Wikimedia Commons

User talk:Judgefloro/Archive 25

< User talk:Judgefloro
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Judgefloro in topic Meta discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)


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)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

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

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)

File:FvfTarlac8118 20.JPG

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

File:FvfTarlac8118 20.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FvfTarlac8118 20.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)


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)


  •   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)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

And also:

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

File:9470SM City Bicutan 03.jpg

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:9470SM City Bicutan 03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:9470SM City Bicutan 03.jpg Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File:1905Bulacan Makaki City Landmarks Roads 30.jpg

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:1905Bulacan Makaki City Landmarks Roads 30.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:1905Bulacan Makaki City Landmarks Roads 30.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:09351jfFruits Cuisine of Bulacan Mangoes Chco Papaya Philippinesfvf 11.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:09351jfFruits Cuisine of Bulacan Mangoes Chco Papaya Philippinesfvf 11.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • 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)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:09680jfQuiapo Quezon Boulevard Manila Bridge Riverfvf 12.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:09680jfQuiapo Quezon Boulevard Manila Bridge Riverfvf 12.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

Extended content

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

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

  • 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)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:02968jfPaltao Angat River Pulilan Welcome Cutcot Bulacanfvf 09.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:02968jfPaltao Angat River Pulilan Welcome Cutcot Bulacanfvf 09.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:02827jfPaltao Longos Pulilan Halls Chapels Welcome Bulacanfvf 27.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:02827jfPaltao Longos Pulilan Halls Chapels Welcome Bulacanfvf 27.JPG JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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;

"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)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:0143jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:0143jfSan Vicente U.P. Campus C. P. Garcia Avenue Quezon Cityfvf 01.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Affected:

And also:

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in 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)

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

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)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Judgefloro/Archive_25&oldid=549601101"
Return to the user page of "Judgefloro/Archive 25".