Thanks for contacting me about the differences in Australian English and American English. I am aware of most of these differences and I have tried to keep my edits in accordance with these conventions. For example I don't believe I changed any of the 'centre' to 'center' but if I did I apologize. I am also aware of the 'specialise' vs. 'specialize' spelling conventions. I will continue to be careful and try and maintain the language used in that country in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Carson 14:14, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
thanks for your updates to parramatta. i think the article is relaly getting there now. i agree with tou that the auto alley stuff doesn't really belong in a travel guide, so i am going to move it as a possible location travelers to buy a car in oz. --Inas 16:29, 23 November 2008 (EST)
You accusation of destroying your work is inaccurate.
No information has been lost for Hills, anyway. It is basically just a change of name. Thee was no coverage for other other north west areas outside of the Hills, unless you count that woodworking course I deleted. All the changes were revertable if required.
Northern Districts didn't even exist until a couple of weeks ago, so there is hardly anything else there to lose, and all the changes are revertable if required.
All the changes changes were discussed and agreed, and I just implemented what was agreed.
Please don't have a go at me for just doing something after discussion and agreement on Talk:Sydney. You still haven't contributed to the discussion, or commented on the map, or districts, or divisions. You just revert changes, and get us no closer to having good districts for Sydney.
--Inas 21:44, 27 February 2009 (EST)
JRG, please take a good long hard look at Wikitravel:Consensus. I have rolled back your edits as they very clearly violate this policy. If you wish to see further changes to the Sydney districts hierarchy, see changes undone, or accomplish anything else of any sort when in a dispute over Wikitravel content, discuss, do not revert. --PeterTalk 23:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Hi. Sydney Districts are hard. If they weren't they would be right by now. I'm more than happy to work with you to get it right. But we can't do it by edits and reverts. We have to beat it out at Talk:Sydney and then implement it. We've done some good content on SydneyParramatta and other areas, and if we get the districts right, it will improve. I'm not against the Hills District as a separate article by any stretch. It is a region with a distinct identity. But once something is agreed we need to stick with what was agreed, or go back to the table and reach a better agreement. Anyway, always happy to discuss these things. --Inas 21:28, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes, changes don't have to be big, they can be incremental. Yes, articles can split districts, and they can also merge districts. However, when there are different views on anything, getting community support is important. Otherwise, we do down the path of conflicting edits, reversions, etc, that is just destructive. To say that your contribution isn't welcome here is just not true. You can feel free to plunge forward and make changes. If they don't stick, then you have to discuss them, gain consensus, and then move on. The ironic thing here, is that noone actually disagrees with your position on the districts, or your ideas, or your contributions. The only disagreement is whether you can revert changes made by consensus, without trying to build a new consensus. If you do this everyone may look at what you have done and think it is great, and agree to leave it. You also risk the possibility your edits will be lost, because they are not in line with what has been agreed. --Inas 00:24, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
Can you get community support for me then? JRG 03:55, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
Okay, lets work on it again. Are you only interested in the Hills/North West bit, or are you happy to be involved in the bigger picture? Can you comment generally in Talk:Sydney? --Inas 07:35, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
Replied at your user page. JRG 03:42, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
I think North West is really no bigger than South West, either in attractions, area, or population. The harbourside, riverside, beachside areas, as well as the business CBD's tend to have more interest to travellers than the purely suburban areas, and large parts of the Hills District are really very suburban, and this is reflected in what has been written in the article so far. I still don't quite know whether you have accurately defined the district, I don't know if it corresponds to the Baulkham Hills shire, or something wider. The suggestion was previously made in [[Talk::Sydney]] that too many articles were being dedicated to suburban araes, and we would be better off having larger districts covering suburban areas, and smaller aritcles that focussed on areas of specific intersest to travellers, just as national parks, or even say Macquarie Park CBD for business travellers. Anyway, I'll move and open this discussion again in Talk:Sydney, and away from user talk pages, but my starting position would be that to keep Sydney manageable, we would want to have no more than 9 districts, and these would reflect their interest to the different classes of travellers that visiti Sydney. --Inas 18:13, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
I've looked around to see if I can find a "definitive definition" for the Hills District. I haven't really found one. The best I seem to have found comes from the Yellow Pages, that publish a Hills District local guide. --Inas 00:02, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for your comments on the Darling Harbour map. The King St and Aquarium wharfs are both already shown on the map. I have labelled one as Parramatta River Ferry, and the other as Circular Quay, Sydney Ferry. My rationale was that their is only one Parramatta River ferry, but there are two Circular Quay ferries, so there was a need to distinguish between the Matilda and the Sydney Ferries one. I also rationalised that the majority of Passengers catching the ferry at the Aquarium wharf are travelling to Circular Quay, rather than Balmain, or McMahons point, and there is limited real estate on the map. The other ferry destinations can easily be mentioned in the article text. I do show the Pyrmont Bay ferry wharf. If you can think of any way to express this more clearly, please let me know. --Inas 20:06, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
Hi - I've been giving some thought to how best to feature Sydney Ferries and the harbour in their own article, along the lines of your suggestions at Talk:Sydney. I was thinking of an itinerary article for a couple of the key ferry services, starting with say, Quay -> Parra, and Quay -> Manly, but maybe progressing to a few others. The article would cover the trip from Circular Quay, contain a list of sights and stops to look out for along the way (with photos and a map, maybe), and reference the appropriate articles for the stops along the way, if people want to get off and look around. It could substitute for the commentary on a harbour cruise, and give people a day out on the harbour. I also could be quite unique, as I haven't seen it done before. It gives more focus to the ferries than just "you can take xyz ferry from A to B", type text. WDYT? --inas 19:25, 24 August 2009 (EDT)
Good idea. I have tried an itinerary before but it's not yet finished. An in-article itinerary is more than permissible and would be a good way to fill out the page. JRG 08:02, 27 August 2009 (EDT)