User talk:Explicit

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hello, I hope you'll consider reversing your deletion of this image, if that's possible. I was engaging in a conversation with TAnthony on its talk page, and was in the process of responding. Closer scrutiny of the existing image (a publicity photo from The Flip Wilson Show) reveals that it is not, in fact, a free image. It was incorrectly uploaded to Wikimedia Commons; it is clearly not the work of its uploader, and there is no reason to think that the copyright holder gave permission — therefore, it should not be on WC. So their argument that a free alternative to File:David Reuben 1971.png exists, while made in good faith, is incorrect. Starfishprimo (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Starfishprimo. Are you asking about File:Flip Wilson Geraldine 1971.JPG? I'm not Explicit, but this file seems (at least at first glance) to OK for Commons, which would mean File:David reuben md.JPG would also be OK for Commons. The person who uploaded the uncropped file isn't claiming it to be their "own work"; they're claiming it was a publicity photo released by its copyright holder without a proper copyright notice. Publicity photos released during that period of time (i.e., prior to 1 January 1978) were required to have individual copyright notices in order for them to be considered eligible for copyright protection ({{PD-US-no notice}}); those that didn't entered into the public domain (due to changes in US copyright law) on 1 January 1978. In many cases, providing a proper notice and other copyright formalities for such photos were simply not done because the copyright holder just didn't think it was worth to do. Generally with publicity photos, the copyright notice appeared either in the border of the photo or on the back of the photo; this is why the uploader provided links to both the front and back of the photo. Those links are dead now (the photo seems to have been sold so its listing was removed by eBay), but it's kind of unlikely that the uploader would've gone to the trouble of adding them if they did show the photo had a copyright notice. Did you by chance find the same photo with a visible copyright notice (border or back) on some other website? If you did, then that might be something worth starting a c:COM:DR about for the the file, but otherwise it's unlikely going to end up being deleted just because of some dead links. FWIW, the full image (front and back) that was uploaded to Commons here, and I don't see a copyright notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

(That was indeed the alternative image linked in the F7 tag.) —Cryptic 01:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly, for your thorough response. You're correct on all counts; not sure how I missed that the back of the image was uploaded to Commons, but it makes it clear that it was not copyrighted. Although I've been editing for more than a decade, I'm new to uploading images. I have seen no evidence that image is under copyright, and I have no interest in havbing it removed. Starfishprimo (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

My substantial edit of this page was replaced with an earlier version but you reversed this. The old version still appears as the Albert Kushlick page. How can I get my edited page back? Paulgwilliams (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Greetings , I hope you are well.

I am relatively new to publishing on Wikipedia in English, as most of my previous contributions have been in Arabic. While I have written a few articles in English, I am still learning the best practices for successful submission and review.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to improve my article and facilitate its review process. Any advice on formatting, sourcing, or general expectations for English Wikipedia would be very helpful.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.

Kind regards محمد زيد الخير (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Explicit. COuld you check to see whether File:Elsa en blanco y negro.jpg is the same as File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg, which you deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 17#File:Elsa Cladera de Bravo.jpg back in 2017. The uploader is the same, and I think they might've reuploaded the file again because they also seem to have reuploaded some files previously deleted from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi, this new upload is indeed the same photo, though the version deleted in 2017 was quite ridiculously edited (I wish you could see it). I have deleted it in accordance with G4. ✗plicit 14:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on this. Perhaps, if you've got a bit of time, try explaining to the uploader why the file was deleted. I've tried in the past to explain what some of the problems with their uploads were (both on Wikipedia and Commons), but I haven't had much luck. They don't quite seem to be able to grasp what "own work" and "public domain" means when it comes to copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:United States Sports University logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)