No longer relevant.

Can you please add a current Viva Rapid Transit map to the Viva wiki page? --Trinity98789 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How am I going to do that? It's a lot of work to draw a map - and it must be free of copyright Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can just download it from YRT. Everyone has a permit to copy it. --Trinity98789 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is copyright. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then can you please e-mail YRT before you can do it? --Trinity98789 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't know what you mean. Why don't you do it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that, Trinity. Most agencies do not release their maps under Wikipedia-compatible licenses, for a variety of legitimate reasons. Wikipedia doesn't work on getting other people to do things; it works on you doing it yourself. If you want a map, then download Inkscape and create a diagrammatic map that does not infringe on the Viva map copyright. Or download Quantum GIS and make a geographic map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so excited to see the SmartTrack coming in Markham!! My dreams come true!! --Trinity98789 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested you to be less aggressive with your edit summaries before (including [1], [2]). I've explained that, even if it wasn't your intention, those edit summaries look like you are trying to pick a fight.

I am repeating that request today. All four edit summaries to your edits today to Barbara Foss seemed aggressive. Consider this "WTF" edit summary. There is nothing wrong with you preferring the CCGS Gordon Reid to be characterized as a "patrol vessel". Similarly, I suggest my use of the term "Canadian Coast Guard cutter" was also perfectly reasonable. I think that makes your "WTF" look like another instance of trying to pick a fight.

Many people suggest, "don't sweat the small stuff." I won't quibble over this minor disagreement over how to refer to the vessel. But I am disappointed you don't seem to be taking seriously my requests you avoid giving the appearance you are trying to pick a fight.

I've also said this before. I admire your archive-fu. You are capable of good work. When you are pleasant it can be rewarding to work with you.

Disagreements that could be handled as genuine good faith disagreements, should they really trigger sarcasm? Geo Swan (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are either very careless or lazy. You seldom add a category and very often red link when articles exist under another name. Don't blame me for your incompetence. Do you even look at what you have posted. Get a grip. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've praised you for what you are good at. I think I have been polite in my requests. I think your characterizing me in this message as "careless", "lazy", or "incompetent" is inappropriate. I told you before I never claimed to be infallible, but I think my number of genuine mistakes is within the normal range of fallibility of other contributors. I think some of the instances you have chosen to characterize as carelessness, laziness or incompetence were occasions you should have considered treating as good faith disagreements.

You do realize that you aren't infallible either? None of us are.

When I find what I regard as mistakes in your work do you think I should respond in kind, with the same kind of edit summaries you use? I am going to do my best not to do that. I think it would erode the efforts of the whole project. Without regard to the kind of comments you leave I am going to do my best to treat you with respect, because (1) I know you are capable of good work; and (2) I think that is what is best for the project as a whole. Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will continue to help with your creations when I see problems - but I promise to be polite and patient. We both aim to improve Wikipedia, and I have never doubted your sincerity. No more nasties! Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great little table. However, would it be better to be part of the bus routes list instead of a standalone article? Rationale being that the lots are only served by GO buses. --Natural R_X 16:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the tendancy to merge things into one mega-article. The way people want to view things is in smaller pieces, and for that reason, the stand alone article works better, especially when on a smart phone or tablet. I intend to add anchors so your current version of the bus routes links to the exact lot - but that will be for another day. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another messy article is GO Transit infrastructure. I think rolling stock and buses should be spun out of there and what remains may be redundant to the main article. I will have to check that out. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree GO Transit infrastructure is messy. The problem is, other than rolling stock, the rest is uncited and outdated info for foamers. I removed it out of the main article to begin with to reduce clutter. I've seen some commuter rail articles with current rolling stock incorporated, but I don't think it fits well and would just be a slippery slope into getting way too much detailed stuff back in there. But I don't know where to put it. We could delete the other stuff, but the foamers would get upset. I'm totally open to ideas.
As for GO bus routes and P&R lots though, I don't think it is creating a mega-article, but nicely complementing parts. I'm not gonna fight for it if you feel strongly the other way though. What do you mean by anchors? --Natural R_X 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you hid some of that away. The tracks, yards, maintenance facilities, stations, bus terminals and carpool lots are infrastructure, whereas the train and bus fleets are not. Corridor info may be important enough to belong in the main article, since it describes the basic structure of GO Transit service. I did not suggest incorporating the vehicles - completely the opposite. I advocate that the fleet belongs in a stand alone article, which would allow train and bus geeks to do their stuff and not overwhelm anything else. But let's get the routes fixed up first. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Anchors are tags that would allow a link to each individual carpool lot, rather than the general article. I have done a couple to show you - Stoney Creek and Grimsby. I will do them all later. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those anchors are cool! --Natural R_X 19:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Saguenay STS logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tracker (album), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ian Thomas and Tom Walsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Laval STL logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reversion of my inclusion of "The" at the beginning of this article. The definite article is grammatically required at the beginning of this sentence despite your claim of "consistency". Consistency with what? It is, in fact, a consistent principle in Wikipedia articles to include "The" when it is required before names of things as it is in this case. Afterwriting (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with very other Canadian railway station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then I will correct all the other articles as well. Articles must be written with correct grammar. Afterwriting (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just being argumentative? See Category:Regional railway stations in Victoria (Australia) if you want to fix your own neighbourhood first. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Cornell will be a GO terminal since a GO 407 East bus connects there. --Garris6699 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? When is it even going to be built? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this please. Garris6699 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will try to upgrade the article and improve the references, which are still very poor. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Wee Fellas cover.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

Your criticization against me based on the so claimed 'junk' pictures I out up for Hollywood/Highlands Station is quite irrelevant. Epicgenius said he would help me move all of my pictures to Wikipedia Commons (as in my talk page and his), despite the fact that I put in information on the pictures I freshly uploaded. Stop reverting my edits of the comparison images. You think it's no different, but different or not, it is meant as a comparison of how much it changed on behalf of the 11 years. --HanSangYoon (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]