of grievance and press freedom over and above any civil or copyright-property law that cannot be removed by anybody from myself as Citizen of Philippines;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a vey Strong Objection to the Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasure Most Value Photos for present and future generations Judgefloro (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Junction-pedestrian footbridge (C-3 road-A. Bonifacio Avenue-Sgt. Rivera street - Skyway Stage 3 & NLEx Harbor Link 10.1 constructions - Pag-ibig sa Nayon-San Jose, Quezon City & Caloocan)

Affected:

File:2252C-3 road-Sgt. Rivera street Skyway Stage 35 construction.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0046jfBonifacio Avenue Manila Amoranto San Jose Quezon Cityfvf 01.JPG

File:0470jfColleges Quezon Boulevard Roads Rizal Recto Avenue Manilafvf 07.JPG

Magandang hapon po; I did ponder how I would name the categories by asking the foremen there and looking at the mandatory DPWH Notices; but in TIME after finish product, official simple names are done and made by these DPWH fellows; though sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, I need to know the street Tagaytay Street corner A. Bonifacio Ave, but it was dark though sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My focus is Categories España Boulevard and the famous Nicanor Reyes Street; though sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:300Construction of Metro Manila Skyway Stage 63.jpg

sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the reason I take redundant or duplicates is due to many traumas I suffered, in taking blurry unreadable photos; for example last night, at Bulakan Shrine Installation of Fr. Ver Joaquin, I discovered just minutes ago that the N Museum Original Signed Certificate of Important Cultural Property is blurry and good I had one more; I had experienced many such problems, so I take duplicates and upload them both; just frustrated but when I go back to take Photos of beside the Church Bambang Coronada Image at the Parish and the Bulacan Airport, I will take a good one, oops, it is not my fault it is the fault of the church binatilyo who took the blurry picture but my fault I did not zoom and view,

sincerely ....Judgefloro (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0533jfCaloocan City Barangays C-9 East Road Rizal Avenuefvf.jpg

File:0044jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 08.jpg

File:0044jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 08.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0044jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 08.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took this, kasi po nakatiwangwang yan, pinabayaan na nila, and I remember in 1979 at Ateneo Law School, a leading case about Manhole man case nahulog sa imburnal, kasi walang takip and manhole; subject of Bar Exams; kaya itong mga Kagalanggalang na Man... this photo is one of the examples of eye sores dami nyan nakukunan ako na pinabayaan; :By the way, the reason I take redundant or duplicates is due to many traumas I suffered, in taking blurry unreadable photos; for example last night, at Bulakan Shrine Installation of Fr. Ver Joaquin, I discovered just minutes ago that the N Museum Original Signed Certificate of Important Cultural Property is blurry and good I had one more; I had experienced many such problems, so I take duplicates and upload them both; just frustrated but when I go back to take Photos of beside the Church Bambang Coronada Image at the Parish and the Bulacan Airport, I will take a good one, oops, it is not my fault it is the fault of the church binatilyo who took the blurry picture but my fault I did not zoom and view,

I remember when I approached my seatmate Recom Echiverri in Insurance subject before Nani Perez 1978, he rejected my appeal, and look at these eye sores, now where is my classmate maybe here or if he comes back as Mayur, malilinis din iyan

sincerely ........Judgefloro (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg

File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Telabastagan

Affected:

File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 33.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:9917Expressways in the Philippines 26.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:588 Shopping Mall

Affected:

File:301a588 Shopping Mall.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);

Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.

ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;

Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:

i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;

vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;

Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08645jfIntramuros Anda Circle Bonifacio Drive Port Area Manilafvf 49.jpg

File:0515jfCaloocan City Barangays C-15 East Road Rizal Avenuefvf.jpg

File:0023jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 17.jpg

File:0023jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 17.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0023jfCaloocan City Barangays C Three West East Road Rizal Avenuefvf 17.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roxas Boulevard (Malate, Manila section)

Affected:

File:05242jfStreets Mabini Ocampo Roxas Boulevard Malate Manilafvf 07.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:05242jfStreets Mabini Ocampo Roxas Boulevard Malate Manilafvf 09.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roxas Boulevard (Malate, Manila section)

Affected:

File:05231jfStreets Mabini Ocampo Roxas Boulevard Vicente Lim Malate Manilafvf 09.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:09385jfKalaw Avenue Roxas Boulevard South Road Rizal Park Ermitafvf 02.jpg

File:0319jfSacramento California Paco Churches Landmarks Building Manilafvf 04.jpg

File:0319jfSacramento California Paco Churches Landmarks Building Manilafvf 04.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0319jfSacramento California Paco Churches Landmarks Building Manilafvf 04.jpg E4024 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon from hereat Philippines amid Tropical storm Tropical Depression 01W (Auring); I was invited to this Heritage building, as I passed by and they saw my Nikon AW100 camera; this is the Photo of Philippine President; I do not know why this is here; No Objection to the deletion on the ground that the Photo is just one of millions of Political ads, and thank you for your visit: please come to the Beautiful Philippines In Time Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 38.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U.P. Town Center

Affected:

File:0143jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 04.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0143jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 19.jpg

File:0163jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus Town Center C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 14.jpg

File:0163jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus Town Center C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 14.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0163jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus Town Center C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 14.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Consolidated Reply

a) and ) I witnessed the men at work there installing Araw ng mag Puso Kiskisan ng mga Nguso Handicrafts of the Philippines; no architect is involved in this trivial thing, but they keep it for next years Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) b) It was you request to take overcast photos and you specified from start to finish, so, I want to be sure the photos belong to the Balete Drive; in Ramon FVelasquez, an Adminstrator said "I want to see the sign" saying that he wants me to assure Commons that the Category photos include the inside Boundaries; here corner Mabolo Street; c) : Amid Tropical storm Tropical Depression 01W (Auring); c) These photos were taken as part of an Educational tour of Street (political) nuisances -Republic Act 386 or the Civil Code of the Philippines. ... The law defines nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment, ... with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; xxx"; many photos I took will teach the youth called millennials about Ganito Kami Noon, Paano Kayo Ngayon and the Thirsty jobless politicians of the former admins are taking advantage of Election Honeymoon period, that is, it is a Mad Rush to be appointed to Juicy or Tulo Laway Positions; I scolded this morning my Fish Vendor, since she sells the fish at very low price; alis ka dyan, magwalis ka na lang sa PilHet o janitress ka sa Cotoms may classmate ako don ginamot ko sila noon, I remember Nora and Christopher in that Movie have you seen it; and these Nuissance photos is part of Filipino Folklore Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Santa Ana Public Market, Manila

Affected:

File:0351jfPedro Gil Street Plaza Calderon Santa Ana Manila Market Landmarksfvf 02.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Agoo Basilica

Affected:

File:Agoo Basilica bell tower.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ma-Cho Temple 2020

Affected:

File:2162City Proper San Fernando, La Union 26.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED REPLY I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);

Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.

ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;

Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:

i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;

vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;

Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2231City Proper San Fernando, La Union 61.jpg

File:9794Cuisine of Bulacan Province 11.jpg

Tumutulo kasi, kaya ang angulo harap sa araw, at maaga pa sikat masarap talaga, so tasty: Fried marinated with kalamansi and luya Fish from Bancas of Hagonoy, of course mas masarap and Bonuan or Binmaley of Dagupan or Bolinao Bangus - Never buy or eat fish in restaurants, they are FIFO so dirty, nakita ko lahat yan while in the kitchen, PROMISE; if you have nothing to do, do cook; I also saw how the cook of Mar as I waited for him while talking to the Architect before the Communion of Saints was painted by the poor poor poor less paid painters; by serendipity, because of this Sinigang na Bangus, I talked for an hour at SM Baliwag with undefeated 3 x Vice Mayor very handsome daw ang son niya, nagsabi daw sa kaniyang madalas tumingin dito ang Pari Kulili, because of serving as altar boy; while I was eating Sinigang na Bangus at Jollibee; e I suffered trauma for not taking photos of the P 500, tau na Communion Rails na pinagawa ng cute na Parish priest; cenon went to Louisville, Kentucky noon; surrounded by able bodied altar boys, the Rail was removed sayang ang ginastos doon for confidential reasons according to your V mayor Navarro; Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0133jfSanta Cruz Recto Avenue Binondo Streets Manilafvf 17.JPG

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Boulevard

Affected:

File:01006jfQuezon Boulevard Times Theatre Barangays Quiapo Manilafvf 06.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:09791jfQuiapo Quezon Boulevard Manila Bridge Riverfvf 05.jpg

File:0001jfQuezon Avenue MRT Stations Eton Centris EDSA roadfvf 22.jpg

Magandang hapon at tapos Gabeng Madilim Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burger King restaurants in Bulacan

Affected:

File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 37.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 38.jpg File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 39.jpg File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 40.jpg File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 41.jpg File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 42.jpg File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 43.jpg

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Food menus in the Philippines

Affected:

File:01191jfParsolingan Restaurant Fishes Resorts Gerona Tarlac Cityfvf 41.JPG

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statue of boy on water buffalo, San Isidro

Affected:

File:4090Pulilan Junction Maharlika Highway 24.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:4090Pulilan Junction Maharlika Highway 25.jpg File:4090Pulilan Junction Maharlika Highway 26.jpg File:6630Carabao statues 01.jpg File:6630Carabao statues 02.jpg File:8690Pulilan Calumpit, Bulacan Road 01.jpg File:8690Pulilan Calumpit, Bulacan Road 02.jpg File:8690Pulilan Calumpit, Bulacan Road 03.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fast food menus in the Philippines

Affected:

File:2505Dau Pampanga Landmarks 09.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:3347Bulacan Province Landmarks 03.jpg File:3347Bulacan Province Landmarks 04.jpg File:3347Bulacan Province Landmarks 05.jpg

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:McDonald's food menus in the Philippines

Affected:

File:2505Dau Pampanga Landmarks 10.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:2505Dau Pampanga Landmarks 11.jpg

Yours sincerely, Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 12.jpg

File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 16.jpg

File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 21.jpg

File:2114SM Center Pulilan Bulacan 22.jpg

File:9239SM Center Pulilan 34.jpg

My comments herein are without prejudice to the legality of the Nominations by herein Nominator in view of the put on hold Check-user + series of En Masse Deletions;

Ad cautelam, I desire to discuss that Commons has lots of allowed and permitted Category:Food menus by country 31; a careful perusal of the photos even recent ones, will prove that the instant Nomination is null and void ab initio; IMO, legal policies to which Commons must adhere can be expected from the Wikimedia lawyers who should take care of this. I state with certainty that would be my starting point..Judgefloro (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:9391SM Center Pulilan 02.jpg

CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);

Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.

ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;

Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:

i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;

vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;

Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim

Affected:

File:7450Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim Bulacan Philippines 02.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bust of Joseph Oh Gi-seon (Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim)

Affected:

File:7595Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim Philippines 27.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:7595Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim Philippines 28.jpg File:7595Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim Philippines 32.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim

Affected:

File:7546Shrine of Saint Andrew Kim Bulacan Philippines 21.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Biyaya (Pulilan)

Affected:

File:9751Tibag Pulilan, Bulacan 05.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Cabanatuan

Affected:

File:3489SM City Cabanatuan 01.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of SM City Cabanatuan

Affected:

File:7067Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 02.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:7067Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 04.jpg File:7067Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 07.jpg File:7067Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 14.jpg File:7082Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 01.jpg File:7082Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 06.jpg File:7082Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 30.jpg File:7082Interior of SM City Cabanatuan 31.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproducint herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit - Judgefloro (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);

Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.

ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;

Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:

i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;

vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;

Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:JfBulacanMexico543LagundiPampangafvf.JPG

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo; I was present when this monument was crafted I ask everyone not to believe in false news, unproved allegations about alleged authors of subject FOP, but be Master of Facts: in Legal Parlance, Evidence to be admitted by the Court must not only be true but credible; Vide: Commons:Project scope/Evidence which is a general Policy that has a salutary purpose but has many exceptions: i) it is impossible for one sculptor to make this carabao statue; ii) this statue was created per Communal work Bayanihan and the Category:Artisans from the Philippines's Category:Crafts of the Philippines were duly paid by the Municipal Government of Pulilan Minimum very low wages; even if statue is on top of the Building thereat, previously rented by Bank of Floridablanca and now by 7-Eleven store and others, beside the statue of San Isidro Labrador and Pulilan Fire Station, still, this is the Central Welcome Monument of Pulilan with its Trademark of Category:Kneeling carabaos in the Philippines; I had opportunity to talk to 3 termer Vice Mayor Cenon Navarro who was one of the principal Officials involved in the Creation of this Landmark of Pulilan, and others; Category:Pulilan, Bulacan Welcome Road signs and Kneeling Carabao Monument - Category:Kneeling carabaos in the Philippines; there is no sculptor, architect or copyright holder of the statue, for under the Law, these are all Pulilan Municipal Government Property for the people;

as Bulaqueños a) you may VERIFY my statements with Cenon Navarro whom I frequently talked at since the Br. 14, RTC, Malolos days where I handled his Civil Case of Ciudad Clementino Paombong; b) my neighbor former Cesar Casanova whose gates Category:Casanova-Aguirre Mansion (Pulilan, Bulacan) were full of paintings of Davies Paints by Communal work Bayanihan workers - these floods of Paintins in Pulilan Roads and buildings are FALSELY claimed by alleged architects and group of sculptors to be theirs, but no Legal proof against the Municipal Government's ownership thereof; if ever, before and after painting, these alleged creators waived their moral rights in favor of Pulilan, the same thing with Baliuag creations; c) Yearly, since 1956 until the death of Prov. Fiscal and Dra. Liberato-Magdalena Reyes, I and my father were there at his mansion to eat Fiesta foods; my father due to death of my Lolo Ladislao Floro, nurtured Liberato at my father's Vicente Floro ancestral mansion at Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan during his Law Student days 1941-1945; I can still proffer to Commons tons or Litany of Evidence: Commons:Project scope/Evidence to Contradict statements that the Monuments Memorials and Paintings of Pulilan, Bulacan are Copyright protected : No No and No; and I duly PROVED with Indubitable Evidence my stance; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Main_facade_of_the_Iglesia_Ni_Cristo_Church,_1914_-_Museum_(Punta,_Santa_Ana,_Manila)

Category:Main_facade_of_the_Iglesia_Ni_Cristo_Church,_1914_-_Museum_(Punta,_Santa_Ana,_Manila) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08158jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 24.jpg

File:08158jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 24.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08158jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 24.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 11.jpg

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 11.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 11.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 12.jpg

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 12.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 12.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 08.jpg

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 08.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 08.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 06.jpg

File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 06.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:08184jfPunta Santa Ana Iglesia ni Cristo Museum Manila Felix Y. Manalo Streetfvf 06.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa; I just want to state that if you were in my place, as Roman Catholic, it is extremely difficult to take photographs alone, I was so nervous for reasons that you probably know; in Sapang Maisac, while was taking photos of the Barangay Stage and the adjacent Catholic Chapel, I was almost arrested because of the fact that I did not notice that the Barangay stage had had a religious ceremony not ours; the same in Kalikid Nueva Ecija, they ran after me; it was the hot hours of the controversies hounding the Churches; and therefore, I offer thee a Folk Song and Dance, since Wikimedia has for February a Folk Contest on Images Imo; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pritil Farm Crossing (NLEX, Guiguinto, Bulacan)

Affected:

File:09460jfPritil Farm Crossing NLEX, Guiguinto, Bulacanfvf 01.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo; if you were the one taking photos of this Guiguinto great scenery, for sure, you will have a problem in angle photos, since this bridge is poorly built, I tried my best to take the best sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:369Pulilan Baliuag Diversion Road 01.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Baliwag

Affected:

File:3308SM City Baliwag 03.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:3308SM City Baliwag 04.jpg File:3308SM City Baliwag 05.jpg File:JfBaliuag648Bulacanfvf.JPG File:JfBaliuag654Bulacanfvf.JPG File:JfPagala9636SMBaliwagVincafvf 12.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:FvfTarlac0158 26.JPG

File:FvfTarlac8118 20.JPG

Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo poe The Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and the Joint Force of IPO including the Bureau of Copyrights; did issue the Latest Circulars Implementing the Copyright Law of the Philippines, to wit:

Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City Supermalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deleter on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws;

In the specific case of SM Supermalls including here photos of SM, suffice it to say, that SM Supermalls owns the Copyright and no artist or architect outside it did ever create or did have any moral or copyrights issues; this is so, since SM Supermalls have their own creators, architects etc. who before and after the works, waived any rights whatsoever in favor of the SM Corporation and its Holding Corporation; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrored reply. @Judgefloro: look back at the Section 172.2 of the Republic Act No. 8293.: Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. While registration still exists, it only helps to give additional benefits to the copyright holders like architects, sculptors or their heirs, but copyright protection itself already starts from the moment of creation, not from the time of optional registration. Every object here in the Philippines containing substantial artistic style are copyrighted automatically after their creation, publication, erection, and/or unveiling. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent and Fervent Appeal to Commons Community to Put On Hold the Mass Deletion Requests Non-Stop and Unlawful under the Strict Provisions of Philippines Criminal (Penal) Law on Cybercrimes-stalking : to Defer possible Mass Deletions - Erasing of Valued Photos of National Interest from the Herein User Deleter, based on Moral grounds and most certain irreparable Damage and Injury to Commons files and contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users, with all Due Respect: I am reproduce herein as part hereof My Legal Treatise for the kindness of the Commons Community to review and to Declare Null and Void Ab Initio all the Mass Deletions by herein Nominator: to wit - Judgefloro (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);

Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:

i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.

ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;

ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;

At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;

Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:

i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controversy elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC

ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-à-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particularly Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;

vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;

Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrights they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.

Legal Addendum: In the Revision history of "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines herein Nominator (like any editor whether administrator or mere user whom, I admit has rights to edit), had (from September 20, 2020 to February 14, 2021) did input Legal Edits on this FOP with a total number of 40 edits more or less; there was a Wise Statement that Wikimedia Commons Lawyers are able and willing to formulate Commons Legal Policies; I am not saying that any or all edits of Herein Mass Nominator of Deletion are wrong on Commons views;

What I am Appealing (to the Commons Community) is the FIRST and FOREMOST Review by the IPO and Supreme Court Division on this, before any Deletion on FOP may be tagged or decided; for Clarity's sake I am HUMBLY asking the Commons Community to Kindly Put On Hold all the Mass Deletion Request of herein Nominator on the Legal Ground of Null and Void Nominations Ab Initio, being Contrary to the The Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and the Joint Force of IPO including the Bureau of Copyrights; did issue the Latest Circulars Implementing the Copyright Law of the Philippines, to wit: Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra"; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:9200SM City Marilao 03.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Tarlac

Affected:

File:FvfTarlac8118 23.JPG

And also:

Extended content
File:FvfTarlac8118 24.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robinsons Townville Pulilan

Affected:

File:09376jfTown Proper Pulilanfvf 09.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:09376jfTown Proper Pulilanfvf 11.jpg File:FvfCorazonBalungaoCal9391 02.JPG File:FvfCorazonBalungaoCal9391 03.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Crypt of Our Lady of Sorrows - Tombs of Cardinals Michael J. O'Doherty, Gabriel M. Reyes, Rufino J. Santos & Jaime L. Sin (Manila Cathedral)

Affected:

File:01827jfManila Cathedral Basilica Intramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 14.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:01827jfManila Cathedral Basilica Intramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 16.jpg File:01827jfManila Cathedral Basilica Intramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 19.jpg File:01851jfManila Cathedral Basilica Intramuros Manila Landmarksfvf 01.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:9470SM City Bicutan 03.jpg

File:1905Bulacan Makaki City Landmarks Roads 30.jpg

File:09351jfFruits Cuisine of Bulacan Mangoes Chco Papaya Philippinesfvf 11.jpg

Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City Supermalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deleter on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws;

The 2019 S. C. Circular now in no uncertain terms answered with clarity my 2 IPO Letters filed and uploaded here; there is no conflict between Copyright Law and Canon Law; the bust and all things in the Cathedral, all things that you and the smart one plus the parent and child checking user under hold, are not only owned by the Titutar Archbishop of Manila, but 100% the moral rights if any BUT NONE are duly tranferred via Donation Inter Vivos to the Titutar Archbishop;

Your statement that registration add only to the creator's right is not legally tenable; copyright IPSO FACTO exists and vests moral rights upon the creators; but but but the 2019 S. C. Circular provided implementing rules upon the FOP inter alia Copyright provisos; Registration is both substantive and FORMAL requirements as far as Burden of Proof towards burden of Evidence are concerned, to establish the Sine Qua Non requirement of Legal Personality to file Copyright Infringement Complaints in the Special Courts;

The stream or spring is not bigger than the River; you as User, like me or any one in media uploading in any format must First obtain a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged copyrights holder, for example the Bust sculptor; then attach the Documents to support it; then and there, you are required to submit the same to Commons permissions; in other words, I built my case and the Onus Probans or Burden of Evidence to Proof rests upon you;

I therefore Register a Continuing Objection to any and all Mass Deletions you tagged in all My Talk Pages and upon Ramon FVelasquez; as I humbly reiterate all my Argument and Discussion in previous Replies;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, I beg and humbly Appeal to the Commons Community, to Dismiss and Declare Null and Void Ab Initio the instant Nomination Deletions Requests;

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:09680jfQuiapo Quezon Boulevard Manila Bridge Riverfvf 12.jpg

Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Golden Profit Building Apalit

Affected:

File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 07.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 39.jpg File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 40.jpg File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 41.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nepo Mall - Angeles City

Affected:

File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 29.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 30.jpg File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 31.jpg File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 32.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:NewPoint Mall - Angeles City

Affected:

File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 01.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tata Consultancy Services (Philippines)

Affected:

File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 16.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 21.jpg File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 23.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;

However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;

On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;

When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;

I am not 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;

It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Started of Mass Deletion, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:

If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;

Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;

As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Nomination, including your legal sayings are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in law and fact;

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:02968jfPaltao Angat River Pulilan Welcome Cutcot Bulacanfvf 09.JPG

I have no Objection to the deletions: however on different grounds that you alleged in support of the nomination: the pictures will educate the youth about Political nuisances that under the Civil Code, are declared as such; it is truly disturbing and eye sores to clap your hands and feet in favor of these COM Not Used things of the past and temporary advertisements and billboards in the Philippines; ride in a wheelchair and look below, see the kangkong stacks being unloaded daily thereat; the bakery besides supplies these desserts to SM Malls Philippines wide; I do not like these photos here, they are out of place Judgefloro (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:02827jfPaltao Longos Pulilan Halls Chapels Welcome Bulacanfvf 27.JPG

This is not copied from any copyright holder or derivative work; this is owned by the Pulilan College; and a valued image Category:Statues of Sancta Maria Rosa Mystica in the Philippines Judgefloro (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Jesus Is Lord churches

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;

However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;

On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;

When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;

I am not 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;

It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Started of Mass Deletion, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:

If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;

Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;

As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;

I respectfully quote the following Verba and Important Notes of Commons Administrators on the matter:
" Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?

Vide: Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

"Given the subject, they do seem in scope to me. But even if one would not agree with that, Commons users, especially those with far over a million edits, are (or should be) allowed some personal files that are more or less connected to their editing. While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC).:

I would say that they're within scope since they are directly related to the work that the person is doing on this project. When I have done something similar I did a slightly different thing, opting to use file's history to preserve the permission xxx . ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 to in-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Nomination, including your legal sayings are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in law and fact;

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Florentino Floro

Affected:

File:1059Old men Philippines.jpg

And also:

Extended content
File:2402My latest photo Florentino Floro.jpg File:3866jfChrist Divine Healer Parish Church Magalang Pampangafvf 36.JPG File:JfMalabonCityfvf.jpg File:Jfrobescde.jpg

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Reply: It is good that these ugly photos reminded me of stupidity of photo shops in malls: I paid P 200 and P 200 for these photos; I thought that I would rather buy SLRs or better than my Old men or rather Old Nikon AW 100 camera; Camera model Canon EOS 80D Exposure time1/125 sec (0.008) Camera manufacturer NIKON CORPORATION Camera model NIKON D5600 Exposure time 1/100 sec (0.01); I did quarrel with the store keeper telling them that they should buy better cameras I am shortchanged; I do not need these photos; but these educated Crab Mentality Filipinos Countrymen and folks not to believe in ads in Malls; No objection to the deletion but please Note my Homily Judgefloro (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Petition, Fervent and Humble Request to Withdraw the Nomination or to Declare it Null and Void Ab Initio: Fr. Among Cao Category:Ronnie David Cao is a First in Kapampangan History and in Philippine History to be Crowned with Laurel both by the Catholic Church and the People of Pampanga: He is a National Artist

Sincerity Judgefloro (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:3866jfChrist Divine Healer Parish Church Magalang Pampangafvf 36.JPG

Keep Strongest Ever OBJCECTION to the Deletion, because of the Historical and Cultural Value of Category:Ronnie David Cao Category:Poets Laureate of the Philippines Ronnie David Cao, Fr. Among Cao is the Parish Priest of Category:Christ the Divine Healer Parish Church (Santa Lucia Resettlement Center, Magalang, Pampanga) (St.John the Beloved Vicariate); and Kapampangan Poet Laureate Poet laureate the first priest given with the prestigious title in the history of Kapampangan culture: “Pamiputung Ginintuang Laurel ning Dangalan” (crowning of the golden laurel leaves); 46-year old of San Joaquin, Santa Ana ordained priest on December 11, 1997. 2006 recipient of the Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award in the field of Youth Service.Judgefloro (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because these 2 photos are allowed by the Commons Community: I respectfully quote the following Verba and Imporant Notes of Commons Administrators on the matter:
" Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?

Vide: Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

"Given the subject, they do seem in scope to me. But even if one would not agree with that, Commons users, especially those with far over a million edits, are (or should be) allowed some personal files that are more or less connected to their editing. While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC).:

I would say that they're within scope since they are directly related to the work that the person is doing on this project. When I have done something similar I did a slightly different thing, opting to use file's history to preserve the permission xxx . ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 to in-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)" Judgefloro (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if my Nikon Camera has a timer, still due to Time Constraints, I gave it to a kid altar boy and he took my and Fr. Among Cao's photo: I and only myself is the Photographer

Contradiction: If you tag a deletion, research first, for if you just tag a photo which is of National Importance like Fr. Among Cao, it is baseless and unlawful under Philippines laws;

Common sense dictates that I will not hire anyone to take my and Fr. Cao's photos; it is the highest stupidity in Law and in Fact to believe that my Nikon Camera would be borrowed by another copyright photographer; here the Best Evidence that I took the photo despite that I did not use my Nikon Timer which has, due to time constraints, remember this Church is so remote from Bulacan; so, the small boy Altar Boy - this the best evidence against your allegations not supported by facts - tried my Camera and took this; your Comment is utter lack of factual basis; the Commons editors here are composed of Photographers and unlike you who just file Deletions with very few photographs, they will not take your UnFactual allegations which lack logic Judgefloro (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Advertisements in the Philippines

Affected:

File:03565jfBagumbayan Libis Eastwood City Quezon City Buildingsfvf 01.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:0143jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 01.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Advertisements in the Philippines

Affected:

File:JfSilverSwanSoySaucefvf 01.JPG

And also:

Extended content
File:JfSilverSwanSoySaucefvf 02.JPG File:JfSilverSwanSoySaucefvf 03.JPG File:JfSilverSwanSoySaucefvf 04.JPG

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully quote the following Verba and Imporant Notes of Commons Administrators on the matter:
" Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?

Vide: Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

"Given the subject, they do seem in scope to me. But even if one would not agree with that, Commons users, especially those with far over a million edits, are (or should be) allowed some personal files that are more or less connected to their editing. While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC).:

I would say that they're within scope since they are directly related to the work that the person is doing on this project. When I have done something similar I did a slightly different thing, opting to use file's history to preserve the permission xxx . ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 to in-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

Meta discussion

I pinged you there, but do you mind commenting on m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Camella_Manors_Spam_Websites. Thanks! --Beetstra (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan province of Philippines; hello and thanks for your visit and messages; please if you have time On Time, visit the most beautiful Philippines;

I am Judge Florentino Floro a Senior Citizen of Philippines age 67;

Even with my Total edit count: 1,705,316, please bear with with the fact that I don't have so fine knowledge of the Internet and Commons Information Technology;

I just received your message last night and now is 2:00 p.m. Wednesday Philippine Time; I really do not understand ping and notifications except if I receive User Talk Page message;

In My Categories Created to Category talk:Photographs by Judgefloro from January 2017 to * Category:Photographs created by Judgefloro : January-December, 2021 upon careful perusal of any of them, I usually support by Creation of Categories by Wikedia Links and or Internet sites; I just had one experience since 2010 that my edit was not succesful due to blocking of one Site or Link that I added;
There are 2 reasons why I include links in addition to Wikipedia articles: a) first, to support the Notability of the Category Created; and b) to define the boundaries of Barangays, villages, with Wikimapia or Phiilppine Map Sites like PhilAtlas etc. and also in Meals or Foods, to educate the viewers about the correctness of my naming of the Cuisine;

In this Camella Manors Spam Websites, particulary my portion photo of Category:Quirino Highway; allow me to explain that the only purpose of including the Camella Website is my problem of determining which Barangay of 59 Category:Barangays of San Jose del Monte City will I Categorize the instant photo considering that it is located on Boundary;

And this is true for all Camellas that I photographed to wit:

Revision as of 08:37, 30 December 2014 by Judgefloro (talk | contribs) (Create)

Category:Housing in the Philippines with Camela Orani, Bataan‎ (1 F) Camella Alfonso‎ (5 F) Camella Baliuag (Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan)‎ (25 F) Camella Gapan (Nueva Ecija)‎ (12 F) Camella Nueva Ecija‎ (20 F) Camella Provence (Longos, Malolos City, Bulacan)‎ (30 F) Camella San Jose Del Monte City, Bulcan‎ (17 F) Camella Subic‎ (6 F) Camella Trece‎ (5 F)Camella Venezia;

PREMISES CONSIDERED, I respectfully submit the foregoing Facts, which I hope may be helpful though; however, for my Personal Security, I cannot comment on whether the sites are spam or not, since please do understand that Senator Cynthia Villar is a top Senator and co-owner of these Camellas, and with their son as co-owner the highest Cabinet Secretary Official Senator Mark Villar, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City San Lazaro

Affected:

File:06233jfSan Lazaro Tayuman Lacson SM City Streets Pedestrian overpass Santa Cruz Manilafvf 01.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:06482jfSan Lazaro Overpass Bridge Park SM City Lacson Avenue Manilafvf 08.jpg

File:06482jfSan Lazaro Overpass Bridge Park SM City Lacson Avenue Manilafvf 08.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:06482jfSan Lazaro Overpass Bridge Park SM City Lacson Avenue Manilafvf 08.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:06566jfSan Lazaro SM City Landmarks Buildings Santa Cruz Manilafvf 04.jpg

File:JfCiudadINC9725PhilArenafvf 15.JPG

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM City Pampanga

Affected:

File:6279City of San Fernando, Pampanga 07.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Bundle DR:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robinsons Starmills

Affected:

File:9487Sinukwan Festival Robinsons Starmills Hub San Fernando Pampanga 17.jpg

And also:

Extended content

Yours sincerely, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia

CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;

However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;

On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;

When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;

I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;

It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:

If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;

Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;

As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;

I respectfully quote the following Verba and Important Notes of Commons Administrators on the matter:
" Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?

Vide: Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;

The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...

In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;

In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;

Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;

Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Judgefloro's seemingly ad hominem inputs in DRs. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I am User:Judgefloro with Total edit count: 1,706,442 today since 20:46, 29 April 2013 (7 years ago) Florentino Floro, a member of the Judiciary, as evidenced by my Br. 73, Regional Trial Court Supreme Court issued Permanent I.D. EDP No. 38676300 Officially Issued by the Court and of course a member of the IBP Roll No. 32800 since May 8, 1984; Roll No. 32800

I earned a Bachelor of Laws degree from the Ateneo Law School and placed 12th in the 1983 Philippine Bar Examinations with a grade of 87.55 percent; I earned the Record highest 91% Criminal Law Review Grade issued by Ateneo Professor Dean Antonio L. Gregorio unbroken by 10 Ateneo Valedictorians; thereat, I sat beside my school mate for 4 years from 1978-1982 Wife of the incumbent Executive Secretary and finished A.B. Phililosopy Pre-Divinity in Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola House of Studies by the Jesuits and I tranferred from 1 year study at Adamson University with 4 years education at St. Vincent's Seminary of Valenzuela Metro Manila;

I studied Grades I-VI in St. Mary's Meycauayan, Bulacan where for 2 years, from Grade IV-Grade VI, I walked daily with my classmate DOJ Secretary Evidence:

The Reinstatement of Filipino Duende Judge Florentino Floro SC Final Resolution Granting the Reinstatement Appeal of Judge Florentino Floro Full Assumption to Office SC Pleading by Judge Florentino Floro not former but Incumbent since November 5, 1999 until today November 27, 2020 as De Jure Judge of Br. 73 RTC Malabon vis-a-vis the De Facto Judge] Wall Street Journal front pages Judge Floro: In the Philippines, Ex-Judge Consults Three Wee Friends by James Hookway The Blue Madonna SC Motion which did prophecy The Philippines will not be spared from the Scattered Global Annihaltion] of April 4, 2008 which outlined the Covid-19 Pandemic and other Dire Suffering in the 3rd Secret of Fatima, Portugal ilipino Duende Juez Florentino Floro wins 2011 Appeal, is reinstated

Dwarf Chief Justice Florentino Floro: Saint-Martyr Philippine National Hero-Artist 2 Mar 23, 2010 Psychic Judge

Disbarment case of Chief Justice Florentino Floro versus Ex-Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Dismissed by the SC Court : Greatest Injustice in Filipino History

Truth is the Greatest Bomb: Jurist, healer, horse racing aficionado, psychic, raconteur - the extraordinary Judge Florentino Floro Jr is all these things, and more

Oaths of Lawyer and Philippine Judge as Expert in Criminal Law

I submitted the foregoing Evidence to prove that all my Legal Inputs, Argument and Discussions regarding the Mass Deletions by herein Mass Nominator, are all supported by Philippines Jurisprudence, Laws and Implementing Circulars, including the Latest issued on November 2020
I Judge Florentino Floro do solemnly swear that all my Legal inputs Legal Inputs, Argument and Discussions submitted edited and filed with the Entries and in My User Pages, are true and correct based on Facts, Law and my personal information and not just belief;

Background and History of the Case

I started on User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 1 23 November 2008 (UTC upon invitation of:

Pictures of the Philippines Hi Judge! I see that you have been submitting a lot of photos recent. Thank you very much for that. Would you mind taking pictures of things unique to your country and area? Local wildlife, landmarks, etc? I find going out and spending an afternoon at a park or in the woods to be a great way to relax and the results often are positive for the Wikimedia project. Let me know if you need anything! --J.smith (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Hi --J.smith, I have taken some pictures of Philippines and I am uploading them now, please help me if you have time. Regards--Judgefloro (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I discussed within 1 hour FOP with Leonardo Oliver F. Limbo, Attorney III who spoke on Enforcement of Copyright by the IPOPHLL [https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/services/ip-adjudication/ Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), pursuant to Sec. 10 of Republic Act 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code)

Consolidated Reply; With all due respect Thanks for your messages and concern; regarding the No freedom of panorama in the Philippines, after Discussions hereat, I respectfully reiterate that I filed my Paper with 3 Government offices namely a) the NCCA; File:NCCAIntramurosjf9999 23.JPG b) Director Ludovico D. Badoy Executive Director III Museum of Philippine Political History here I explained all to Director Badoy, regarding my fear and anxiety that many Barangays and even Catholic churches would hinder my photography due to the corruption problems of fear on Graft and misuse of funds like irregular road constructions; so, Director Badoy of the NCCA told me that as a Judge, I should know the law and rules and that it is my right under the Bill of Rights, freedom of the press, expression and religion to take photos; they have right at all to grant me a written paper Giving me the written right to show to the officers my gate pass, for under R.A. 6713, they would violate the law by granting me what is already Granted by law; as proof, he let me take his picture to show to Commons and to the Barangays and Churches that the NCCA has jurisdiction and that I, as Judge of a Regional Trial Court, that is, of Malabon-Navotas, Metro Manila, Br. 73, can show his photo as proof of right from the very NCCA to take photos of facades etc.; not contented, I went to c) the office of the Husband of my classmate in Ateneo Law School, Class 1983, Director Blancaflor who had happy days with my classmate; but he was not around or abroad, so, I talked to the Lawyer in charge or well informed on the matter of Philippine Copyright Law; he explained to me that as the NCCA officially stated, I do have the absolute right to take photos of facades and those under discussion in the No freedom of panorama in the Philippines, since Commons went there and there was no ruling yet, for their Office cannot prevent one from taking these photos; I explained to them the Laws of USA for Commons, and he and I knew that our Copyright Law was copied from USA and American Jurisprudence; as proof, I took photos of the outside exterior and even the interior of the Director Blancaflor's Office, as verbal permit to take photos as exception to the No freedom of panorama in the Philippines; File:FvfIPCenter0160 28.JPG Intellectual Property Center IP PHL 29 photos I told him that I have no intention of folow-ups and their position is clear that I can take photos; in the end, I told him and of course many time to editors and admins here at Commons, that, if any editor or admin may desire to delete my No freedom of panorama in the Philippines photos, I will have no objection on the matter, and leave the sound discretion to the Discussions on the nominations page; Addendum; since there is a change of Administration due to recent Elections, I will wait for the opportune time and may go back to the IPO Office at Global Port, WHEREFORE, premises considered, I have no objection to the deletion, and very respectfully and sincerely --Judgefloro 18:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 29 January 2019 29 January 2019, 14:39:57 with Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro; Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Re: February 5, 2019 Reply-Acknowledgement Letter-Receipt of-by the IPO Directress General's Office Josephine Rima-Santiago to Judge Floro, promising to Act on the Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines

Please consider the Legal lecture and explanations delivered to me by the very high ranking officers of the Past Blancaflor Office March 7, 2014: on the Code Republic Act No. 8293 Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL, in this building which I photographed including the 16th floor office of Director Blancaflor, I discussed the matter of my Petition on FoP with Atty. Limbo who said that the newly created on 2013 Bureau of Copyright will be the one under Director Blancaflor who is abroad but will be back soon to render and release a legal opinion on my Petition, Letter. : Considering that until now they failed to issue the promised Reply to Solve all the legal ramifications of the FoP, in good faith, I uploaded photos, understanding that I leave the matter of deletion to any and all editors who deem it proper to raise these issues; suffice it to say that I was granted express but verbal permission to photography these photos for deletion, hence,

All my photos fall within the Express exceptions provided by the Copyright law of the Philippines, thusly: "xxx On the other hand, works not protected by the copyright law are (1) unprotected subject matter and (2) works of the government.xxx Works of the Government On the other hand, no copyright shall be applied in any work of the Government of the Philippines. xxx Limitations on Copyright The following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: The use of a work under the direction or control of the government or other institutions for the purpose of informing and public. It must also be compatible with fair use. xxx

Fair Use A fair use, in its most general sense, is the act of copying of copyrighted materials done for purposes such as commenting, criticizing, or parodying a copyrighted work without the permission from the copyright owner. It is used as a defense under copyright infringement. xxx Reproduction of Published Work Under Subsection 187.1 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,[4] the reproduction of a published work shall be permitted without the owner's authorization given that the reproduction was made for research purposes.xxx In fact, everyone is doing Selfie and many photographers like me do take millions of photos of these Tourist landmark spots; references

Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro Most respectfully submitted, and very sincerely Judgefloro 04:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to put on hold the deletions until a until a Reply be sent per Emails or written documents by the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors

I disagree with reasons and I am submitting hereunder my suggestions or discussions with proof that the New discussion on PHL FoP is not finished yet or may be re-opened, since my legally valid queries submitted thereat were not yet resolved: in short, the valid legal issues I raised on FOP were not yet resolved but simply evaded leading to temporary or even false conclusions or theories: a) I relied - Estoppel in Pais - on the supposed filing of the letter by IanLopez vis-à-vis the supposed IPO and DOJ Replies on FOP uploading in Commons but there was no explanation why it was not filed; in fact, the cited IPO letter contains direct and unequivocal invitation to Email FOP questions, but until now, the IanLopez letter was not emailed; b) the twin legal issues I raised on the i) Locus standi to file Mass Deletion Requests by the i am a smart one and the Principal Accounts of co-conspirator: vis-à-vis the Check-user issue, which as it stands is not ended buy put on hold ii) the very clear commissions of Cybercrime-squatting per Mass Deletion Requests by the Co-conspirators - were unanswered ; I Dissent with reasonable doubt vis-à-vis The very Lis mota or Crux of New FOP discussions is: Get a written Reply from the IPO director and DOJ Secretary towards the Executive Secretary:

Even if I should or could stay neutral on these deletions, still, if I would not raise these points, the i am a smart one and i am a smart one's principal and co-conspirator, for sure, will take these as precedents to start anew floodwater of Cybersquatting Cyber-stalking; in short, may I interject as rejoinder - that it would be better to email the IPO Director on specific Deletions for your cited Webinar and talks in the IPO FOP are so general and covers almost all the sections of the Copyright law; these Deletions of yours may be dealt with on a "case to case" basis; any answer by email from the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors would shed light on Commons policies on FOP inter alia
I therefore humbly appeal to Commons editors to put on hold these deletions until a Reply be sent per Emails or written documents by the IPO - Bureau of Copyright Directors; the precautionary principle or measure of first delete in other countries opined by some editors would not apply to the Philippine FOP or deletions cases because the IPO office itself invited Commons and all to email their queries and it promised prompt replies Judgefloro (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Please stop conducting more deletion requests

Local government property and 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: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Letter and spirit of the law Legal technicality

Com FOP - "Time and time again WE have emphasized that the Rules of Court should not be interpreted to sacrifice substantial rights of a litigant at the altar of technicalities to the consequent impairment of the sacred principle of justice (Alonzo vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Case & Nantz vs. Jugo, 77 Phil. 517, 522). WE ruled that the Rules of Court frown upon hair-splitting technicalities that do not square with their liberal tendency and with the ends of justice (Case & Nantz vs. Jugo, supra)." many international professional photgraphers, books, magazines and sites use my photos; they have a right due to Knowledge, Information and Education, to select photos in my Album: Yours Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Argument and Legal discussion with registration of a very strong Legal Objection to the Continuous Mass Deletions of herein Nominator who is not even Armed with IPO or DOJ Replies, Circulars and S.C. Jurisprudence or USA rulings on FOP; it is humbly submitted that the Mass Nominations are reckless and disturbing: here are my Legal reasons to Keep all the photos Nominated for Deletion by herein Nominator:

Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz On hold - Need to discuss results with other CUs. Started on 9 September 2020 "Reason: I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by User:MGA73 on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly block this account, its child account Mrcl_lxmna and IP range of 120.29.109.24 for reckless DRs. --exec8 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) User:Exec8 This is a data gathering exercise and checks will be run (or not run) based on actual evidence provided and our own assessment of its (de)merits. : Conclusion: On hold only but not dismissed;

Other editors or Administrators may re-nominate these subject photos in the future, once the IPO and DOJ Secretary issues Rulings on my 2 Letters;

I strongly disagree with opinions I had seen or heard that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz is ended; it is merely put only that is - pending submission of further evidence;

Local government property and 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: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Keep Because Only the copyright owner or assigns can question the FOP or file Deletion requests; 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 controversy 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;

Keep Because the photos Historical National Treasures 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;

I contradict argument that artists or sculptors and architects did not transfer their rights to the Administrator or owner of all these, like Rizal Park Administration; for how can the Government build build build any property without owning the accessories; this is a legal absurdity; accessory including all moral and absolute rights are ipso facto transferred to the Government or its agencies when it is the principal Owner in Fee simple or title holder;

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:

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;

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Republic Act No. 10175 vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page and Cyberstalking

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.

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.

My Legal Challenge to the herein Nominator of Mass Deletions Requests: why don't you email the IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright Head, as I did before (letters to IPO Director and Directress) or the DOJ Secretary and submit your questions - Deletion requests here in Commons with specifics for Ruling, Reply and Opinion pending or awaiting a S.C. Ruling on FOP Commons Uploading vis-à-vis Copyright Infringement or De Minimis; and the very Lis Mota or Cruz of the Matter: Whether or not any editor of commons, including you, may ask for deletion of FOP photos allegedly owned but not proven by the Artist sculptor or Architect - heirs? Judgefloro (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive history of edits of my Talk pages by User:JWilz12345 starting with 3 December 2017 Request to me to take Photos

3 December 2017 First Request for Photos to Me by by User:JWilz12345 Balete Drive's northern segment Hi @Judgefloro: ! This is en:User:JWilz12345 of enwiki and tlwiki. If you have ample schedule/time, can you take photographs of en:Balete Drive's northern segment? (E.-Rodriguez-Bougainvilla segment) I think a photo of such segment is a better identifying photo for the said residential avenue of New Manila's eastern part. I noticed that you only uploaded the avenue's southern segment (Acacia st-Aurora Blvd segment) at Category:Balete Drive. And if you may or such conditions permit, can you photograph this segment on a highly cloudy day? (like RioHondo's File:Padre Burgos Avenue.jpg or your File:09979jfShaw Boulevard MRT Station Mandaluyong City EDSA Landmarksfvf 09.jpg. As this is more dramatic, emphasizing, and impact-causing for this segment said by many as the supposed core of urban legends in connection to this avenue. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgefloro: I've made major edits at Balete Drive's enwiki and tlwiki pages. I also changed its imgs at en:List of roads in Metro Manila and en:List of haunted locations in the Philippines. Thank you for the photos of this avenue! :) May you continue to contribute high-quality photos of various and important parts of Luzon for Wikipedia, Commons, and the people of the Philippines and the world! :) JWilz12345 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9 September 2019 Second Request to for Photos to me by by User:JWilz12345 Latest pictures of Skyway Stage 3 - Gregorio Araneta Avenue segment construction progress Magandang gabi po @Judgefloro: ! (as of the time of this edit) If your schedule permits, may I request for updated photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 Araneta Avenue segment? - specifically the Quezon Ave - E. Rodriguez Ave segment. There's no need for hundreds of photos sir, but these should be detailed enough to give understanding or impact to readers. Again this is if your schedule permits. Maraming salamat po! :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @Judgefloro: Its okay, at least there's been additional progress in construction while we're waiting for fine or fair weather. I'll be looking forward for your photos :-) JWilz12345 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, many thanks for the photos! It's a great help since most of the available photos of under-construction Skyway Stage 3 are way back to around mid-2018 at most recent. Again, I'll be looking forward for your additional photos.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC) :-) @Judgefloro: I think they wouldn't allow it since the construction is ongoing (not to mention the safety/ease of construction mobility issues). Again, I'll be looking forward for added pictures, most esp. when the weather improves (at least slightly).JWilz12345 (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8 September 2020 I Stay Neutral on the FOP Nominations: The Opinion of Department of Justice when rendered on FOP upon filing of Request for DOJ Opinon on FOP is superior to the IPO Director's Circulars and Rulings on FOP: the Deletion or Undeletion will be thus settled vis-a-vis the unsolved issues of Commons FOP
Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; Opinion :: Department of Justice - Republic of the Philippines Advisory Opinions of DOJ Secretary as Additional Rejoinder and Inputs, I hereby suggest that Pending the Matter of Final Ruling by the IPO Director on my Letter Requests for Ruling on Commons FOP uploaded photos, that: a) a Status quo ante should be the best option, that is, put on hold any ruling on Deletion or Non-deletion; b) alternatively, I further suggest that instead of waiting for the Ruling of the present Director of the IPO Office the highest Opinion :: Department of Justice - Republic of the Philippines Advisory Opinions of DOJ Secretary be issued upon Request of any one or 2 Editors hereat who may Email or write via LBC to the DOJ Secretary who may Render or Decline issuance of DOJ Opinion; c) I would not desire to be the one to file the Request since I repeat, I want to stay Neutral at Commons; as first and only reason, Guevarra, as I said was my best friend and classmate as we walked together from Calvario to Meycauayan, Bulacan when we were Grade IV to Grade VII at St. Mary's Academy; more importantly, Guevarra's boss when he was at the De Borja, Medialdea Law Office is the husband of my close classmate whom I sat beside for 2 years, Bertola or Betty Medialdea; it is my fervent Faith that I donated my photos to Commons without any condition for the public domain; now, I leave to Editors the matter of whether to delete or not to delete my photos; I lost my job as Jobless Judge in pretend world, and I am an Attorney with no case; I am not of this world since I am a Mystic and I govern in Eternitas; d) I humbly ask Commons editors to preserve for Eternity and future researchers my valued photos; if deleted, they may be undeleted upon Favorable Opinion of the DOJ Secretary who may even Order the IPO Director to issue a Favorable or unfavorable but Legally right Opinion on Commons FOP; very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, Rejoinder: Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law
11 September 2020 Reply and discussions: Express Permission to photograph the Shrine and Tallest Statue - Roman Catholic Churches, statues and accessories are outside the scope of the prohibitions of Philippine Copyright Laws by virtue of Settle Jurisprudence and Case laws of Canon Law and International Law
Consolidated Reply: Request for time to comment on Deletion Request Entry pages as I hereby reiterate my concise past published legal discussions
US Jurisprudence and Philippine Case law provide clear teachings applicable to Commons editing, Mass Deletions and FOP:

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 would rules that Mass Deletions 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 wherever is the turf appropriate

By the way: I note that the Copyright law like all criminal and civil or special laws are governed by the Statute of limitations or Prescription of actions and laches: the reckoning time is the Publishing in Commons of the photo subject of deletion, 4 years from Uploading Copyright infringement is extinguished by law

2nd Counter-argument: I strongly object to your false news and statement that I am a former Judge: the following SC pleadings and final SC Decision and Resolution Dismisses your offending Statement which has no basis in Law

2nd Counter-argument: I strongly object to your false news and statement that I am a former Judge: the following SC pleadings and final SC Decision and Resolution Dismisses your offending Statement which has no basis in Law

The Reinstatement of Filipino Duende Judge Florentino Floro SC Final Resolution Granting the Reinstatement Appeal of Judge Florentino Floro Full Assumption to Office SC Pleading by Judge Florentino Floro not former but Incumbent since November 5, 1999 until today November 27, 2020 as De Jure Judge of Br. 73 RTC Malabon vis-a-vis the De Facto Judge] Wall Street Journal front pages Judge Floro: In the Philippines, Ex-Judge Consults Three Wee Friends by James Hookway The Blue Madonna SC Motion which did prophecy The Philippines will not be spared from the Scattered Global Annihaltion] of April 4, 2008 which outlined the Covid-19 Pandemic and other Dire Suffering in the 3rd Secret of Fatima, Portugal ilipino Duende Juez Florentino Floro wins 2011 Appeal, is reinstated

Dwarf Chief Justice Florentino Floro: Saint-Martyr Philippine National Hero-Artist 2 Mar 23, 2010 Psychic Judge

Disbarment case of Chief Justice Florentino Floro versus Ex-Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Dismissed by the SC Court : Greatest Injustice in Filipino History

Truth is the Greatest Bomb: Jurist, healer, horse racing aficionado, psychic, raconteur - the extraordinary Judge Florentino Floro Jr is all these things, and more

I strongly object to your false news and statement that I am a former Judge: the following SC pleadings and final SC Decision and Resolution Dismisses your offending Statement which has no basis in Law

Divine Intervention The Philippines: Judge Seeks Reinstatement Jul 18, 2012 — Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr” GRANTing Petitioner Judge Floro's April 1, 2011 Motion for Reinstatement, etc. 68 pages Judge Florentino V Floro Jr in session Reinstatement SC Motion Never return Adiós I strongly Object to the Request of Deletion respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of Commons editors very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection to DR Request that has no legal basis

Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos

Legal support of my stance - Nominator must be above suspicion "A judge, like Caesar's wife, must not only be clean but must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive… every judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty ..."

Pompeia (wife of Caesar) Inhibition (law) out of Delicadeza Judges' inhibition based on Delicadeza All the foregoing notwithstanding, this should be a good occasion as any to draw attention of herein nominator of many FOP deletion to study the appropriate guidelines to try and decide a case fairly and judiciously comes to the fore by way of challenge from herein editor: I always submitted many legal suggestions on FOP nominations, that herein nominator should conduct a careful self-examination; as an editor, a man, subject to the frailties of other men, nominator, should, therefore, exercise great care and caution before pushing the button to edit my talk page and ponder on the the all-important confidence in the impartiality of all editors herein to forestall miscarriage of justice by erasing tons of landmark photos from Commons and preventing future researchers and the youth from learning from Commons photos : irreparable damage and injury to Commons Wikimedia Foundation ownership of all these photos I irrevocable donated for public domain; and without even emailing the IPO Director or DOJ Sec. Ad Cautelam ... this way, nominator avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved vis-à-vis the sockpoppet check user of Parent and Child accounts of the Smart One;
I respectfully copy paste herein as integral part hereof A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Conclusion: Present -latest Supreme Court - IPO - Bureau of Copyright Implementing Rules applicable to FOP Commons Uploading and Mass Deletions: The New 2020 A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC

The 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases to Take Effect on November 16, 2020 In revising the 2020 IPR Rules, the salient features of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure were integrated therein. For instance, the 2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof. The answer shall likewise be filed within thirty (30) calendar days from service of summons, while the answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) calendar days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded. Replies are no longer prohibited for as long as the answer includes an actionable document. The 2020 IPR Rules also incorporate the amended provision on substituted service of summons. Extraterritorial service of summons as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party shall also be allowed. In keeping with the language of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the 2020 IPR Rules are also now gender-sensitive.

Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";

a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City Supermalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deleter on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws;

In the specific case of SM Supermalls including here photos of SM, suffice it to say, that SM Supermalls owns the Copyright and no artist or architect outside it did ever create or did have any moral or copyrights issues; this is so, since SM Supermalls have their own creators, architects etc. who before and after the works, waived any rights whatsoever in favor of the SM Corporation and its Holding Corporation; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judgefloro's seemingly ad hominem inputs in DRs

Synopsis: All the repeated argument, discussions and Telling that I am WRONG are now abandoned by the latest The New 2020 A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC

Mirrored reply. @Judgefloro: look back at the Section 172.2 of the Republic Act No. 8293.: Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. While registration still exists, it only helps to give additional benefits to the copyright holders like architects, sculptors or their heirs, but copyright protection itself already starts from the moment of creation, not from the time of optional registration. Every object here in the Philippines containing substantial artistic style are copyrighted automatically after their creation, publication, erection, and/or unveiling. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion : There is no Ad Hominem Input here; Reasons and Examination of the Wordings

I don't know if ANU is a right venue for this, and I am already used to his attacks, but for this time he made a problematic comment ("a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believe, I never filed any Undeletions, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the DOJ, the IPO and Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE", example Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Contemporary sculpture Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center). This despite IPOPHL-BCRR's comment at the online dialogue that copyright laws are statutory rights, and provisions like FOP cannot be made into existence by just legal studies, interpretations, etc.. (contray to what Judgefloro claims). Such provisions must be indicated and defined. And to sum up, photographers must obtain free license from the architects, sculptors, etc.., while the bill to amend the copyright is still pending at Congress. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should give him a notice and to remind him that while no FOP status still apply, authorization for a free licensing from the copyright holders (the architects/sculptors/their heirs) is still required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The has reference to My Fish vendor refers to the Impact of COVID-19 to Market Vendors; very few survived the Restrictions and most of them suffered poverty; b) the reference to my Trike Driver is the Transport crisis due to the Pandemic; most of them earned only 20% compared to Pre-COVID;

The Nominator Repeately cited Abandoned Webinars, IPO Talks and repeately cited by cherry-picking Proviso of the Copyright Law without any Reference to the Present Mandates of the by the latest The New 2020 A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC

The 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases to Take Effect on November 16, 2020

Ad hominem argumentum ad hominem Wikipedia:No personal attacks

On Philippine FOP

I am sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to fully comprehend FOP-related legalities in the Philippines, so I am neutral. Please stop pinging me about them. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: (I moved your reply to a brand new section here) Ok. I understand. Sorry again. Philippine FOP is actually stressful to me. I actually hate seeing these deleted, but "my hands are tied" because I must comply with the longstanding policies here. I hope that Wikimedia Foundation will finally agree to initiate a dialogue with IPOPHL on freedom of panorama. Because that is what IPOPHL indicated in their reply to an email sent by Higad Rail Fan in November 2020. This dialogue may be helpful in pushing for the inclusion of FOP in the approved amendment to R.A. 8293, because the proposed amendment, House Bill No. 8062, still has no FOP provision. The exceptions are now at Chapter VII, Sections 159.1–165.3. Hopefully WMF agrees to the WMF–IPOPHL dialogue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 11:09, 30 September 2020‎ JWilz12345 talk contribs‎ to Revision as of 18:28, 14 February 2021 by JWilz12345 (talk | contribs) JWilz12345 (talk | contribs) edited more that 30 times Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines without citing the the latest The New 2020 A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC The 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases to Take Effect on November 16, 2020

mere users do not have the legal expertise to establish the legal policies to which Commons must adhere. One would expect the Wikimedia lawyers to take care of this. I guess that would be my starting point... 3 January 2021 (UTC) We could ask the WMF legal team to issue guidance in this matter very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I also asked Help from the Help Desk and from and Administrator for guidance sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:0027Ronnie David Cao.jpg

Copyright status: File:0027Ronnie David Cao.jpg EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully submit that the photo was made by a photoshop using commercial editing; daily before COVID pandemic, I see many students and even teachers pay the shops to create ready made certificates or diplomas, just my thoughts, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Judgefloro

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

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

Nagtahan Boulevard

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Overcategorization and very long category names

Category:Empty streets and establishment closures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Baliuag: 396 photos + 57 and 478 pictures

Copyright status: File:0239Ornamental plants in the Philippines 14.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Partial Consolidated Reply

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

Notification about possible deletion

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

Even if my Nikon Camera has a timer, still due to Time Constraints, I gave it to a kid altar boy and he took my and Fr. Among Cao's photo: I and only myself is the Photographer

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

"While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)":

Meta discussion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

COM:AN/U

Introduction

Oaths of Lawyer and Philippine Judge as Expert in Criminal Law

Background and History of the Case

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Republic Act No. 10175 vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page and Cyberstalking

Comprehensive history of edits of my Talk pages by User:JWilz12345 starting with 3 December 2017 Request to me to take Photos

Conclusion: Present -latest Supreme Court - IPO - Bureau of Copyright Implementing Rules applicable to FOP Commons Uploading and Mass Deletions: The New 2020 A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC

Judgefloro's seemingly ad hominem inputs in DRs

Conclusion : There is no Ad Hominem Input here; Reasons and Examination of the Wordings

Copyright status: File:0027Ronnie David Cao.jpg

Navigation menu

Search