Copied from my previous ID "Diverman"

On 16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Downer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Diverman for outstanding work in cleaning up disambiguation pages of human names — Chris the speller 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This encyclopedia is mostly built by contributors like you, who just keep going and going on their chosen task, without ever making a fuss or seeking recognition for your efforts. Hesperian 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diverman, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing referenced articles since 2006 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say your work here is phenomenal? I wish you'd link the rest of your MPs, but it's so good to see all these older electorate articles getting (quite decent little) articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Drover's Wife, much appreciated. You never know who actually notices articles you create. I have previously been linking existing politicians, but I'll try and link more politicians - who knows if those articles will ever be created though? I've updated Electoral district of Grenville with links! Diverman (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised - we've covered NSW politicians back to 1922, so surely we can do the same for Victoria given a bit of time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear about more politicians being added. I've been adding a few politicians (and others) using the public domain http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Dictionary_of_Australasian_Biography as a source, I finished proof-reading it a few weeks back. I also have a few links to political resources on my user page; may be of use although you're probably using them already. The Victorian Parliament past members site is a good resource, although there are a few errors. I use the past newspapers in Trove to sort out discrepancies. Keep up the good work. Diverman (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The job you're doing with those first Legislative Council electorates and in particular those maps really is fantastic. Most of those early county names are totally meaningless even to a nerd like me, so it's fantastic to be able to see at a glance where they actually were located. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words about the former Qld electorates. Alas, they come a bit late. I got nothing but complaints about those electorate articles from members of the Aus Politics projects so I decided to stop wasting my time with writing any more. Thanks for the tip about the Dictionary of Australasian Biography material on Wikisources; I didn't know about it. I mainly write on Queensland history topics and often consult the Australian Dictionary of Biography website, but of course it's copyright, so the DAB material will probably come in handy. At the moment though, I'm trying to categorise about 4000+ PD images from the Queensland State Archives over on Commons. Kerry (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've just noticed that Ringwood is the only recent Victorian electorate without an article (it got missed because all the links pointed to a Tasmanian electorate of the same name) - this is far more your area than mine, so any chance you might be able to whip up a quick something and fill the hole? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding James Quinn. Just a few days ago I was doing a little work on some articles on early Catholic churches and he was redlinked. Initially I assumed that it was just a question of figuring out exactly what his article was called, but a lot of searching left me with the realisation there was no article. So thanks for adding it!

Kerry (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Catholic organisational structures, but according to the Diocese of Brisbane's history it would appear that it was always the Diocese of Brisbane but initially its geographic boundaries covered all of Queensland. Later separate dioceses were established for northern and central Queensland (presumably reducing the Diocese of Brisbane down to the southern part of Queensland). Then a separate diocese was established for Toowoomba. The current boundaries of the Archdiocese of Brisbane are shown here. So, yes, I think you are correct to call James Quinn the Bishop of Brisbane rather than the Bishop of Queensland. Kerry (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here's a map of all the Catholic dioceses in Australia]. Kerry (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive at User talk:Diverman/archive

Hi, you may want to suggest a move of Tom Carrington (illustrator) to Tom Carrington as the primary topic, including a hatnote for the fictional character, if you think it is warranted. I'd support such a move. — TAnthony^Talk 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Merry Christmas!
	Keep up the great work! Kerry (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What an odd coincidence; after almost 13 years without an article, we both went to go and create an article on the same politician on the same day! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Hi! As someone who has contributed extensively to SA politics I wish to thank you for doing the same! SA politics is a very little edited area on wikipedia, and to see two editors, User:Diverman and User:Kirsdarke01, contribute extensively at a time that seems there is a lull in activity on Australian politics articles generally on wikipedia is very refreshing and exciting! For this I award the special purpose barnstar! Thankyou!! Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Timeshift9 — Diverman (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts in ensuring every former Queensland electorate has an article! Great to see this job finished and your contribution to it is praiseworthy! Kerry (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diverman! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what your source was for the map of the 1859 Victorian Legislative Assembly districts? I've been to both the State Library and the State Archives and they don't have maps for 1859. Did you actually obtain them from a map? Or did you reconstruct them from the descriptions in the 1858 Act? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I based the maps mainly on descriptions in the 1858 Act and maps in the State Library for 1856 districts. Many 1856 districts were identical or split by the 1858 Act; the district definitions can be compared in the original and 1858 Act. Diverman (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure there isn't a cache of maps somewhere I haven't located. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DivermanAU! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I saw you've tried to change username, but I'm not sure you followed the right process (which means you lost reviewer and autoconfirmed status). I've requested help from a steward at User talk:DerHexer#Diverman. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for requesting the help; I only changed my ID when prompted by the system - apparently they are trying consolidate userIDs across platforms and I wasn't allowed to retain "Diverman". I just selected a new name when prompted. DivermanAU (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer has replied on their talk page. Stickee (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited François Bonivard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seyssel. 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) 09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carboy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {EB1911 poster|Carboy}}
• {EB1911 poster|Demijohn}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to José Miguel Carrera may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in that city. José Miguel Carrera was of [[Basque people|Basque]] descent.<ref name=elmerc>{{cite web |url=http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={09b31ebd-bb5c-419c-87c7-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you upgrade an EB1911 or Cite EB1911 to wstitle from title, as you did here, can you also remove the url parameter? It becomes redundant, and it triggers an occasional quality control AWB run (which I use to check when I make the mistake myself). Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I’ll keep that in mind. I also fixed up a few more that I’d upgraded recently. I thought at the time that the url can still be useful — but seeing it causes issues, I’ll remove it. Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The URL is still in the history, and in the endgame it will be a single click from the entry in WS mainspace to the Page space equivalent, which contains the scanned page. David Brooks (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's no need to delete the Volume and Page number (PBS and I are agreed on that). They can be helpful, and are passed through the template stack and appear in the text of the footnote. It's only the URL that becomes noise. Sorry if I misled you. I'll revert your changes to Benvenuto Cellini. David Brooks (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you are doing on including links to EB1911 on Wikisource. However when you add a link to {{EB1911 poster}} as you did here here and here pleas include the EB1911 article name within the template. This is because if the Wikipedia page is moved in the future the links within the template will still point to the correct page. Also if in the future the Wiksource EB1911 artilce is moved it will be easier to identify the affected templates on Wikipedia. In other words in including the Wikisource article name is a "fail safe". I have just been through adding names to over 600 and will add the name to half dozen or so that have been altered since I started the task. -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the article Chatelaine (chain) using the default without a parameter in {{EB1911 poster}} links to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Chatelaine (chain) which does not exist one has to use {{s:EB1911 poser|Chatelaine}}. BTW in most cases I have replaced {{EB1911 poster}} with the inline {{cite EB1911}} (adding a short=x parameter to keep it brief, and volume=) as that it fits with the guidance in WP:MOSSIS "Sometimes box-type templates are not good, either because there are no external links except sister project ones, or because they result an odd layout, such as a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article or excessive white space when the section is laid out in columns." -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PBS, I'll do that in future edits. DivermanAU (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fra Angelico may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{quote|From various accounts of Fra Angelico’s life, it is possible to gain some sense of why he was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isaac Chauncey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Isaac Chauncey''' (20 February 1772) &ndash; 27 January 1840)<ref>{{cite EB1911|wstitle=Chauncey, Isaac|volume=6|page=18}}</ref><ref>{{cite book

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit. I have made a slight adjustment. I have removed inline=y, because the parameter inline=y changes the wording of the prescript of Template:EB1911 from "This article" to "One or more of the preceding sentences":

{{EB1911|wstitle=Leblanc_process}}

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Leblanc_process". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

{{EB1911|inline=y|wstitle=Leblanc_process}}

•  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Leblanc_process". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

As Template:Cite EB1911 does not have a prescript the parameter inline=1 has no affect on the display but it

1. flags a warning message in editmode

   Warning: Page using Template:Cite EB1911 with unknown parameter "inline" (this message is shown only in preview).

2. and places the article into:
3. Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unknown parameter

-- PBS (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My bad. DivermanAU (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for all your work on EB1911 articles. Langston-lemon (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content from EB1911 to articles about India/Pakistan etc. It is not considered reliable for that stuff (and a lot of people now take the view that we should not copy/paste it, either, even though it is public domain). - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Proselyte. Articles about religion often also have link to articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906). If you notice such links please alter them so that they use the templates template:Cite CE1913 and template:Cite JE1906, as I did here.

In the case of the CE (1913) all the articles are on wikisource so they can be linked using "wstitle". The links to them if they were added before their porting to Wikisource is to the website http://www.newadvent.org/cathen

In the case of the JE (1906) very few articles have been ported (s:Jewish Encyclopedia), probably because the website that currently contains the PD source http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ not only displays the text but also the volume and page numbers for each article.

The advantage of these templates, apart from linking to wikisource if the article exists, like those of {{cite EB1911}} is it automatically fills in the same fields, and behind the scenes adds the appropriate hidden templates to help with maintenance. The hidden categories will allow editors interested in porting the JE (1906) to prioritise which articles to port to Wikisource -- those liked to from Wikipedia (as we are doing with EB (1911) articles).

If the Wikipedia article is about a Ancient Greece or their gods, there are other common external links to keep an eye open for that have similar templates:

• {{Cite DGRBM}} Smith, William, ed. (1870). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.
• {{Cite DGRA}} Smith, William, ed. (1870). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.

Biographies of British pepple may have links to Dictionary of National Biography (1885–1900). Like CE (1913), All of the articles of the DNB are available on wikisource and can be accessed via wstitle=article name in {{cite DNB}}. Like a number of other templates this one will set the year of publication and editor names via the volume parameter. Like CE (1913) and unlike EB (1911) almost all the articles have a named author.

There are lots of other templates, but their use is less common. I have a number of them in a chaotic listed on my notes page: User:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates (see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikisource/Citation Uniformity)

There is a consensus that the details provided by these templates for citation are too much for "Further reading" and particularly "External links" sections. So a switch "short=x" is provided to remove some of those details:

• stand: Abrahams, Israel (1911). "Proselyte" . In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 455–456.
• short: Abrahams, Israel (1911). "Proselyte" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). pp. 455–456.

Finally some editors think that having a longer list of Wikisources in the external links with their icons is too much eye candy. As an alternative they can be bundled together using {{Wikisource-inline}} with the list parameter:

 *{{Wikisource-inline|list=
 **{{cite CE1913 |last=Driscoll |first=James F. |wstitle=Proselyte |volume=12 |noicon=x |short=x}}
 **{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Proselyte |volume=22 |pages=455–456 |first=Israel |last=Abrahams |noicon=x |short=x}}
 }}

• Texts on Wikisource:
  • Driscoll, James F. (1911). "Proselyte". Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12.
  • Abrahams, Israel (1911). "Proselyte". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). pp. 455–456.

Here is an example in the wild with a list containing 7 links: Encyclopedia#External links

-- PBS (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PBS — Thanks for the info, I've been keeping track of articles referencing Catholic Encyclopedia via Category talk:Articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia with no article parameter for a while. I've done some work on reducing numbers in this category and adding wstitle in the past, but have been focusing on EB1911 recently. DivermanAU (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For ensuring every EB1911 reference is no longer a mystery article

I believe you added the final EB1911 article names to knock the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter down to zero. Congratulations! David Brooks (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! There were 8001 articles in that category on 31 Jan 2015 when I started to reduce their number. Others also contributed to reducing the number of articles in that category, mainly PBS and Suslindisambiguator. DivermanAU (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to all. That is an impressive achievement. -- PBS (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Slowking4 also needs an honourable mention. -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My own minor contribution was a side-effect of the EB1911 verification project, but of course that has diminished as the rest of you have fixed all the remainder! David Brooks (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clifford Allbutt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydrophobia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DivermanAU. I am talking to you because I saw your recent edits on the article James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn concerning the way how Encyclopedia 1911 (EB1911) should be cited. In these edits you:

1. replaced EB1911 URLs pointing to Internet Archive sources with URLs pointing to WikiSource in the sfn tags in the text;
2. similarly replaced the URL in the citation template for the cited EB1911 volume in the "Notes and references" section; and
3. removed the entry "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" in the category list.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am a newby and will gladly follow the guidance given by seasoned Wikipedians such as you, especially when I understand the reasons and see the advantages.

I recently had a discussion about how to cite EB1911 with David Brooks and he decided to tolerate the way I did it and created the mentioned category for such cases. I am glad to see that you preserved my indications of column and line in the sfn, which David Brooks initially removed, and also preserved my use of the Citation template, which David Brooks replaced with the "Cite EB1911" template, at least in the article Antoine Hamilton. Does this constitute a change of policy? have you discussed this with David?

If so, this change of policy does not seem to be reflected in the house-style of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica project, which makes no mention of the possible use of column and line and still seems to prescribe the use of Cite EB1911. I know about this house-style because David told me to look at it. Should this style not be prescribed in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS)? Backbenchers like me will not normally read prescriptions given in projects. We struggle to learn and follow those in the MOS. I also feel that important changes in style should be communicated to all editors; but perhaps they are and I just do not know where to look for such information? If we are not told, we are of course likely to interfere with your work or continue to add text written in outdated styles.

By the way, I nevertheless still feel that Wikisource, which was probably playing an essential role still a couple of years ago, has been overtaken by the efforts made by the likes of Internet Archive, who have improved their coverage and quality significantly. I feel that Wikipedia should focus on its encyclopedia and leave the storing and capturing of the sources to others. I understand that it hurts when such an amount of work is stopped and finally thrown away. Someone seems to have quite recently been adding facsimile images to some (or all?) of the EB1911 in Wikisource.

With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes, I did discuss with David Brooks about using Wikisource instead of archive.org scans, he thought it was a good idea see his talk page [1]. The advantage of Wikisource over a scan are numerous: searchable text, links to other EB1911 articles; links to the EB1911 1922 edition articles (where they exist), categories. etc. (edit —linking to the "page" at Wikisource still shows a scan of the article and allows your method of using the line numbers to be usable.)

The mentioned "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" was created in 2011 to track Wikipedia articles that need to have a Wikisource ref. and was not to be used manually (see its history). The numbers a few years ago were over 1300, now there are under 200.

Wikisource is used widely as a reference for EB1911 in Wikipedia, there are over 11,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and over 19,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference. Are you suggesting these all be changed?

The scanned images at archive.org can be useful and I use them from time to time. Perhaps include a link to there from the articles you've mentioned.

Edit — I've thought of a compromise Johannes, if you edit an article and refer to the EB1911 and the archive.org scans, would you mind using the {cite encyclopedia} template and not {cite EB1911}? The latter causes an entry in the tracking "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" if "wstitle" is not used. Could you also please include an external link to the Wikisource article (if one exists) if you do use the {cite encyclopedia} template? Thanks. Regards. DivermanAU (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DivermanAU. Thanks for offering a compromise. You propose that when citing EB1911 using Internet Archive, I should comply with the two following rules:

Rule 1: Use the "cite encyclopedia" template and never than the "cite EB1911" template, which will be for exclusive use with Wikisource;

Rule 2: Include an external link to the Wikisource article

The first rule makes a lot of sense. Can you please also allow the "citation" template with the "encyclopedia" parameter. I know I have used it for EB with the "dictionary" parameter, I propose to go through the articles where I cite Internet Archive for EB1911 and correct this error.

The second rule strikes me as unreasonable because it confuses the reader. How should the reader understand that there is a need for an entry of a link to Anthony Hamilton in the "External links" section of the article about James Hamilton? When I saw this first I thought it was an error. Why do you need this external link? If the bot cannot be improved and absolutely needs (at least for now) to find an "cite EB1911" entry after having encountered a sfn or <ref> with Chisholm 1911 in it, then I would, as a compromise, rather have that entry in the list of references in the "Notes and references" section immediately under the corresponding entry for the EB1911 in Internet Archive. I think this is less confusing for the user. What do you think? Johannes Schade (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes, regarding the first point (not really a "rule"), sure use "citation" if suits you better. As regards the second point the external link I added is not needed, my intent was to make the Wikisource version available easily from the article. I used the link to "Anthony Hamilton" to replicate the link you added to him using citation template. If the EB1911 article about Anthony is not relevant, remove the external link and the citation to him. I agree it may be better to include the Wikisource entry in 'Notes and references". Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DivermanAU. I have decided that it is wiser to follow your lead as a senior Wikipedian and I have changed all EB1911 citations in Antoine Hamilton to point to Wikisource. Please have a look and tell me whether you are satisfied. I will go through the other ones and do the same there, once you have approved. However, for the future and for other references that are available in Wikisource, especially DNB, I would want to learn whether there is a rule limiting the freedom of WP editors to choose the source they like. I have looked a bit and found no such rule in the MOS. I still do not understand why you and David Brooks decided to change my EB1911 citations from Archive to Wikisource. With thanks for your patience. Johannes Schade (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes, I saw your edits on Antoine Hamilton, looks pretty good. It supports your use of line numbering, doesn't create an entry in the "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" and still shows the Wikisource text (and scanned image). Wikipedia, being a collaborative effort, doesn't have many hard and fast rules — but does have guidelines. There are several projects in Wikisource to store and organise reference material e.g.s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, s:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, s:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, s:The Encyclopedia Americana (1920), s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) etc. and it makes sense to use information there. There is a WikiProject first created in 2002 to standardise the use of information from EB1911 and the Template:EB1911 which was designed to use Wikisource (when the article is available there). When the EB1911 template is used and "wstitle" is not, an entry automatically appears in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" as mentioned before. That is a tracking category and several people (including myself) use it to focus on the Wikipedia articles which need Wikisource reference. I've spent a lot of time recently in reducing the number of articles in that category, it's talk page documents the numbers over time. Some of your earlier edits made articles re-appear in that category, after I had previously added the Wikisource entry in the EB1911 template to remove it from the category. Hope that is some help to clarify the situation. DivermanAU (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DivermanAU. I suppose this solves the problem. With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DivermanAU,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Germain Garnier for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Early Jurassic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DivermanAU, I replaced the formatting for the disambiguation links on Lock. Per WP:INTDAB, all intentional links to DAB pages are routed through a title containing '(disambiguation)', to distinguish them from DAB links made in error. Leschnei (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my recent edit of Members of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, 1883–1886, which was intended to fix an issue with your edit of this article of 21:03, 11 May 2014. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris:, thanks for fixing that article. I'm not sure about the details but I see from the Electoral district of West Bourke I added a ref. for Samuel Staughton Sr. on 12 February 2015, so maybe there was doubt in my mind about his membership when I did the 2014 edit on the article you fixed. Incidentally, I see the Victorian parliament website for past members has changed (to https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/about/people-in-parliament/re-member), so I updated it in both articles mentioned above. I also see there's now an article for Samuel Thomas Staughton Sr. Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out, and thanks for taking it the rest of the way. Just so you know, that #N/A markup, lacking a table cell pipe, caused a Fostered content lint error, and that's how I came to this page, and as the page history was short, it didn't take long to track down the original markup and where it went bad. We can always use more volunteers fixing this and other lint errors. See WP:Linter for more on how you can help! Cheers, —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect R. H. Anderson and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 25#R. H. Anderson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]