User talk:HornsbyBbSyd

Welcome!

Hello, HornsbyBbSyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Epping, New South Wales have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Gronk Oz (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Gronk Oz! Thank you for your comment. I’m guessing the edit to the Epping, NSW Australia page is the edit you are speaking of. I have multiple references to support my edit which I’d like you to acknowledge.

I confirmed with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that Epping, NSW Australia is located in Sydney’s undefined Northern region. The Australian Bureau of Statistics officially names this region of Sydney as “Ryde”, however approves the term Northern Suburbs. There is no mention of any relations with the region of Great Western Sydney.

I confirmed with Parramatta Council over the phone, and with Hornsby Shire (who no longer council this area of Epping) that Epping has no affiliation with Sydney’s Great Western Suburb region, and is not to be mistaken by the Councils name. The council of Parramatta agreed that Epping was part of the “Northern Region” of Sydney, bordered by The Hills District and The Upper North Shore. Hornsby Shire also stated that Epping was sometimes referred to The Upper North Shore, but this is mostly referring to North Epping due to it’s position, however it is on the west side of Lane Cove National Park.

To conclude, Epping has no affiliation with Sydney’s Great Western Suburbs, and no mentions in any media, government based documents and councils have any evidence of it ever being a part of the region. Epping is simply part of Sydney’s undefined Northern Region, officially confirmed by Parramatta Council, Hornsby Shire, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Thank you for acknowledging these references Gronk Oz, and thank you for welcoming me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HornsbyBbSyd (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello HornsbyBbSyd, and thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Wikipedia depends on published sources. This is its policy of Verifiability. So can you provide links to where the material you describe has been published? Phone conversations and the like are not verifiable. You ask me to acknowledge your sources - before I form an opinion about them you need to provide links to them. This is especially important when you say that the Northern Region is "undefined" to start with. There are some published sources which call it Northern, and others that call it Western, including the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (cited in the article), which is the responsible government authority - hence the current statement that covers both regions.

I refute your claim that Epping has no affiliation with Sydney’s Great Western Suburbs - the "Greater Western Sydney" area is defined by the LGAS, including Parramatta which encompasses Epping. Again, can you provide a published reference to show that Epping is NOT in the Western area? I know a lot of Epping residents prefer to call themselves North because they associate it with higher prestige, but that's hardly encyclopedic.

I am not challenging that it is sometimes called "North", even though in reality it lies at a position angle of 305 degrees from the city centre so it is closer to West than North. So there is nothing to be gained by finding more sources which call it North: that is already agreed. If you propose to remove the Western region classification then that needs to be supported by published references from sources that are more reliable than the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, which say it is NOT in the Western region. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you dearly for your response once again.

Your sources that claim that Epping is part of the Western Suburbs Region is via Parramatta Council which ALSO covers Beecroft and Cheltenham, yet there is no mention in Wikipedia for those suburbs as “Western Sydney”.

Your statement for The Department of Planning and Infrastructure makes no reference to the suburbs belonging region. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure ALSO at many times placed Epping in its Northern planning Region. Your example and reference is unsteady and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is IRRELEVANT to a suburbs region.

You also stated the fact that Epping lies North-West of the Sydney CBD. This is clearly correct, however many Northern/North Shore suburbs lie north-west of the CBD such as Turramurra, Hornsby, Westleigh, Hunters Hill, Berrilee, etc. which again, proves your statements are simply contradicting.

I think it should also at LEAST be noted for now that suburbs between Hornsby and Epping are sometimes referred to as Sydney’s North Shore Region, as many times people refer this part of the “Northern Region” as North Shore, just not defined as lower or upper north shore, much like how Suburbs such as Hunters Hill, Gladesville and Berowra have been seen as, and stated in their Wikipedia pages. This is due to the fact that Sydney’s northern suburbs have been divided into 3 regions, being The Northern Beaches, the North Shore and The Hills district. Stating this may help people understand what’s known by reference, and what’s known by preference and certain statements (including media, advertisements, businesses etc.)

There is too much contradiction between Wikipedia and many other sources that have not been taken into consideration.

Thank you for your patience for my response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HornsbyBbSyd (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@HornsbyBbSyd: Wikipedia articles depend on references. Verifiable references in reliable sources. Not on individuals' opinions, nor on what "everybody knows". So once again I ask you what good solid references do you have to support the contention that Epping is not in the Western region. What is the source for the three regions you list?

I am puzzled by your statement that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is irrelevant - they are the authority who determines the regions. Regions are all based on LGAs. Page 107 of that plan shows how Sydney is divided into regions, and should clarify your questions about other suburbs such as Turramurra, Hornsby, Westleigh, Hunters Hill, Berrilee, etc. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious, Gronk Oz. The one and only reference you used for Epping being in affiliation with the western suburbs was the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. It isn’t relevant as the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is not a steady source for a suburbs belonging region. Why, you ask? Because it has moved suburbs into different regional titles various times, including inner west suburbs as “northern suburbs” and “western suburbs”. Let me give you a very basic example.

The government owns public transport services such as Sydney Trains. They operate railway lines that are titled to their destination. The “Northern line” goes through the inner west. That does NOT make these suburbs “northern suburbs”.

The government also maps its Public Schools into “regions. Some western suburban schools are marked as “north west” which is inaccurate to its belonging region when it comes to the suburb.

I must add that you seem to BULLY editors that make very simple edits to add emphasis, and you go far beyond Wikipedia standards to your OWN opinion. This is made clear with previous edits and chats from other editors. This is very contradicting on your end, and I question whether you create a healthy environment for Wikipedia or have the correct management idea to be making edits, as reading many of your own edits of suburbs and Sydney seem more “personal” than “communal”.

You’re just going to have to admit that you are wrong in this scenario to even REJECT a simple quote stating in northern suburbs they are “sometimes referred to as the “north shore” or “residents see themselves as “unique” to ______”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HornsbyBbSyd (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@HornsbyBbSyd: Please "sign" your posts to Talk pages by putting four tildes at the end.

I am sorry if you feel I have been bullying you, or insisting on my own opinion. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on VERIFIABILITY. This is not my view; it is Wikipedia policy that existing long before I came along. The information in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. I don't know how to say that more clearly. You still have not provided even a single source, so I don't know how to advance to conversation. If you provide sources then we can discuss how to craft the article best. Perhaps it will end up along the lines you suggest, but only if the sources say so. It's not about what I say, nor about what you say - it is about what the best available sources say. It's all about the sources. Specific sources, not general comments about what you think other people say. How else can I say it - cite your sources so we can discuss the matter.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I chased up the hint you gave above about public schools. The link is here. You will see that they don't even have a "Western Sydney" or similar classification. They divide the whole metropolitan area into simply "Metro North" and "Metro South", which are divided into areas. Epping schools fall into one of two different areas: Carlingford (1 school) or Gordon (3 schools). I am not sure how that is helpful in resolving the question of whether Epping is part of the Greater Western regions of Sydney. I searched but was unable to find any mention of the "north west region" that you mention - please provide your source. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I also followed up the other hint you gave, about the train line. Epping is currently serviced by two train lines:

• The North Shore, Northern & Western Line (you can check this is the correct name by looking at the "Sydney train lines names" section at this link to Sydney Transport);
• The Epping to Chatswood rail link .

I cannot find any mention of either one being called the "Northern Line" that you refer to. Again, please provide your source. Where are you getting this information from? It simply does not match what I can find in the actual sources. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that the onus is on you to provide a source for the change you want to make.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here are some references in regards to quoting the confusion or preference/references of Epping/North Epping and neighbouring suburbs (in particular Cheltenham, Beecroft, Pennant Hills, Thornleigh, Westleigh and Macquarie Park) as the North Shore (namely Upper North Shore, or simply as “The North Shore”). This will help informatively with it’s location and it’s surrounds, and inform that it is undefined.

As an example, a quote such as:

“North Epping is sometimes referred to as part of Sydney’s North Shore”

Or:

“Pennant Hills is sometimes referred to as part of the Upper North Shore due to its position next to Lane Cove National Park and it’s surrounding suburbs.”

This reference informs that Pennant Hills, Beecroft, Cheltenham and Epping/North Epping is a part of Sydney’s Upper North Shore district. https://www.microburbs.com.au/NSW/Sydney/Upper-north-shore

Yellow Pages refers Epping and neighbouring suburbs to the north as the Upper North Shore inclusively, while adding the Hills District to the same book listing. Many businesses in Epping and neighbouring suburbs name themselves “North Shore” and then to their following business names such as “North Shore Coaching” and “North Shore Tree Cutting”. Note: you have to enter an address to view this reference. https://www.directoryselect.com.au/action/order

Mentioning Macquarie Park, Eastwood and Epping. This is an example of media referring Epping and surrounding suburbs as the North Shore https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/north-shore-rapist-graham-james-kay-back-behind-bars-20180422-p4zazz.html

This reference directly includes North Epping as part of the Upper North Shore. https://www.microburbs.com.au/NSW/Sydney/Upper-north-shore/Hornsby-Municipality/North-Epping — Preceding unsigned comment added by HornsbyBbSyd (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@HornsbyBbSyd: Please "sign" your posts to Talk pages by putting four tildes at the end.

Thanks for providing that; now we have something to discuss. Let me take those in order:

1. microburbs - I don't know anything about this webiste or NationMaster which owns it, but that map (which I presume is the part you are talking about) is obsolete, before the 2016 council amalgamations. It still shows Epping as distributed across Hornsby, Parramatta and Ryde. It is not at all clear where they got this information; it says "Google 2015" which could be anything, but is consistent with the obsolete information. It is behind a paywall so I cannot investigate further, but without knowing who they are or how they come by this classification I can't give it too much weight.
2. Yellow Pages - sorry, I just don't follow what you mean. That web site allows me to look up the phone number for a business, but I don't see anything there about what district it is in. The fact that some businesses call themselves by that name is not very meaningful, just like there is a "Strathfield Car Radios" in Liverpool - that does not imply that Strathfield is in Liverpool or vice versa. It is not clear whether those businesses consider themselves to be in the North Shore, or whether they service it. At most it might warrant a brief mention.
3. SMH - this is generally considered a reliable source. But the reference to Epping being in the "North Shore" here is indirect at best. It also mentions him operating in Glebe, but I don't think you're also claiming that is in the North Shore, are you? So the "North Shore Rapist" also operated outside of the North Shore. And in another article (here), the SMH described another rapist who also operated in Epping and other suburbs as "Sydney's north-west".

I don't want to confuse the matter by bringing in all the other suburbs you mention: we were discussing Epping.

So ... if you ignore your personal knowledge, based purely on what the best available references say, what would you propose to put into the article? --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

=> Discussion moved to User talk:Gronk Oz#Epping, NSW discussion continued. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello again HornsbyBbSyd. Sorry, but I had to trim a couple of your recent changes to Epping, New South Wales. They lacked any source for venerability. For example, how do you know where the train passengers are going to? Did State Transit publish figures on this? Was a survey published? Did a newspaper article say so? If you can provide a reliable source of the removed information, then I would be happy to see it go back into the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Adding emphasis to an article to describe local facilities such as nearby business districts and shopping centres, I thought would at least enlighten readers.

You’ve also removed some of the description of the suburb.

How about I repost it as the following:

“Regional administrative band shopping district Macquarie Park is located 3 kilometres away, while Chatswood is located 9 Kilometres away.”

And for the other details you have removed on the suburbs environment:

“Epping obtains high density housing around the Train Station (link), while affluent and low density parts of the suburb obtain large federation homes and sprawling public green space.”

Never mind about travel to the two CBDs mentioned, the references for those are mostly articles on opal tap on and tap off, unless you think it would be worth adding?

Cheers. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just an update - I’ve decided to simplify and state the following:

“High density housing surrounds the train station, while low density parts of the suburb obtain leafy streets and large federation homes.”

Will add.

Cheers. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello again HornsbyBbSyd. I have taken the liberty of adding indentation above, to make it easier to follow the conversation. How did you find out the distances to Macquarie and Chatswood? That should be cited as the source for the statement. Similarly, the discussion of leafy low-density housing should have a source. And it should be covered in the body of the article before summarized in the lede. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, I’ll find sources to add to this summary, and look into adding emphasis in the body of the article. For now, I’ll remove the short summary above -HISTORY- until a better summary well sourced is created. Thank you for your wisdom. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, just looking at resources to recreate a summary; a source found is this: https://www.domain.com.au/suburb-profile/epping-nsw-2121 Previous description of the suburb is described here quite well. If I were to create a new summary, it would be put simply as:

“Epping is a major road and transport interchange, with high density housing surrounding the railway station, while low density sections of the suburb are characterised by leafy streets and large federation homes.”

Also, if we were to add information of the distance between the suburbs of Chatswood and Epping, the following source can be used:

https://www.distance.to/Chatswood/Epping,New-South-Wales,AUS

Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bare URLs

The hatnote about bare URLs should not be deleted from an article until someone has fixed them - normally that seems to get done within 24 hours and the fixer will remove the hatnote.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fleet Lists, which link is it? I'm still learning here on wiki. I checked and couldn't figure out which one was causing the issue. Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fleet Lists, I just worked it out and fixed the issue. The more you learn! Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic and here was I about to send you a detailed reply. And the Bare URL issue is something I am chasing up in various articles I come across. If it is a simple 1 or 2 URLs I might fix them myself but otherwise I might leave it to someone who has more knowledge.Fleet Lists (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for the help mate, it was easier than I thought! HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello HornsbyBbSyd, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Northern Beaches have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So you're new...

Hi there - it sounds like you are leveling threats. If I'm wrong, then my apologies. On the other hand, if you are throwing around threats, then you've got a lot to learn about this place. it's going to be painful for you and everyone else if you continue the way you're going. Start with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF - and maybe don't lecture people who've been here for 15 years with many thousands of editors. Work with us, and you can learn a lot. Then look at WP:RS (real estate agents and physio practitioners aren't reliable sources). So, feel free to report me immediately as per your threat. . --Merbabu (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

PS - I also removed more of your copyvios. Tough break. --Merbabu (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

try these too: WP:BRD, WP:3RR.

Oh, please don't revert without comment in edit summaries. use the article talk page for the benefit of all (and not editor's talk page) --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. No, I am not leveling threats. That's a serious accusation and would never threaten somebody. I simply stated that what you did was wrong, and I am entitled to my opinion and am allowed to discuss. Being here for 15 years doesn't give you the right to belittle those who have been here shorter. I'm sorry if you took personal offence to my opinion, that was not intended at all. I was being black & white. You stated some edits were wishful thinking, which is not true. I actually live in Mosman, and have done business across all of Sydney for years, and enjoy the studies of Sydney itself. Over the last month of heavy research, I have found many things even I was surprised with. I wouldn't call Hornsby the North Shore (Don't know anyone that does!) but, there's resources to support that. In fact, I'd like to learn more on wiki. Also, discussions on Northern Sydney were made here before edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board. Also, thank you for removing the copyvio. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought I’d actually add why “Hornsby” is in my name - that’s where I grew up lol. And never called it north shore but sources so otherwise! Haha HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OK - so perhaps i misunderstood your comment: Any future vandalism of this article or the avoidance to talk before making messy edits with emotional abuse as your reason for the edit will be reported to administrators.

I will try to apply a more lenient and less literal interpretation to your future comments. No promises though.

One problem I have with your editing and comments is that while you (in your words) are "entitled to my opinion and am allowed to discuss", you don't offer the same in reverse. Indeed, you tell experienced good faith editors that their work is "vandalism" and "messy" and do whole sale reverts of their numerous edits...sloppy move. Rather, as a successful businessman like yourself (as you advise us), you will be well experienced in using a combination of gentle persuasion and reasoned argument to effectively influence others to achieve the outcomes you want. --Merbabu (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Merbabu - as you know, I’m new, and have made mistakes or have misinterpreted things on Wikipedia - I’m new to Wikipedia, old to business. Because I’m in business does not mean I’m an expert in anything else I stumble into out of interest. You still seem upset from this, and I think it’s best you and I should talk when we can be more civil and not use sarcastic terminology. Otherwise this will lead to nothing positive. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think sarcasm is not a bad response to your antipathy. I wasn't the one whole-sale reverting editors, or telling off good faith experienced editors "vandalism" and "messiness". But sure, going forward I'll assume it won't happen again. Have a read of the links I gave you above. --Merbabu (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said Merbabu, let’s not talk until we can be civil and when you’re no longer upset by this. I’ve read the links and they seem to be applying more towards yourself more at the moment since you’re making subtle remarks to try and insult me. It’s not my problem you took emotional offence over something that you could have responded to much better to a new user on Wikipedia - being on Wikipedia for 15 years, you should know that. Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be considered closed as it is now just going around in circles.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, see that's where you're wrong. I'm not upset. Just trying my best for the encyclopedia. Refer WP:AGF. S --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Fleet Lists I agree. And also thank you for being helpful and guiding me on Wikipedia as a new editor - highly appreciate the help you’ve provided to me. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Merbabu, please see WP:AGF “ When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them.”

End of discussion. Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, at least you read it. That means you will understand now why calling editors "vandals" and just reverting them without such comment is not going to work. Thank you --Merbabu (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I learnt that much earlier on, Merbabu. I’m hoping you read it too, and that taking emotional offence from edits done out of good faith should be avoided, and resorting to passive aggressive insults is against Wikipedia standards. Thank you HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

North Shore (Sydney)

Hi there, seeing as you are new, I thought it might be helpful to drop you a message here. Your edits to North Shore (Sydney) appears to be in good faith, but not constructive because they are removing content that seems to be both correct and relevant. The sections you have changed are supported by the main articles linked to, whereas your version is not. I am not sure if your edits are motivated by a sense of WP:OWN. If so, please try to resist that. Some of your edit summaries indicate that they are motivated by ignorance of the subject matter. In that case you shouldn't blank it. If you believe any of the content is wrong and unsourced, the correct approach to challenge it is to use a "fact" tag and raising your query on the talk page. You should not simply blank large sections of the article without discussion. I am going to revert your latest changes again, but hope that you can ask questions before you mass-blank parts of the article again. --49.255.223.3 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there anonymous user, please refer to the page Australian Places where this page was in major discussion due to years of edit wars and personal opinions. Your edit (and the previous edit) was made with personal opinion and no relevant sources. Too much emphasis on personal opinions create a mess on the page. Where are your sources for “sometimes in a commercial context Hunters Hill is considered to be in the north shore” or “Parish of Gordon”? These are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. The previous editor who created the edit that I reverted was informed by me on their talk page about why their edits were reverted. Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there HornsbyBbSyd, if I can weigh in on your edit war: it's perfectly right to challenge unsourced information. However, this article as a whole is lacking in sources, and the information you are blanking is confirmed by the main articles linked to. Most of it is more verified than a lot of the unreferenced statements in the version you keep reverting to. In fact, parts of the version you prefer contradicts other parts and contradicts cited sources. For example, the version you prefer says in the lead that the Lane Cove River is the boundary, but in the "Lower North Shore" section it includes Hunters Hill as part of that sub-region - which contradicts both the lead and the main article.

Overall, I think the anon's version is fine. I will work through and try to find a few more sources to either confirm or contradict the information. When I'm finished, if you have any further issues with any of the content, please tag statements rather than mass blanking again. It's not constructive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please stop the mass blanking. You refer to your last explanation but I don't understand it. The content you refer to isn't "personal" or "emotional" opinion, whether something is or isn't in something else is a matter of fact. I've removed the "emotional" opinion about the "leafy North Shore", and I don't see anything else that falls into that category. If you still think the current content is "personal" or "emotional" opinion, you should tag things specifically. If you can't be bothered actually reading what you are mass-deleting, you should just leave the page alone. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi PalaceGuard008, the reason for the “mass blanking” was that it contained no supportive references, over clarification which practically repeated information over and over, and made the page confusing to read or understand. The article was rewritten back in May of this year to be simplified and gave clarity of what the North Shore is often referenced to with supportive referencing. Your edit was seen as personal because you wrote used terms that define the North Shore as an official region, when there are no official government sources to define it the way most people see it as an amorphous, varied term. You also added “Parish of Gordon” with no references to support the claim, and also added extensive descriptions of suburbs such as Hunters Hill “from a commercial point of view” being part of the North Shore, but not in a so called “narrow sense”. Such information would need more resources, therefore it is seen as a “personal” or “emotional” view. You also seem upset that I’m referring to it as a personal opinion. Also, I do not mind you removing “leafy north shore” as it’s unnecessary and seems more commercial. An edit war kept that term in the article. I don’t want an edit war and have the assumption that you’re only editing the page out of good faith, but consistency with Wikipedia’s standards and guidelines are crucial. This page was in discussion on Australian Places discussion board to end edit wars and to clean the article, including other regions of Sydney. I’m hoping you take this into consideration and is not a personal attack on you and only to maintain the integrity of the article and articles related. Thank you! HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there again, and thank you for adding references - please clean up the article where there is some disambiguation links needing to be fixed. Also - your edit on “commercial context” is still not valid or appropriate. This was in reference to suburbs such as Hunters Hill and surrounding suburbs. You also changed “list of suburbs that are sometimes referred to as North Shore” where it should simply remain as “simply referred to as North Shore”. Cheers. HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North Shore (Sydney); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu, thanks for the message. I’m assuming this was also posted on the other related editors talk page as well, who refused to discuss before reverting my changes. Cheers HornsbyBbSyd (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Region(s) of Sydney for Epping

You have often been involved in this, so I am letting you know that I have started a general discussion with the aim of settling a consensus at Talk:Epping, New South Wales#Region(s) of Sydney for Epping. If you wish to contribute, please do so there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Epping

You're welcome to find a better photo if you want - but a random photo of a street and a fence is not at all representative of the suburb either. There aren't any good ones on Commons, that was the best they had. Deus et lex (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)