Jim, thanks for your diplomatic approach on Talk:Panajachel. It's much appreciated. --Evan 12:26, 16 November 2006 (EST)
What Evan said! Nice job! -- Colin 15:35, 16 November 2006 (EST)
Evan, Colin: Thanks for mentioning it. I am hopeful the Panajachel anonymous person(s) might perhaps turn into good Wikitravel editors, if we can get them onside. JimDeLaHunt 23:04, 16 November 2006 (EST)
I agree with the above statements. I think you are doing a good job.
I'd like to discuss the Washington hierarchy more before you make any more changes. --Evan 21:37, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Evan, I respect your status as one of the founders. I would be distressed to think I was changing Wikitravel in a way that you thought was a mistake. I'm happy to discuss. How, and where?
I think the most important issue with counties is that they are a poor choice of sub-region. They don't have inherent travel-based logic as organisational units. In Washington, Puget Sound is a very helpful region. Kitsap Peninsula (based on geography, travel logic, and local use) and King County (based on local use, travel logic, and government boundaries) are helpful subregions. But Pierce County? Thurston County? Not really helpful at all. I think it's better to create subregions based on local travel logic. And empty layers of the geographical hierarchy have costs: awkwardly long cookie crumb navigation, dilution of destination information across multiple articles. JimDeLaHunt 22:59, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Ooooooh. OK. If the plan is to make some other sub-regions of Washington instead of counties, I'm all for it (although I'm nowhere near qualified to judge what those sub-regions would be). I think I'd have a problem if we wanted to sweep some cities and towns under the rug because they didn't fit in the top level, and I'd probably not like putting (say) 43 cities in one region guide. Otherwise, I like the plan. I can definitely live with it. --Evan 23:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
OK, thanks, Evan. To be clear, the plan is to create some other sub-regions instead of counties, but only where the content demands it. See for example, the Puget Sound region, where some 32 destination articles are divided among the top-level region and 2 subregions (only one based on a county), one top-level destination, with no lists of cities that seem unreasonable. See what happened to the Thurston County article. As content grows, there are two other sub-regions that fall naturally of the city lists in the Region article. When I get to the North Cascades, I promise you there won't be 43 city articles in a list, and there won't be anything swept under the rug. But there won't be county articles as subregions either. I'm really confident this is the right thing to do for travelers, and I hope you'll see that too. JimDeLaHunt 00:06, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
What about subregions - West Side and East Side because the Cascades are a natural deviding line in the middle of the region?Celticevergreen 00:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
It's probably possible to come up with some division. I don't think "East" and "West" are the right ones because a) the Cascades are wide, they aren't a thin line, and b) I haven't seen those terms in looking at other travel material. I was toying with "Skagit Valley", "Whatcom County", etc. Right now I'm clearing material out of county articles and seeing where that takes me. JimDeLaHunt 00:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Under Appreciation, and its remedy - a virtual sticker
Thanks - Washington is a better place because of you.
The barnstar is the wiki way of letting someone know that they're doing good work, so here's one in recognition of all the time you've put into re-organizing the Washington (state) hierarchy. It often seems like no one cares or is paying attention around here, but a lot of us tend to quietly keep an eye on the Special:RecentChanges, and it's impossible to miss your regular updates to each of the regions of Washington. Re-organizing content has got to be one of the least rewarding yet most helpful activities someone could do, so many thanks! -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:43, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Ryan, that is very sweet of you. This kind of reorganisation is a bit of a slog, but I'm also learning things about Washington I never knew. And I look forward to better content growing on the revised structure. JimDeLaHunt 14:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Dude. You are a prince. Way to go. -- OldPine 18:53, 12 February 2008 (EST)
You've been doing great work lately. Would you accept adminship if I nominated you? Jpatokal 13:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
That is very kind of you to consider it. What's involved in being an administrator? Are the duties written down somewhere (beyond what it says in Wikitravel:Administrators? Right now Wikitravel is a low-key part of my daily routine. I'd like to be sure I could do justice to the role without dropping other responsibilities elsewhere. JimDeLaHunt 16:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Hey, JDLH...I was wondering if you could check the User: Calgary section and also check the User: Edmonton section for my thing about Pictures please. And comment. Thank-yuo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmontonenthusiast (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2008 October 22
Long time no see! Hopefully you reajust nicely, some things have changed or been changin. Anyways, what I am wondering is, do you have any Vancouver photos that are worth uploading, or, is there any from WM Commons that you would like me to upload. It could help some articles significantly! edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 17:42, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Howdy! Sorry, no good photos of Vancouver. Where I have them, I do upload them to Shared. BTW, before you copy photos from WM Commons to WT be sure that the licensing is OK. WM Commons and WT use different licenses, and I think I recall them not being compatible. JimDeLaHunt 17:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Hey! It's been a while, hope you had a good time away, and glad your so kind! Yes, I know about the licensing and how to do it. Pop on over to shared, I helped User:Local hero with uploading some Detroit ones a week ago. So, is there any of interest to you? Hope the Vancouver articles haven't changed too much for you, the Edmonton ones have :P. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 17:52, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Hi Jim! Also, I know you just got back, but next month, so long as all goes well, Edmonton will be a Cotm, and so I was wondering if you could help (districts & everything). Also, look maybe over the articles and see where improvement is needed and and list it in Talk:Edmonton. Or, if you want, you can do some now. Of course, that's all if you want to - which you don't have to. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:13, 18 December 2008 (EST).
Hi Jim, it's good to see you around again! Shaund 22:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)