User talk:From Hill To Shore

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, From Hill To Shore!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. An editor at English Wikipedia has identified the source of File:Ac.earlymelb.jpg as being the State Library of Victoria.[1] The work is out of copyright, so there are no issues there. However, I noticed that they have a version available for download in TIFF format at 59.2 MB (5,246 x 3,943) compared to our own low quality 36 KB (357 × 263). What is the best method of uploading the higher quality version? The higher quality file will need to be cropped either before or after upload as it strays beyond the boundary of the picture. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that there are two variants of this file available at Category:Enterprize (ship, 1829). Should I just crop the border on the higher quality version and upload it as a third file? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request withdrawn. I've found the answer that says unless it is an exact duplicate, it should be uploaded as a new file. As I have cropped the higher quality file, I will upload it separately. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled rights given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you.. - FitIndia Talk Mail 14:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:French battleship Bouvet NH 64442.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

1989 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laurier C. Durette[edit]

Nice job on figuring out Laurier C. Durette, I misjudged who he was in the photograph and estimated him as much older. I merged the Familysearch entries. --RAN (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think you can identify at least one more photographer in the group photo?,_Indiana._AD073.jpg
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "Maresh, J. J." may be Joseph J. Maresh, who filed a patent for a photgraphic printing machine in 1928.[2] From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Carysfort (1914)[edit]

Why the revert here? There's no indication that this photo dates from the 1920s. According to the uploader on Wikipedia its at anchor, which is a nonsense. She's under steam and there's a wake at the bow. The photo is most likely shortly after delivery. Broichmore (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Broichmore: File:Carysfort-1920s.jpg Carysfort was launched in 1914 but you added a creator and category for a photographer who died in 1911. I don't know whether the image is from the 1910s or later but we can be certain that the creator was incorrect. It is possible that it was his son who took the photo but we can't even prove that given the person is named as "E Hopkins." There will have been many people named "E Hopkins" in Portsmouth. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: I am going to work through Category:Ernest Hopkins (photographer) and sort them into three groups.
  1. Category:Photographs by Ernest Hopkins for ones made up to 1911 that we are certain were made by him.
  2. Category:Photographs possibly by Ernest Hopkins for ones made up to 1911 where we think they may be made by him but lack evidence.
  3. Category:Photographs by E Hopkins of Southsea for ones attributed to E Hopkins either before or after Ernest's death.
Some images will go in the first category. Others will go in the third category. Probably a large number will end up in both the second and third categories at the same time.
For those in category two, I'd restore the original author description and set {{Creator:Ernest Hopkins|Possibly}}.
Do you have any issues with this? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are all E Hopkins of Southsea meaning by him or the son, or issued from the shop/studio owned by him. In books E Hopkins of Southsea is the father. The son was in the Army for WW1, and left Southsea circa 1923 for London (I think). If anyone took the later pictures I suspect the son. In any case there are no records at the IWM. The agent or the shop, marked the negs as E. Hopkins, Similar were sold to Bain News Service, USA and are now at the Library of Congress. 1911 and before is the father, and after must be the son. That accounts for the long gap between 1911 and the the 20's. The business was not viable after the war, but it was asset stripped out and items sold to collectors. All the Southsea studios are a similar story. Broichmore (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1920's date ad hoc against images is due errors on the net that the father died in the mid 1920's which was only discovered late in the game. The practise employed by the photographer was to take photos during sea trials or the maiden visit to Portsmouth and sell them as postcards to the crew. Followed by sales to books or news agencies. Broichmore (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: They aren't all for "E Hopkins of Southsea" as some in books have a clear attribution to the father; those can go in a category where we are certain he was the photographer.
To be clear, do you have evidence that the shop was referred to as "E Hopkins of Southsea"? If so, the majority of photos could be by the father, the son, another family member or an unrelated employee. That places greater emphasis on placing the photographs into "possibly by" categories. Do you have any objections to me starting to sort them in a similar way to how I described above?
As a side note, I found this record of a 1916 letter where H Symonds & Co complain about a government ban on the sale of photographs of ships during the first world war (probably as a counter measure against spying). It is probably a key reason why so many studios went out of business. It is also annecdotal evidence that most photographs produced during that time by the studios would have been commissioned by the UK government for use in propaganda. As such, we have a strong argument for Crown Copyright being in effect. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The agencies and photographers referred to themselves or their studios on a casual basis by their home towns. I'm wary of over complicating this. Perhaps we could use two cats. Ernest Hopkins (photographer) for the father and Ernest Hopkins of Southsea for the rest. With the father as sub to the latter. Until a family member or documentation on the son surfaces, we know nothing for certain; other than the business withered away as you have said. The appellation used was Ernest Hopkins of Southsea or E. Hopkins; if there was an A.N. Other then he used that name. I think the other is the son. Broichmore (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Village Pump[edit]

Hello. Regarding the misidentified image, please see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Special:Diff/727199001

This is a good comment, and I have not replied there because that thread is ridiculously long as it is and I want to keep the focus there on the key issues. But I am also a bit sensitive to gender bias and I want to point something out: I see no evidence that the uploader is male, so your comment should say ‘parent’ instead of ‘father’. (For what it’s worth, minors can have children too, so there’s technically no contradiction there, but the uploader has written so much nonsense that it’s not worth quibbling over.) Brianjd (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I go to great lengths to ensure my comments use neutral gender terms (except in the case of an openly declared gender). This was an inadvertent slip up and now fixed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E H Shepard[edit]

Sorry about the extra work for you, FHTS. Was unaware of the dual publication circumstances. I've left notes on both deletion pages suggesting we need to explain the circumstances on the image pages, if we retain the images, such that we minimise the possibility of some well-meaning soul doing the same thing again in another few years. Thank you for catching it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive copy of discussion available at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 103. No users agreed with Adamant1's accusations and some pointed out that the user has a habit of making similar unfounded reports to AN/U. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sensitive details[edit]

RE the credit card details, COMMONS:OVERSIGHT is the way to go. I've removed your post from the admin noticeboard so as not to publicise it. Smartse (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting revisiting SOHO images[edit]

Hello. We communicated last month about the copyright of SOHO media in Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#Revisiting SOHO images, and I have recently reopened the discussion in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Revisiting revisiting SOHO images. Since your initial comments, I have found out that a more in depth data rights policy underlying the notice given on the SOHO website does exist as I had previously assumed, and I would really appreciate it if you could provide some additional input now that this is known. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]