User talk:Soerfm/Archieve 1

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Soerfm. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I should have answered before Soerfm (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Nome Gold Rush. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources
Happy editing! MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

... also this bookmarklet will give you RefTag directly from GBooks. Otherwise Reference Generator can help a lot. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 11:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Please read WP:SELF, you can not use other wiki pages as references. You can however peek in references from other articles and reuse them, but only if the sources directly supports what you write. Have a look at WP:SOURCES. MarB4  •ɯɒɹ• 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy of the Klondike Gold Rush
Hello. I've moved your article to that pagename because that is the style we usually have per the Wikipedia naming conventions. We don't use titles like ", ". Other than that keep up the good work. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Notable Persons of the Klondike Gold Rush


A tag has been placed on Notable Persons of the Klondike Gold Rush requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar'd!
Thank you for the kind words Soerfm (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Apollo-Soyuz Teest Project
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you've certainly been bold and made a lot of radical changes to several spaceflight articles. I also notice you seem to be shy about contributing on article discussion pages. We value consensus highly here, and it may not always be good to make such radical changes without discussion. I think much of what you've done (especially in Project Mercury and Project Gemini is good, but others such as Apollo program, and especially Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, don't really add net value in my opinion. We have a standardized Infobox space mission template, which you've replaced with your own, and removed a lot of useful information in doing so. I also don't understand why you feel it is necessary to remove tables (like the ASTP crew members) from articles. We've established a standard style for all Apollo / Skylab / ASTP missions.

Please see and join the discussion at Talk:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nome Gold Rush
Hi. If you're still doing any research/work/whatnot on the Nome Gold Rush and associated topics, I've noticed that the Tex Rickard and Key Pittman articles are short on details of their time there. Rickard served on Nome's first city council shortly before he left Alaska. I've found this mentioned in numerous sources over the years, though I've yet to see anything online to that effect. I've only found passing mention of Pittman practicing law in Nome around that same time. This same source stated that Pittman, as a senator, was one of the key (no pun intended) Senators in establishing the Alaska Railroad a few years later.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. Please feel free to improve the article. Soerfm (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Project Gemini page
Why did you delete the majority of the Gemini Spacecraft info without creating a separate article for it?--Craigboy (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And why did you do the same to the Project Mercury page?--Craigboy (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And what about the Gemini spacecraft?--Craigboy (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold Rush...
Hi! We haven't come across each other before, but I was interested in the improvements you're making to the Klondike Gold Rush article. I've done some reading in the past on this (Pierre Burton etc.) and was wondering if I could lend a hand in any way. I've still got the books and keen to help. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working through it, and have a couple of other books on order. Incidentally, one of the great gold rush photographers, Asahel Curtis, passed away 70 years ago earlier this year, so a number of his photographs will have come into the public domain under the 70 year rule. He took some good photographs of the actual mining that we might be able to use. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Hope all's well. Can I ask a favour on the web sources? Most of them I've looked at aren't what the wiki calls high quality, reliable sources (this was mentioned in the peer review). The latest edits improve the flow and I like the positioning of the explanation, but they replace the reference from the leading academic historian with one from history net! If we're going to get this through GA and upwards, we'll need to be really careful about the sources we use. Any chance you could add the Berton ref back in? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob's! I've ordered a couple more of the recent academic works, so should have those through in a few days or so. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, in response to your peer review request for Klondike Gold Rush, I skimmed over the article and found two issues. First, there were other significant gold rushes in Alaska (namely, Circle and Turnagain Arm) before Klondike happened.  Second, it may help to consult Good Time Girls of the Alaska-Yukon Gold Rush: Secret History of the Far North by Lael Morgan, as the section on the girls is perhaps a little too centered on Kate Rockwell.  Wotahottie, though.  Ahem, anyway.  Also, it may help to check out this article, if perhaps as an anecdotal piece related to the impact the gold rush had in spurring further events, even though the actual event spoken of in the article wasn't all that significant in retrospect.RadioKAOS (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Soerfm - agree about the templates. Too used to editing medieval articles where they don't work well, that I'd forgotten they'd work fine for 1897! Will amend. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC) ...Although, looking at the template, it won't do the larger gold prices for us. Hmm. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've some subheadings under the land trails section, by the way - see what you think of them Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will expand the footnote - I need to add some big gold numbers in a moment, so will add some words later on explaining which price equivalency I'm using. I agree that we need to consider the headings - with so many river routes, the land label gets confusing. One option might be to go for something like "Sea routes" as the first heading, and then go with "South-east Alaskan trails" etc. after that as grade 2 headings? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the "supplies" appendix, by the way - a nice solution for how to include this material. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will tackle Skagway in a moment... I'm thinking that now we've got the footnote, do you reckon we could safely replace US$ with plain $ in the text? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice would be that we stick with the footnotes for the prices, as its worked well at Featured Article nominations in the past, whereas I think an info box will cause us future problems there. But I think we could safely then lose the "US" bit for the $s, as its clear from the footnote what kind of dollar we're referring to. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * US$ bit done; there was a bit in the MOS which covered it, which was helpful. Just about to tackle Dawson. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dawson pretty much done. I'll do the mining section next later on today. In the meantime, two ideas:
 * 1) Would it be worth pulling the mining section up in front of the "life in the klondike" section? I'm thinking that some of the "life" bit won't make sense until the reader understands how the gold mining actually happened, plus since the article is about a gold rush, at the moment you don't get to that until quite late in the article.
 * 2) What do you reckon to pulling the lead image (the map) down to the top of the "routes to the klondike"? This would mean that the reader could see the map at the same time as reading the text on the routes. The image of the ship could move up to form a second image in the "beginning of the stampede" section, which has space for it. The lead image could then be perhaps one of the iconic mountain pass shots, or perhaps one of miners at work?
 * I'm hoping the social history works I've ordered on the gold rush should arrive this week, and I can incorporate some of that material as well.Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit more of the mining done - a couple of paragraphs left to do on how some individuals made huge sums on their mines.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting there. I've a bit to do on the corruption surrounding the mining, then that section is pretty much done. I'll do the "end of the gold rush" next, as I need a couple of key books before I can tackle the social history (but they should be here very shortly). Incidentally, if you have a look at the daily views, you can see the increase in readers since we began improving this article - very gratifying! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now got a copy of Adney; needs to be handled with care, being a first person account, but I'll start to work through it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The next set of texts have arrived. I've left some thoughts on the talk page about next steps - be interested to see if these match up with your vision for the article. Hopefully they do! 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken a first stab at an improved "women" section; it looks like there are one or two other key texts here, but I've put them on order. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'll see what I can do, but I'm not hopeful - "Frozen Gold" wasn't widely published when it first came out and its consequently relatively rare. I've got a bit of time at the weekend, so in addition to doing some final development to the section on women, will also go through Adney and others and see if any more of the "evolution of mining" can be succinctly pulled out within the article: the mining section is probably about the right length though, so I'll try not to expand it in length greatly. Like the image appendix, by the way - a good use of the format in accordance with the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the texts, including Morse, but I can't see any mention of mercury being used. I suspect that the rich ores meant that you didn't need to use mercury to trap the gold dust in the same way they did elsewhere. I have, however, found an affordable copy of "Frozen Gold", so will order that in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good spot on Soapy. I've clarified the wording - there's lots about him having influence in Dyea, but I think the rephrasing gets us closer to the way the sources describe it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Frozen Gold" is on its way. In terms of content, I think we're almost there - I don't think there are any major parts of the literature that aren't now reflected. Are there any priority areas for further explanation? If not, I was going to suggest that I check through the lead, to make it sure it marries up with the citations in the main text, and we then look to see if we can get an external copyeditor to have a final look over it. We might also be able to get Nikkimaria to do a spotcheck on it, given their role in the previous peer review. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we're pretty much there, minus whatever "Frozen Gold" gives us when it arrives. I think we should venture out by nominating this as a Good Article - what do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we nominate it jointly? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is your first one, have a quick look at [|Good Article Nominations] - all you need to do is to add the template from there to the top of the article talk page, and use the note parameter to clarify something like "this is a joint nomination by myself and Hchc2009". I'm guessing this article would probably fit under the "World History" or "Culture and society" subheadings. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It will appear on the Good Article review page shortly, and we just need to wait for a potential reviewer. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref "North American history" - I don't think there's such a sub-topic area on the GA page, Soerfm. I think it has to be one of the ones listed else the bot won't list it properly. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the postcard bit, as interpreting primary sources like this is original research (OR). I'll have another look in Winslow tomorrow for you for something better - she's normally pretty good on this sort of social-political aspect. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a couple of ref's; building the picture of the postcard brings it close to OR or synthesis, but I think we're on the right side of the line, and its a nice example. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review's underway; I suggest that once Nikkimaria's finished it, we discuss how to make the necessary changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost there. I'll fish out the Thanksgiving ref tomorrow, which just leaves the endashes and Brit/English spelling. I've left Nikkimaria two questions, where I'm not sure quite what was meant. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bleargh! Have been through the images. See if you agree with my assessments; Hegg is the one we've got problems with. In extremis, though, there's always the photos in Tappan Adney's book, which was helpfully first published in 1899, so are all okay to use. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The ownership of the physical pictures isn't itself the key - its the copyright to the image (you can buy a photograph, but that's not the same as buying the right to copy it). Have you still got the link/email where the University states that they think they are out of copyright/in the public domain? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NB: their standard release form, http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/services/forms/reproduction-request-form, isn't promising in this regard... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the email, it doesn't look good. What she's saying is that no-one has come to them to claim copyright over them; that's not the same, unfortunately, as saying that they're in the public domain, or copyright free. With the caveat that I'm not a copyright lawyer, Eric Hegg's descendants or relatives, for example, would clearly have a potential claim on the 70 year basis; all the University is saying in effect is that they haven't turned up to try and enforce it. If they could identify if they'd been previously published (e.g. as a postcard, etc.) that would be really helpful. Similarly if they had a date of death for Sam Partridge... but if they don't own the copyright from the original author/estate when that is clearly still extant, they can't release it for use on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NB: You'll need to check the descriptions on the combined maps you've added; Stikineroute2.jpg contains a clearly modern map, which isn't from the Chicago Book; the date will need to include both the original date of the Chicago Book, and the date that you combined the images. Dyea-skagway-map.jpg doesn't look like your work (again, a mixture of modern maps and older ones) - you need to specify each source of each bit of information/image, and then note your role in combined them. Backdoorroute2.jpg gives the right date, but gives author as unknown - Chicago Records needs to be inserted in the author section. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have clearer, sorry - this information needs to be each of the description pages for the relevant Commons files, not in the article itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold Rush Mark II...
"Frozen Gold" has finally arrived - you'd like it! I've some work to do on a massive revamp of Henry II, but will what I can do with it for you; it answers your mercury question, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, mutual thanks to Nikki wouldn't be a bad idea at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost at the end of "Frozen Gold". Will take a stab at incorporating it on Friday or Saturday. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will cover both off. Only a couple of bits look like they belong in the main article; quite a lot though could live comfortably in the sub-article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NB: I thought I'd ask... I was wondering why the removal of the wikilinks in various places? Usually you wikilink when a term first appears, and possibly again later on in a longer article - some of the removals (e.g. Jack London, Bonanza Creek etc.) now mean that you can't click on them on their first use. The copy-editing's looking good though, BTW. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're always safe with linking the infobox and the first use of a term. You can often justify linking the first use in an image caption, and sometimes a second use of a term if it doesn't reappear until somewhat later. (NB: I tend to over do the "second use" bit, and have been picked up on this at FAC before!) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited RMS Titanic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RMS Titanic references
I don't seem to have got the hang of the sfn reference format that you're using on RMS Titanic. Do you think you could possibly fix the reference errors in my recent additions? Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic infobox
There's a discussion at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic about the infobox. As you're the principal author of the infobox (I think?), could you possibly let us know what you think? Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited RMS Titanic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Group numbers
Hello. Just letting you know that in modern IUPAC nomenclature, the halogens are group 17. Group 7 is the manganese group. StringTheory11 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Cheers cast photo.jpg
This image is nominated for deletion but not by me. I have asked about this image's commercial role because it is currently co-owned by the Getty Images, and someone else nominated it for deletion under grounds of WP:NFCC violation. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting articles
It would be a good idea to discuss the matter on the talkpage for at least a day or two before starting to split a article up as you are currently doing with UEFA EURO 2012. Also it is important to do it in a good way, not simply erase, copy and paste section of the article into new articles. It may not be all info that fits the new article as the ticketing section in EURO 2012 article. See also Summary style Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UEFA Euro 2012 venues


The article UEFA Euro 2012 venues has been proposed for deletion. I might be wrong but it seems that all the info in the subarticle is still in the main article: UEFA EURO 2012. So I have been so bold to tag the article with a proposed deletion. I am looking forward to hearing the comments on this. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Nomination of Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Venue maps for sporting events
Hi, and thank you for your appreciation of my humble idea. Please also consider using locator map templates instead of image labels, as placing items on the former is much easier and intuitive. This may be obvious, but apparently was not for someone who first introduced the labelled map into the Euro 2012 article (and they used a 500px image with 700px scale reference for labels to further confusion). Probably this case should be converted to a locator map as well… — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Flags
Hi. I noticed you recently added flags to various Euro Championship infoboxes. Another user has promptly removed them citing WP:MOSICON. I agree with the removals and would ask you to bear in mind the linked guideline when considering making any further edits of this type. Flags should only be used on infoboxes where they unambiguously add value. Thank you, --John (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Klondike...
Hi! Good to see the article progressing.

Just to say that it would probably be worth striking the material when you've actioned it on the talk page (e.g. thus ), rather than deleting it altogether; that way a future reviewer or editor can see the discussion. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)