User talk:Diverman

For the user in Australia formerly know as "Diverman" - see User talk:DivermanAU

US Civil War
I am always disturbed when I read "facts" about the War Between the States where some key details are ignored or completely unknown. It is extremely relevant to go further back in our history to see why this war was forced on us in the first place. Facts ignored are as follows. During Andrew Jackson's presidency he was successful in abolishing Central Banking which was unConstitutional in its very being. This angered and hand tied none other than The Rothschild family, dynasty etc. They had to get control back and they did some key things to weaken the nation. They hoarded and bought up all the cotton they could. Then worked with insiders to create division in our country to get a war going so to break our strength. They found it. Made an issue out of the only thing they could and as is done in our modern history claimed the rich are getting richer, gotta make them the bad guys. Mercenaries were sent over to the North when it was decided that Lincoln would fight for the North as he considered siding with the South, but his marching orders were given. He only freed slaves in the south so if abolishing slavery were the real issue, it would have been so for the entire country.

Tho I have not read your entire page, just the typical hoopla I read in the beginning paragraphs tells me it is the same ole same o that our history books have spouted. I am a Yankee thru and thru, raised in the "land of Lincoln" and then spent many years in the south and learned some history that is neglected for a full picture. It really needs to be included. Read up on the Rothschilds and you might be able to clear up some facts along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momof5then9 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
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 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)

Electorates
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&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words
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)

Ringwood
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&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ta! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
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) 

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

Archive
Archive at User talk:Diverman/archive

Tom Carrington
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. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST
 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Fenton (Australian politician)
The DYK project (nominate) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Moffatt
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).

Barnstar for extensive South Australian state politics contributions

 * Thanks Timeshift9 — Diverman (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Global account
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)

1859 maps
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Frederick William Birrell listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Frederick William Birrell. Since you had some involvement with the Frederick William Birrell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Never mind, the nomination was withdrawn. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Purple minutes


The article Purple minutes has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you. This proposed deletion was started by User:Piotrus

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Purple minutes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Purple minutes 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/Purple minutes 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 notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Internet Exchange Architecture


The article Internet Exchange Architecture has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced article about commercial product with no indication of notability."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)