User talk:N.Hopton

Photograph of Sonning Cutting.

Hello Mr. Norton,

I am commissioned to write a book for the "S" Gauge Model railway Society. As a matter of courtesy I seek your permission to use the photograph of Sonning Cutting as it appears in Wikipedia. I propose the following attribution:  '''The photograph is in the Public Domain. The contributor of this photograph is Nick Hapton who has kindly given permission to use the photograph.''' Iwould be pleased to receive your permission and any restrictions you may care to propose.

Best wishes Brynduke2006 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Porcelain
Hi, Nick. Using your talk page because I currently can't edit the article. I'm an AOL user, and the common rotating proxies get blocked by admins in their fight against vandals. See my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for some information on this annoying problem.

Your paragraph isn't bad at all -- a couple of points. ''WB sits at his wheel, centres a lump of clay, opens it up and starts to pull the walls of a pot. Except that he's not doing any pulling, because you can't pull clay, it breaks. What he is doing is stretching the wall between two unopposed points of contact creating an 's' shaped curve. The clay begins to grow taller, but tries to move outwards as well due to the movement and speed of the wheel, but WB controls this by applying force with his hands. When he's finished, he slowly removes his hands from the pot and starts to slow the wheel. But the new pot, consisting of liquid and clay and mineral particles, wants to keep turning. If the wheel is slowed too quickly, the pot may twist as it's trying to turn faster than the wheel it's stuck to. It can do this because the clay is still plastic and capable of "moving". This "movement" can cause warping not only on the wheel, but also during drying and firing. In addition, some warping and other changes in shape can occur during drying and firing, due to the tendency for the pot to "unwind" or "bowl-up", i. e. returning to a less tense state. This tendency is sometimes referred to as "plastic memory," which indicates that the flat disc shaped clay particles move slowly to an optimum point of rest.'' Did you get the bit about an S-shaped curve? Hard to draw a picture here. I'll have to go look up the technical definition of "plastic memory" -- but it is both a useful and frustrating characteristic of clay. WBardwin 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know that people had these sort of problems editing Wikipedia! Anyway, I'll Wikipedia-ise the above and move it into the article. Regarding the S-shaped curve, I didn't know about this but I take it to mean that one uses a leading digit and a trailing digit one in front of the other and that as the clay passes between the two it takes on a temporary S-shape. Thus helping to align the clay platelets through the whole thickness of the wall and not just at the surface perhaps? I'll be back, as someone once said. --Nick 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Etymology
Hi, the edit was not intended to be offensive. I was just trying to contribute to the correctness of the etymology. If we want to say the "back of a pig" I think we need to change it to the "back end of a pig". The Cowrie shell also has a porcelain like finish or texture. Gregorydavid 10:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

recent activity by 194.126.226.253
Thought I would drop you a note about this user. He has been deleting and replacing material in a number of pottery related articles and has subsequently been reverted by a number of other editors, including you and I. I recently left him a note and he is starting to place material on talk pages. Please see the discussion page on Pyrometric cone for my most recent response. It appears the guy has good material but has probably never worked in a cooperative environment. I hope we can blunt his "my way" perspective. He has now signed in as User:AndyAndyAndy. If you would be willing to engage in a a dialog with him on Wiki practices and cooperation, I would appreciate your help. Best........ WBardwin 01:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

splitting off bits of articles
I saw you planned to split an article. Just one comment; when you split off a bit of an article, remember to give the original article in the edit comment. The reason is for copyright reasons so that it is known who the text was written by. apart from that be bold Mozzerati 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll make sure I do this. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese porcelain
I've moved some sections around and made some new section in cases where I thought the material didn't fit the one it was in. (Like technical details in the history section. Could you have a look at the HTML comments I left in the text and add some sources as to which experts hold the mentioned opinions and who disputes them and why? - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you just encountered a server hiccup. I just pulled up the article and found no evidence of it ever being deleted. Are you still having trouble finding it? - Mgm|(talk) 21:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Points on Pottery
Although we are supposed to assume good faith, I am starting to wonder about Brunnock. Every once in a while, on Wiki, I have run into someone who fights for the sake of fighting. I would agree that a neutral edit is desperately needed and I will be glad to help, as time permits. I will be going out of state again for a few days next week, however. I will go to the article today, and restore the version before the wrangling, then follow that with a revert. That will give us the two versions, in close access, for easy comparison. However -- with contention so very apparent -- it will be very difficult to calm things down. I have left notes with three admins of my acquantance. Perhaps one of them would be willing to help. Good to talk to you. WBardwin 20:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue and white (porcelain)
Hi, Nick. Ran across a reference to this article Blue and white (porcelain), and noted you found it as well. I think the name is problematical -- Blue and white sounds like a sport's team! So we should probably move it to at least Blue and White porcelain. And I think some cross referencing to the Porcelain article could be useful. If/when we get a project page going, what kind of naming conventions should we develop for sub-articles like this one? It's so hard to come up with a workable tree for clay topics -- such a broad field. The next step on creating a project page is to "advertize" it to the broader community. I'll wait and see if we get a few more votes. Best. WBardwin 01:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi WB, I agree with everything you say about the Blue and white article, it should be re-named, possibly to Blue and white porcelain. This would be fine by me, but it might offer up wonderful opportunities for endless wrangling to those who would say that blue and white wares are not necessarily porcelain. Perhaps Blue and white ceramic wares might be better? But I don't have strong views on this. The prospect of a project page for ceramic arts and crafts (or what ever it would be called) does induce fear and trembling, because as you say, it isn't going to be easy to agree a tree-structure for the ceramics family. But on the other hand, I think it would be best to try. By the way, I've been doing a little work on the Pottery article at User:N.Hopton/Sandbox, redoing the headline definitions, the section on history and the section on archaeology. I'm very reluctant to make big changes to the article itself because I know that most of the words there are yours, but if you see anything in my sandbox version that you like please grap it, hack it and paste it into the article. Regards, Nick. Nick 08:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AWB
Thank you for your interest in the AutoWikiBrowser. As a security precaution, the creator of the AutoWikiBrowser requires all users who want to use the program to have edited articles at least 500 times to use the program. Unfortunately, you have 250 article edits right now, so I had to deny your request to use the AutoWikiBrowser. Please do request again after you have 500 article space edits. Good luck, and happy editing! Prodego talk  15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Help
Someone with the user name User:Gregorydavid made an offensive edit yesterday (24th April) in the Porcelain article. I'm not sure what to do about this, from what I can see he seems to be a fairly respectable sort of person. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, you revert the edit, and warn the editor about this, for example by using the templates test, test2, test3 or test4. Even if an editor looks like he or she is respected, just post a little note at the talkpage and ask what the reason for that edit was! Bjelleklang -  talk 10:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pottery
Speling: thanks Nick for the correction on my last edit .. v.bad proof reading on my part Andy

Plymouth Porcelain
As this is not as such a proper name, it should perhaps be "Plymouth porcelain". Would you mind if it were moved? HeartofaDog 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No I wouldn't mind at all, the way you suggest is the right way. In fact, I didn't start this article, just added to what was already there. Regards and thanks, Nick. Nick 10:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pottery article
Hello Nick. I don't know if I should reply here or over on my own page. (but it's over there!)ThanxTheriac 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference of opinion about pottery. mediation cabal case
Hey Nick, I have taken the mediation cabal case you've filed. I'm ready to enter the discussion with yourself and User:Brunnock, so I would like to ask where you'd like for all of us to talk? Personally I would suggest the case page itself or Talk:Pottery, it's up to you. Thanks, &mdash; Tutmosis 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tutmosis, thanks for taking on the job. If it's okay with Sean (User:Brunnock) I think on balance that the best place to discuss all this might be on the appropriate mediation page, but anywhere will do. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you responded at User talk:Brunnock, I continued the discussion there. I posted a little note as how I currently see the problem, as you will read - I'm confused. So drop by there when you can, Thanks. &mdash; Tutmosis 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I have recently waded into (by mistake as I picked up what I thought was vandalism by an anonymous user) what looks an active but delicate subject. My training would allow me to add something useful. Let me know what you think.ThanxTheriac 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Theriac, It's easily done and I'm sure it was well-meant, I shouldn't worry about it. I'm not doing anything on the pottery page just at present so as not to confuse the mediation activities mentioned above, but there is nothing to stop you (or anyone else) from doing so. It might be a good idea to leave the history section alone for now though. You might find the issues at mediation interesting, see User talk:Brunnock, Regards, Nick. Nick 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Added later: I think that anyone can contribute to the mediation process, but if you do please be careful about what you write and how you write it, what we are trying to do is find common ground. Regards, Nick. Nick 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick,. I have just added to the discussion over at User talk:Brunnock. I thought I would also copy it here as mine from yesterdy has vanished. ThanxTheriac


 * "Hi Nick, Hi Sean, Hi Tutmosis. I add support to Nick's latest suggestion. It is neutral. It would succinctly give a reader the necessary information. It is the type of entry that an encyclopaedia should contain
 * Also, and I do not know why, a comment I added yesterday did not appear, it was " Dear all. I became aware of this debate only earlier today when I removed what I thought was anonymous vandalism from the Pottery article. I have now read the background and can see it is quite a hot topic. I would like to make a suggestion. Let the article acknowledge that different useages exist. This seems a common sense solution. It would also benefit the article, and readers by allowing them to know that some fields of study consider figurines can be pottery whilst other fields do not"

Hi
Sorry I posted on your user page, not your talk page: Sorry, I was deleting all of the links to that site that the spammer placed, that one had already been deleted, replacing it was an error.. -THB 12:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) You don't owe many any apology, I should have been more careful. I did put the link there, after all. -THB 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandpit
Hi Nick. A trial area for drafting an amended History section for the Pottery article seems a possible way forward. You seem to be more conversant with Wikipedia than I, so could you set one up? I hope a consensus would be achieved but I do not understand Sean's motivation or thought processes. I hope he will be constructive but we seem to have come to an impass. I would not like to ask for a moderator, but ? ThanxTheriac 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theriac, I think the word you might be looking for is sandbox. These can be useful when developing articles, but to be honest I think a sandbox wouldn't add anything to the proceedings just now, because we are deadlocked on an issue rather than on wording. As you might have noticed, I've posted a call to our moderator to give us his opinion on whether or not further attempts at mediation stand any chance of success. I'd better leave it at that, for now. Oh, if you want to set up your own personal sandbox the way is; no, I'll show you. Click on this link User:Theriac/Sandbox. When it opens, type in some text and save it. You have now created your own personal sandbox. Remember, this is just like any other page on Wikipedia, it won't be private or anything. Regards, Nick. Nick 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. Thank you for the sandpit, sandbox, cat litter tray, etc. :-) I am happy for it to be open. In fact I welcome suggestions.Theriac 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese porcelain tag
As a basically universal rule, every page should begin with the title of the article, much the way the second paragraph of Chinese porcelain does, if the first paragraph were removed it would follow the standard. The reason I didn't just remove it is I think theirs some good content in the first paragraph that could be combined into the intro. Sorry for the ambiguity of my edit summary, I went ahead and took care of it. Vicarious 10:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonning Cutting
Its best to cite your sources, as i have laid out in the reply on the WP:Rail talk page. Its not a good idea just to put "various reports from the Times", these eports must be named. This is a good start to the article. Some external links and categories would be good. Simply south 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. In the meantime i will start on some things. Simply south 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:REF. Simply south 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Help
Someone, presumably an administrator, has apparently deleted an image I posted earlier today without explanation or comment. The image was copyright and I uploaded it with the appropriate tab, together with details of the consent for its use given to me by the holder of the copyright. While there might have been a good reason for the deletion (though I am at a loss to understand what this might be) I find the lack of an explanation grossly insulting. I believe I am a responsible contributor to Wikipedia and I find rudeness of this type intolerable. Can someone please tell me how I can identify the person responsible. Nick 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletions are logged in the deletion log - in this case User:A Train deleted the image. The reason for deletion in this case was an invalid license. The information you gave "This image was extracted from a map downloaded from http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ and is used with the kind consent of the Landmark Information Group Limited. Consent granted by Mr Rick Crowhurst, Public Sector Manager, Landmark Solutions, 28th March, 2007" is not a valid license for wikipedia to use and the image was automatically tagged for deletion. Wikipedia strives to only use images under free licenses (such as Public domain images, certain flavours of Creative Commons and GFDL images). In addition in certain fairly limited situations we use unlicensed images under the fair use doctrine of copyright law (policy). We don't however permit images with restrictive licensing permitting only use on Wikipedia (since May 2005) as this is directly contrary to the project goal of creating a free encyclopedia, in the expansive freedom sense. I can understand you find the deletion without a follow up note rude, however we get hundreds (if not more) image with invalid licenses etc. uploaded on a daily basisl, there are going to be times when the level of communication with the uploader are not all they could be. Similarly it could be considered rude that people haven't taken the time to either read up on the policies properly or tag the image properly. If the permission you have permits the image to be freely used by anyone on a commercial or non-commercial basis including making derivative works, then let me know and I will look to restore the image, tag it properly and get the permission logged with the Wikimedia foundation. --pgk 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did take the trouble to tag the image properly as "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles (no other terms specified)". What is wrong with this? Why is one allowed to upload images using this tab when they are subject to immediate deletion? Thank you for your help, I will take this matter up with pgk. Regards, Nick. Nick 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I did not delete the image, that was done by User:A Train. Please read assume good faith and civility required leaving notes such as the one on my page is not a constructive way to address your concerns.
 * As for your tagging of the image. Yes you tagged the image properly, the problem is that the image is not usable within wikipedia policy. The drop down you selected that text from is not a definitive list of licenses usable on wikipedia, indeed it includes several which are inapplicable. This is done since we wish people to give an honest status of the licensing, not force a list of only acceptable licenses meaning people will select one of those regardless of if it is truly within the terms of the license.
 * The copyright policy points you towards the the image copyright tags, these pages state as above the requirement for free licensing. The latter contains various lists including the deprecated list, the license you chose comes under the general non-free licenses section of that i.e. here. That section specifically states "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies. They will be deleted.". Additionally the Example requests for permission page covers this under the "What not to ask permission for" section. --pgk 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick, I've replied to your note on my talk page.  A  Train ''talk 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ceramics vs Pottery
Hi Nick -- I've been back a little more these last ten days, but haven't seen your name much. Hope things are going well. Re: Korean pottery article. A fairly new user moved the article to Korean ceramics and I moved it back today. I'm sure he will object. On this article, we've been discussing the merits of the two words since about the time I started editing in 2005. In general, editors from Korea (primarily academics and government workers) want to use "ceramics" as "pottery" apparently translates differently in Korean. Most (but not all) clay people from English speaking countries prefer "pottery" as a generic term, with "ceramics" used for clay based art works and technical/scientific processes. But -- overall in Wikipedia -- we are not consistent in our usage. See Chinese ceramics. As you surely recall, discussing these definitions gets "testy" very quickly. Do you think there is any possibility of establishing a Wiki standard? Should we establish a ceramics/pottery project as a place for such standards? I've tried a couple of times to promote a conversation, but no one seems interested until a fight starts. Please look over the Korean pottery article and provide an opinion if you are willing. Ideas always welcome. WBardwin 05:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Iwanafish and I have started a discussion on our talk pages. You wanna jump in?  WBardwin 01:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Bluepot.JPG
File:Bluepot.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bluepot porcelain.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sonning Cutting Photograph
Photograph of Sonning Cutting.

Hello Mr. Norton,

I am commissioned to write a book for the "S" Gauge Model railway Society. As a matter of courtesy I seek your permission to use the photograph of Sonning Cutting as it appears in Wikipedia. I propose the following attribution: The photograph is in the Public Domain. The contributor of this photograph is Nick Hapton who has kindly given permission to use the photograph. Iwould be pleased to receive your permission and any restrictions you may care to propose.

Best wishes Brynduke2006 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! The picture has no copyright and you are most welcome to use it. Regards, Nick. Nick Hopton

File copyright problem with File:Jian bowl.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jian bowl.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Changsha.JPG


The file File:Changsha.JPG has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned personal image, no foreseeable use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)