Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Shortcuts: COM:AN/U • COM:ANU • COM:ANI

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~44
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• No license since 22 October 2025: ~8
• No permission since 22 October 2025: ~46
• No source since 22 October 2025: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-10: ~232

Other:

• Duplicates: ~75
• Advertisements/spam: ~10
• Personal photos/selfies: ~100
• Other speedy deletions: ~165
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~4
• Undeletion requests: ~11

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~41
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~1
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Before reporting one or more users here, try to resolve the dispute by discussing with them first. (Exception: obvious vandal accounts, spambots, etc.)
• Keep your report as short as possible, but include links as evidence.
• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User is mass-emptying categories based on interpretation and personal preference and not policy

Several threads on User talk:Rathfelder show this user unilaterally changing the category scheme. Sometimes this is helpful and it is certainly well-intentioned, but the entire rationale behind many of these decisions is off-base and the latest rash of edits (such as this) are removing categories from the parent category Category:Scientific journals by name, which is supposed to list all journals together (minus those in its subcategories, but either way, Rathfelder is not inserting it into the subcats, so it is entirely removed). There have been many such problems, including one that was raised at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_97#User_unilaterally_changing_and_emptying_categories,_not_responding_to_others'_concerns. See:

• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_date_categories_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_removing_dates_from_files?
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Category_removal
• User_talk:Rathfelder#Why_are_you_emptying_a_category_again? (the issue that I raised above)

I think that this user's reasoning is wrong and these edits are undoing a lot of work by other users. The additions that Rathfelder makes and diffusion of large categories is useful, but the removal of work and unilateral emptying of categories is not and this problem has been ongoing for a long time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant to add that in addition to doing some proper and useful diffusion alongside doing removals of valid and useful categories, this user is also inserting inaccuracies, such as labeling a journal as a book, which are two different kinds of publications in two different kinds of schemes. These are serious problems in judgement and undo a lot of useful work that others have done, making some categories much less useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont think there is a clear difference between scientific journals and books. Many of them physically are books and many are categorised as books. We could have a category for public health journals.

I am attempting to categorise journals of all sorts by country and by year. I dont think Category:Scientific journals by name is very useful. Most of the content needs to be added to other categories. if fully populated there would be many thousand entries. My guess is that less than 1% were included before I started moving them. Journals quite often change their names over time and there is not agreement whether for example the name should include "The", so it isnt very helpful to sort them by name. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a category for journals by name is helpful as some sort of "reference work" or "glossary" where you can simply look up a journal name alphabetically. I don't know in what field of work you are, but I often find myself using alphabetical lists of all kinds at work. Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is illustrative of the exact two complaints that I have above:

• You don't think something is useful, so you personally remove it.
• You think that since only a small percentage of a given kind of work is done, therefore you should undo the work that has been done (e.g. see on your talk page where I mention how most files here don't have descriptions in Korean: that's not justification for removing the ones that do!)

These are the recurring issues that I have in a nutshell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

While like many categorizations, there can be confusion at the edges, scientific journals are periodicals and treated differently by the bibliographic community. To go into a mass deletion because you don't think they're distinct is unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Concur with Prosfilaes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

So would people see a category like Category:Scientific journals by name, with perhaps 30,000 entries, as useful? Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

All X by name or X (flat list) categories are made for listing all such things in a big category. Even some categories that do have diffusion schemes still list all instances as subcategories, such as Category:Surnames. You cannot impose a top-down hierarchy model on all categories here: that's not how it works in principle or practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Meh. I don't know how to use it, but there are people who do find it useful, and on a collaborative project, that's frequently enough reason to leave it alone. Moreover, there's many categories of the type, and it's not really an argument that should be had on scientific journals alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

But doesnt it give rise to problems like Category:Books in French. Too crowded with 92,466 files. They arent even in alphabetical order. How would anyone find this helpful? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Probably mostly for category intersections. Just like many tags on sites that use those. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I dont understand. Can you give some examples? Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: have a look at Commons:PetScan/Generate list of Commons files. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How is all this consistent with the instruction: Please remove redundant categories and try to put this image in the most specific category/categories? Rathfelder (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: That instruction in the expansion of {{subst:chc}} to {{Check categories}} with parameters doesn't tell you to remove the way you have been doing it. Please go ahead and make your case for why particular categories you have been removing (and thus have been emptying) against consensus have been redundant, using as much specificity as you need. We'll wait.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Daniel Broomfield Ua

Can someone please block this person already? Their unconstructive POV pushing is disruptive and is wasting the time of all concerned. Geoffroi 22:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

My point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. I just want to find out what legislation has to be applied to the panorama objects in Crimea. There are already three versions: Ukrainian, Russian, and US! So how can people contribute to Wikimedia Commons if you don't know what copyright law should be used and ban people who are finding it out? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not finding anything out. You have no understanding of copyright, nor do you care. You won't listen to anyone. Nobody agrees or will agree with your political bullshit. Geoffroi 22:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, my point of view is neutral. It means that it is you who defends certain political ideas. There is a simple question: what copyright law should be in Crimea? Using Russian law means violating Ukrainian law. Somebody says that it should be US law. I have already said that the most reliable source in this case is Wikimedia's layer conclusion. So why don't you just show such a conclusion? Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The question of what copyright law should be in Crimea is not relevant to Commons. And using Russian law doesn't mean violating Ukrainian law; if you obey Russian laws against murder in Crimea, you will be obeying Ukrainian laws against murder as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He hates Russia and Russians. That's why he's here. You or another admin should block him so we don't waste more time on a discussion that's obviously going absolutely nowhere.@Geoffroi [1]

No, I just say that according to international law, Crimea is Ukraine. The UN point of view is the neutral point of view. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You know nothing at all about copyright. All you know is that you hate Russians and you want to troll Commons about it. Geoffroi 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd watch out for boomerang. Daniel isn't behaving perfectly, but neither is it okay to abuse him. Objecting to the invasion of Crimea is not hating Russians or even Russia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

He's casting legal aspersions above even on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I linked their fair use policy and their legal noticeboard and without looking at it he said they're violating Ukrainian law. Sounds like a pov troll to me. Geoffroi 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the UN point of view is not the neutral point of view. It is a point of view. We aren't Wikipedia, and we don't have the same NPOV rules, but in Wikipedia, you'd be forced to discuss the view of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Topic banned: Quote: "Consider this a topic ban from discussing anything related to legal issues in Crimea (except for actual good-faith deletion discussion) for a period of 1 month." --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Update, the user violated the topic ban and is now blocked locally for 1 year. The user has also been globally locked indefinitely on meta. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

MrGreen105

• User: MrGreen105 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
• Reasons for reporting: Continued copyvio uploading like File:ShehbazSharif-new (cropped).png after final warning for doing so.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The file that I posted was an extract from ANOTHER file by another user that I was unaware was deleted due to copyright violations. Aside from this extracted file, not a single file (given my scarce participation in Wikimedia Commons) that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations. I understand the issue with this extracted file; however, when I uploaded it, there was no deletion nomination for the original, so I hope you can understand. Besides this apparent flaw, I have upheld Wikimedia Commons guidelines to my knowledge. Thanks, MrGreen105 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? This was the user's talkpage before last cleaning. I might have accepted that this file was a reasonable extract from another file, and that this was overzealous, but you claiming not a single file has been deleted due to copyright violations when I can see that talk page destroys any good faith I might have given you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I claim (or intended to claim). I am referring to files that are CURRENTLY posted; I am aware of previous violations, which I have taken into account through the cessation of any posting that involves dubious copyright statuses. MrGreen105 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

To say that your currently posted files haven't been deleted is tautological.

That said, the issue here should be what happens going forward. I'm out the door right now; can someone work out how many recent uploads have been a problem (and I wouldn't count a derivative work of something that was already on Commons, we've pretty much all made that mistake). - Jmabel ! talk 13:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked MrGreen for a week. Without his sentence "not a single file that I have posted has been deleted due to copyright violations." I would not block him. Taivo (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo and @Prosfilaes: Thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Ingyames

Ingyames (talk • contribs • block log • filter log) uploads previously deleted files and removes SD templates after warning. --Ovruni (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ovruni, thank you for your message and notification.

I would like to clarify that the image I uploaded is a **professional portrait of myself**, published under **CC BY 4.0 license**, and is **relevant to my Wikidata item (Q136567729)**.

The speedy deletion (SD) template was replaced with a **standard deletion request** according to Commons guidelines, so that the file can be properly reviewed by administrators. I had no intention of circumventing the rules; my goal is for the file to remain **legitimately and verifiably available** for Wikimedia-related projects.

I am happy to provide any additional information if needed. Thank you for your understanding. Ingyames (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as spammer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Toniker0501's removal of DR notices on PH congressmen images

I just discovered that Toniker0501 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion request tags that were added to the images of PH congressmen when I nominated those for deletion using VisualFileChange tool. For the removal actions, see this. IMO, the deletion request (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2019)) is valid as it concerns the images being authored by a professional photographer from private sector instead of a government employee. Toniker0501 should have commented on the DR page if they oppose deletion, instead of removing valid DR tags. I'm requesting an admin to sanction this user, and revert all of their removals of DR tags on the nominated images. Kindly see also the images I nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016), as it seems the DR tags were removed, too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello JWilz12345 I'm so sorry for doing that please revert the nominating deletion on the images of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Official photographs of members of the House of Representatives of the Philippines (2016). Thank you!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Toniker0501: This is not acceptable. You need to self-revert - the DR notices need to be on those files until the DR is closed. Any further disruption will result in a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will do that Toniker0501 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pi.1415926535 it's all done!!! Toniker0501 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:StPaul.jpg

StPaul.jpg (talk · contribs) -- LTA Livioandronico2013, easily identifiable per DUCKtest as yet another sock. --A.Savin 11:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked him indefinitely, but did not revert or delete anything. Taivo (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Heroesdx9

Heroesdx9 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) - is uploading copyvios again. Has been previously blocked for the same. I did not have time yet to look at all the files, probably all their recent uploads need to be flushed. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. User is blocked for a month. I deleted most remaining uploads speedily, the rest are nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:LAK7474

Uploads vast amounts of supposedly AI images that appear to be copyright laundering of non-free images Dronebogus (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the AI images and blocked for a month. This isn't just about the AI junk - there are copyvios, personal attacks, and competence issues all mixed in. Any further AI hoax/copyvios and I will indef. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Michaelshaheed

COM:PENIS-only account Dronebogus (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Iamsaifsarkar

continued to upload selfies after being warned. 0x0a (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@0x0a,  Done. Kadı Message 12:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Unixbytes2k25

Repeatedly uploading official portraits of politicians/royalties and claiming them as "own work". I sent a reminder to them to check the copyright statuses of these images and to not claim them as own work, however they've continued to upload such portraits afterwards (e.g. File:Queen Elizabeth II Final Portrait.jpg) with the own work claim. S5A-0043🚎 03:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the user for a week and mass deleted all his/her contributions. Taivo (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Jeff G. and blocking users by snitching on the admins.

User:Jeff G. reverted my abuse filter problem and threatend to block me by snitching on the admins! He needs to be instructed not to have admins block people without discussion first cause I'm tired of this nonsense. DioMuchaMan (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You've only joined 8 hours ago... Nakonana (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

And you've already reported Jeff on the vandal noticeboard[2]. Nakonana (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I know. But look, I'm very tired of Jeff G. snitching on me! I was focusing on uploading things since I've joined 8 hours ago like you said. DioMuchaMan (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Geoffroi 21:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by userMostabed

please delete all these uploads and block the user. Non of these are own works of user

rcenet deletes[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences, I deleted the uploads and warned the user. If Mostabed continues, please inform me.  Done. Kadı Message 13:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

User:MoniqueB87 and User:MoniqueB1987

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User has nominated the same file for deletion 3 times for a spurious reason using a sockpuppet. See Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg and [[3]] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 18:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the sockpuppet, warned the oldest account, and closed all DRs. Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

Thank you for your message. I’d like to clarify that I am not using any alternate accounts — all of my edits have been made solely under this account (MoniqueB87).

If there’s been any misunderstanding on that point, I’m happy for the administrators to verify it directly.

As for the deletion requests, they were submitted in good faith and based on Commons’ own verifiability and licensing requirements (COM:V and COM:L).

The Flickr source linked to this file — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private, which means the Creative Commons license can no longer be independently verified.

Under Commons policy, past verification cannot substitute for a currently verifiable source, so the file’s license is now effectively invalid.

My only goal has been to ensure that Commons continues to meet its own licensing standards — there was no intent to spam, duplicate requests, or misuse the process.

Thank you for your understanding,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: As explained on your talk page, we have a license review process, which can certify that files were under a free license at the time of upload. Once this is the case, we do not care if the source disappears. And yes, you used the alternate account MoniqueB1987, which is now blocked. Yann (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann — I understand your position and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Just to clarify, I did at one point lose access to my previous account (MoniqueB1987) and therefore created this one to continue contributing transparently. I’ve used only this account since and have no intention of editing under multiple usernames. My intent has always been to raise legitimate policy questions in good faith.

On the licensing point — I fully recognise that Commons maintains a historical license review process. However, Commons policy (COM:V and COM:L) also specifies that free licenses must remain independently verifiable.

When the Flickr source becomes private, that verification is no longer possible.

This isn’t about revoking a license — it’s about whether Commons can still confirm that the license is valid today, as per current verifiability standards.

In practical terms:

• The original Flickr link now leads to a private page, so no one can confirm the license.
• Therefore, the “green review” may show past verification but cannot satisfy ongoing verification requirements.

I’m raising this not to contest process, but to ensure policy integrity — both for Commons’ credibility and the accuracy of its archive.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This shows paid editing, so any further such edit should lead to an indefinite block. Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, I want to clarify that I am not a paid editor and have never accepted compensation for any edits or actions on Commons.

All my contributions have been made independently and in good faith, with the sole purpose of ensuring accuracy and compliance with Commons’ own verifiability standards.

If there’s any misunderstanding, I’m happy for administrators to review my account activity — everything has been transparent and policy-focused.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yann, with respect, the issue here is not about me, my account, or any suggestion of paid activity.

The issue remains purely policy-based — there is no longer a valid or verifiable source for these images.

Commons’ own policies on verifiability and licensing integrity are clear:

if a license cannot be independently confirmed at source, its validity on Commons cannot be guaranteed.

By continuing to host these files under an unverified license, Commons risks undermining its own standards of accuracy and trust.

This is not a personal matter — it’s a question of maintaining policy consistency and public credibility.

Respectfully, fighting those who highlight this concern does not reflect well on Commons or its commitment to data integrity.

Kind regards,

MoniqueB87 MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: Hi, You do not need to repeat the same thing again and again. Please read what I wrote on your talk page, and this page: COM:LR. Yann (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thank you for your note. I’ve read your replies and reviewed COM:LR carefully.

I want to clarify that my concern is not with the review process itself, but with the fact that the source is no longer valid or publicly verifiable. Without an accessible source, the claimed license cannot be confirmed — and that is the core issue I’m trying to address.

Could we please focus on the validity of the current source rather than on procedural assumptions about my account? My intention has always been to ensure that Commons’ licensing integrity is maintained.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about policy interpretation; it’s about the integrity of the license. A license that can no longer be verified is, by definition, invalid under Commons’ own standards. I believe this deserves attention on its own merits, rather than being dismissed as a procedural matter. MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yann,

Kindly click on the original source link below and verify for yourself — it no longer leads to a public page:

🔗 https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

As you can see, the Flickr source is now private and therefore cannot be verified. This makes the existing Commons license unverifiable and, by extension, invalid under Commons’ own standards.

I hope this helps clarify the factual issue at hand.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: The file in question was license-reviewed by FlickreviewR 2, an automated bot operating under the Commons:License review process. That means the license was independently verified at the time of upload, not by the uploader. In other cases where the bot can't verify (perhaps due to crops prior to upload here) it may be reviewed by a highly trusted user or administrator after upload.

Once a file has passed license review, Commons policy treats it as permanently verified, even if the original Flickr page later becomes private, deleted, or otherwise inaccessible. This is standard practice and fully in line with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}.

If you believe the file infringes on your copyright despite this review (i.e. you are the copyright owner, and you refute that the image ever was freely licensed despite this automated review), the appropriate channel is not further on-wiki discussion but a formal DMCA takedown notice sent to legalwikimedia.org.

From a Commons perspective, the issue you are wanting to discuss is closed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying the process. I understand that FlickreviewR 2 performed the automated license review at the time of upload and that Commons treats such verification as permanent.

However, I respectfully submit that this situation falls outside the intended scope of that policy. The Flickr account in question was fraudulent, and Flickr itself has since confirmed that the images have been made private at the source. In other words, the “verified” license was issued under false pretences — it was not a legitimate free license at the time of upload.

This means the license was not just withdrawn later, but invalid from the outset, which fundamentally changes the context of the automated review. The question isn’t whether the license was later revoked, but whether the license ever existed in good faith.

I’m raising this not as a procedural disagreement but as a matter of accuracy and integrity. A fraudulent upload cannot create a valid or “permanent” license.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage with this. I hope it can be reconsidered in light of these specific circumstances.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: I am a license reviewer myself, so I know what to be on the lookout for when doing license reviews. Hence my question: how would you demonstrate that the old Flickr upload was fraudulent and thus amounts to COM:FLICKRWASHING?

And while it's true that the actual source file for File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg (and its crop) was removed from Flickr, the upload here carried over a complete set of metadata (EXIF). These EXIF here on Commons are conform to other uploads by the original author still visible on Flickr, the shots were made with the same entry-level DSLR and lens, and the software is also the same. This circumstantial evidence points towards the image being a legitimate upload with a legitimate license, not a fraudulent one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.

To clarify — the issue here is not whether the EXIF data or equipment details are consistent with other uploads. Those elements can easily be replicated, especially when images are re-uploaded from secondary or fabricated accounts. What establishes legitimacy in this case is not metadata similarity but the verifiable authenticity of the Flickr account that originally applied the Creative Commons license.

In this instance, Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private. The platform’s own action demonstrates that Flickr no longer recognises the account or its uploads as valid, and therefore any license attributed to it cannot stand.

This is why I referenced COM:FLICKRWASHING — because a false Flickr account applying an invalid CC license falls directly within that definition. The “circumstantial” evidence based on EXIF cannot outweigh the primary source (Flickr) no longer standing by the license or its visibility.

I understand the importance of consistency in Commons processes, but when the source platform itself has acted to restrict or disavow the original upload, continuing to host the file here under a “verified” but now void license undermines the integrity of Commons’ licensing standards.

Thank you again for your time — I’m raising this purely to ensure that the project’s licensing accuracy remains sound.

Kind regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

No. The file is private (403), not removed or deleted (404). Flickr has not made any determination that there is anything wrong with the upload that you can discern from that link. We operate under the Precautionary principle, but you have provided no evidence that would justify invoking it here. You are effectively throwing around accusations of fraud without supporting evidence, as if repeating speculative claims generated by tools such as ChatGPT. The Flickr user seem to be a professional photographer and I don't see any evidence that they may have committed any COM:FLICKRWASHING. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for your reply. To clarify — regardless of why Flickr made these files private, the key issue is that the original source is no longer publicly viewable or verifiable.

https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

Commons policy (COM:L and COM:V) requires that a Creative Commons license remain publicly accessible and independently confirmable. Once a Flickr source becomes private (403), that verification chain is broken. A license that can no longer be verified cannot remain valid.

Even if a license was previously reviewed, its validity depends on the continuing public accessibility of the source. Since that is no longer the case here, the file no longer meets Commons’ verifiability standards.

I’m simply raising this to ensure Commons’ licensing integrity is upheld — this is not a question of preference, but of verifiability.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: please have a look at en:WP:DROPTHESTICK.

• There's no violation of Commons' policies and guidelines visible at File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg. The license was confirmed from the Flickr source. A nowadays dead source doesn't hamper a validity of a license demonstrated in the past. There's no need to have a perpetual ability to confirm licenses.
• There are no indications that the Flickr source engaged in fraudulent uploads. The specific file is hidden, true, but your sentence "Flickr themselves have confirmed that the account was not legitimate and have since made all of its content private." is plain wrong. The account from Sean Reynolds and its photostream are visible at/from https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/ .
• It is true that EXIF are datasets that can be edited, see Commons:EXIF. But this needs some somewhat advanced knowledge about tools and characteristics that aren't really widespread. Especially if you have the aim of actually faking a dataset to make it look like a genuine photoshoot, there's a plethora of things to watch out for: serial numbers for lenses and body in a format that conforms to the manufacturer's standards, exact dates of captures down to the second or even millisecond, software versions, original filenames - and taking care of not duplicatinmg anything... It is REALLY easy to overlook things when engaging in such faking activities, leading to inconsistencies, especially when there's an aim to fill a Flickr account. I checked several uploads from Sean Reynolds on Flickr, and I didn't spot anything unusual or unexpected. The EXIF on Flickr and the local EXIF corroborate a valid licensing.

Your case to get the file(s) deleted is a really weak one - it won't result in a success for you, as far as I can tell. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand-Duc,

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I’ve read your message carefully and fully understand the perspective you’re outlining.

However, the issue here is not about the technical EXIF data or assumptions about the photographer’s intentions. It’s about verifiability and licensing integrity under Commons policy.

According to COM:L and COM:V, the validity of a license depends on the continuing ability to verify that the work is indeed available under a free license. Once the source link no longer displays that license publicly, Commons can no longer independently verify it.

Whether or not the Flickr user’s photostream still exists is not the point — the specific source URL cited on Commons is now private and therefore unverifiable. As a result, the chain of evidence confirming the license is broken.

Commons itself cannot act as both host and verifier of a license that can no longer be demonstrated from an external source. That’s the core concern being raised here.

Best regards,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why your client hates it so much. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nard,

With respect, this discussion is not about personal feelings or anyone’s preferences — it’s about Commons policy, specifically the verifiability of a license and the validity of a public source.

Comments implying personal motivation are not appropriate or relevant to the issue under discussion. I’d appreciate it if we could keep the focus on policy.

If you check the source link yourself — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V.

Thank you,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone block them per en:WP:NOTHERE? We just keep going in circles and MoniqueB87 refuses to drop the stick. Bidgee (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

With respect, Bidgee, I’m not here to “go in circles.” I’ve raised one clear and verifiable concern:

The file’s source link is no longer publicly accessible, which means the claimed Creative Commons license can no longer be independently confirmed.

This is not a behavioural issue; it’s a licensing and verification issue. Labeling it otherwise doesn’t resolve the underlying compliance problem.

I’m engaging in good faith and would appreciate if the discussion could remain focused on Commons’ policies — specifically COM:L and COM:V — rather than on user motives. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You are going around in circles. The community has stated that just because it is no longer publicly visable, doesn't make the license invaild nor that it is no longer verifiable but you keep looping around with the same argument that is getting you no where and is wasting this communities' time. You say you're not doing paid editing yet you said "client" within the topic discussion. Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Bidgee, with respect, I’m not “going in circles.” I’m addressing one unresolved compliance issue — that the license is no longer independently verifiable because the Flickr source is private: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343

You are correct that Commons policy allows reliance on previously verified licenses, but that is not equivalent to ongoing verifiability, which COM:V requires. The public evidence that once supported this file’s license no longer exists, so it cannot be independently confirmed by any future user.

Furthermore, Jonatan Svensson Glad has already acknowledged this same concern in connection with VRT ticket 2023061210005132, where he previously added a noindex tag to this file in 2023 — confirming there was internal awareness of the issue. I’m simply referencing the same underlying problem, not inventing a new one.

And to clarify: my use of the word “client” was a general reference to the subject concerned — not evidence of paid editing. I am not a paid editor and have no financial relationship with any party involved.

It would be helpful if we could focus on the factual question — whether the file’s licensing remains verifiable — rather than on assumptions about motive. MoniqueB87 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to this request[4]. What specifically about this photo distresses Rebecca Wang so much? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Nard, this isn’t about personal distress or preference — it’s about accuracy and integrity of licensing data.

The file you’re referring to cites a Flickr source that no longer exists publicly: https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343. Without public access, the claimed license cannot be verified by any future user, which undermines Commons’ core standard of verifiability.

This is why the issue has been raised — to protect Commons’ credibility, not to question any individual or past process. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just realized why these files seemed familiar. I'll disengage from further discussion here since I might be considered involved. See Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#When_should_the_{{NOINDEX}}_tag_be_applied... regarding ticket:2023061210005132 for context on why I added a {{Noindex}} tag back in 2023 (which was later removed) to one (or more) of these images. My summary at the bottom of that discussion is especially relevant. And for those with VRT access, there is additional and more recent context on ticket:2025032610009337 concerning the privatization of the Flickr file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87, about "[...] you’ll see that the image is no longer publicly visible. You are effectively protecting a file whose supposed source no longer exists in public view, which raises a clear issue of verifiability under COM:L and COM:V." Please understand that there is NOT a "clear issue of verifiability". A diligent verification of the license took place in 2020 and there aren't any clues to as that license was fraudulent. All circumstances point toward a photographer exerting his copyrights in granting a suitable license. Please stop your endeavours, the file File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg and the crop will not be deleted on copyright grounds as long as no other evidence of a fraudulent licensing comes up. There are also no other policies or guidelines which would show for a deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Grand-Duc.

I do understand your point regarding the 2020 license verification, but respectfully, the situation has changed. The Flickr source that formed the basis of that review — https://flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 — is now private and therefore no longer publicly verifiable.

Under Commons’ own COM:L and COM:V standards, verifiability must be ongoing and independently confirmable. Once a file’s source becomes inaccessible, the chain of verification is broken — regardless of any previous review.

I’m not questioning anyone’s intentions or the integrity of the 2020 review. I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view. That’s a factual concern, not a procedural one.

I’d appreciate if we could focus on this key issue — verifiability, not assumption. MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jonatan,

Thank you for clarifying — that context is very helpful and appreciated.

Your note confirms what I have been saying all along: the privatization of the original Flickr file is documented within Wikimedia’s own records under ticket:2023061210005132. That fact alone establishes that the source used to justify the Commons license is no longer public or verifiable.

With respect, this goes to the heart of Commons’ own policies.

COM:V and COM:L both require that a file’s claimed free license remain verifiable through a publicly accessible source. Once that source becomes private, the verification ceases to exist — meaning the license can no longer be substantiated in good faith. The passage of time or past bot verification cannot override that fundamental requirement.

In addition, the prior decision to apply a {{Noindex}} tag clearly recognised the sensitivity and ambiguity of this case. Its later removal, despite the privatization of the source, only amplifies the inconsistency between Wikimedia’s internal documentation and what remains publicly visible.

This is not about preference or perception; it’s about maintaining the integrity of Commons’ verification standards. I am simply asking that policy be applied consistently.

Respectfully,

Monique MoniqueB87 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop repeating same points again and again.

• MoniqueB87 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)
• MoniqueB1987 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) banned

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8463766343 dead link

* flickr.com/photos/74741590@N04/8464869504 dead link

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg

* File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg kept

* Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504) (cropped).jpg kept

* diff, possibly paid editing

Taylor 49 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

MoniqueB87 seems to be LLMTALK-ing. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@MoniqueB87: you're proven wrong again in "I’m simply noting that, as of now, the evidence supporting the license no longer exists in public view." The verified license is now hosted via Commons, there's no break in the chain of verification (Commons took over from Flickr), and furthermore, even the Flickr source can still be checked using the Internet Archive. When accessing the link https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023434/https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlemissizzyb/8464869504/ , you see the CC-By-2.0 reference bottom right, and when inspecting the source code of that archive page, you'll see with https://web.archive.org/web/20230314023436im_/https://live.staticflickr.com/8375/8464869504_5fdd6bfe5a.jpg that the archive page indeed hold the very same motif as File:Rebecca Wang at the 2013 BAFTA Awards (8464869504).jpg.

And you're continuing to disregard the fact that a license that got proven at one time doesn't need to be perpetually verifiable. The concept of "ongoing verifiability" is not existent. You cannot make it happen true by repeating it ad nauseam, it's the same thing as the bogus US voting fraud story from 2020. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MoniqueB87 for wasting the community's time:

• Obvious LLM usage, such as referring to policies totally unrelated to the matter at hand
• Refusal to listen to anything that is explained to them about Commons policies and practices
• Repeating the same points ad nauseam
• Lying about the reason they want these files deleted, and refusing to clarify their apparently paid editing

Any further use of LLMs, or unblock requests that focus on the files rather than user behavior, will result in talk page access being pulled. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

copyright violation by user:Clonerofhearts

Please delete all these uploads. None of these files are users own works

some taken from here sixth dropbox from right to left

other from google image

and block the user [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences,  Done. I deleted all of the uploads. If the user continues, please inform me. Kadı Message 10:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Taylor 49

Curious interventions from User:Taylor 49 on a deletion request, the user user being adding files to it, and curiously insisting
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Yntzkwl

All uploads with content taken from internet.DnaX (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yntzkwl (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) Special:Log/Yntzkwl Registered 2 days ago, of 7 files uploaded only 4 have already been deleted. File:Catedralamantuiriineamului.jpg is pirated from F*C*-B**K. User warned, block indicated if problem persists. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User Klgchanu

• Klgchanu (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

User uploads images under false licenses and then becomes rude when addressed. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Account created 8 days ago, Special:Log/Klgchanu of 8 images 5 have already been deleted. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Ziv

Retaliation request. The files were deleted with a good reason: the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ziv (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user deleted my images based on false information.

Thie user justified their action using this [https://turdef.com/article/two-koreas-hypersonic-arm-race| article]

as a source. However, it turned out that the article itself had illegally used those photos without authorization.

The missile introduced in that photo was part of the 2021 국방과학기술대제전, a defense technology exhibition held between November and December 2021.

As of January 2022, when the article was written, it was impossible to obtain such photos legitimately.

(Evidence:https://www.bizhankook.com/bk/article/22956)

When I questioned the deletion, the user simply replied that they were not an administrator and told me to “handle it myself.”

I was deeply disappointed to see my images deleted this way.

Not only were they removed based on false claims, but I also had to go through the recovery process on my own to restore them.

I admit that I am not yet fully experienced in uploading images.

However, instead of providing guidance, the user made a false deletion and then proceeded to file a report against me — which is quite unreasonable.

Moreover, the user deleted my images without a proper understanding of Korean copyright law, under which photos from public institutions are generally considered not subject to copyright protection.

Throughout the discussion, I never used offensive or disrespectful language toward anyone.

I repeatedly asked why my images had been deleted under an incorrect copyright claim, yet received no response.

If the user had simply admitted it was a mistake and apologized, I would have accepted it.

Instead, they insisted that I “handle it myself” and left the matter unresolved.

I believe this system itself has a problem.

While it takes only a short time for someone to delete an image under a copyright claim, the person affected must spend significant effort to recover their work.

I kindly ask for a fair and wise judgment on this matter. Klgchanu (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

And once again: I didn't delete anything myself; it was the admin @Túrelio: , but i tagged the copyvios. An unjustified lashing out from a newbie who doesn't know anything about licenses. A news portal is not a government website. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 16:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JET311

User: JET311 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user
Reason for reporting: This user uploaded a bunch of military aviation-related photographs. But that was done with an apparent complete disregard to actual authorships and sources.

• File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg was claimed as own work, is actually a PD-USAF image.
• File:Rafale Gascogne.jpg was claimed as own work, but has a clear origin statement in the EXIF that does not corroborate that. Deemed a copyvio.
• File:P8blackseaAASdeployed.jpg may or may not be a PD-USN image. The website of the German aviation magazine Fliegerrevue ran a story about a Black Sea incident with that image and attributed it to "Screenshot via X". Deemed a copyvio.
• File:JacksonvilleF35Gator.webp may or may not be a PD-USAF image. The WEBP format is a clear hint at it being a grab from some internet site, the official US military sites use JPEG, or TIFF for modern imagery, as far as I know. I didn't find a source yet by reverse googleing it.

I'd like some hints or advice on how to educate that user to pay more attention on copyrights and media sources. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi i'm JET311, I'm sorry about this. Many of the pages are using old images. How do I bring images from DVIDS which is basically a defence image poster and post them so they don't get flagged. Many squadrons are getting new aircraft and I would like to keep wikipedia current but I dont want them taken down as copyright. PLease let me know what I should do thanks. 73.189.56.19 01:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, JET311 (if you happened to write while logged out)! We have several tutorials and guidelines aimed at this very question.

1. Uploading works produced by US military people in exercise of their duties is fine. The US government states that these are in the public domain. There's a list of licensing tags for such US Gov works: COM:TAG United States.
2. Keep always in mind that you cannot say that something is your own work when it is not! While you can legally do that for public domain media, it's morally and educationally/encyclopaedically wrong. Naming your sources it always the right thing to do.
3. Uploading US government works amounts to in fact Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
4. So, if you take for example an F-35 image like File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg from DVIDS, you have to use the appropriate licensing tag, like for the USAF or the US Navy (or whatever branch is fitting). You must put the source link into the source field. I already fixed the File:VMFA-251F-35CNellis.jpg, so you can use that as pattern. Or you can look for similar images in articles on the English Wikipedia.
5. The US military image databases always offer a full-sized resolution in some download menu, as far as I'm aware. Don't download previews or similar in WEBP, look for the original JPEG or TIFF and take those. Please use as much from the original description as is sensible!

Those are the things to do. Now, about what you mustn't do:

1. The US government is peculiar in granting a blanket public domain authorisation for its media. But this is the rarer thing worldwide. Most other states don't do that. So, a e.g. French Dassault Rafale image can't usually be taken from French military sites.
2. If a service member is publishing images privately, e.g. on Facebook, then you can't surmise that these were taken in exercise of their duties. Thus, the service member retains a copyright to his shots.

For further reading:

• COM:Copyright rules by subject matter
• COM:Copyright rules by territory
• and of course, COM:Licensing.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)