User talk:Supernutorcrazy

<!--This section are reserved for unsolved case

User SBS3107H
Hi could you remove SBS3107H as admin? I feel he doesn't deserve the admin role from the way he reverts edit for no rhyme or reason,and editing it back himself, before he starts blocking users

User SBS3107H
to add on the above feedback regarding SBS3107H, i have actually make the same feedback earlier to APEX-LW21 last week. many incorrect edit by this user and also, recently he undo CORRECT edit for new registration for B5LH page and lock the page and reedit himself with the same information. why? is that B5lH section reserve entirely for him?

EDIT: ADD ON 20/3, just discover that he is doing the same for MAN A95/MAN A22 BATCH 4 PAGE. other person edits new registration (under Go-ahead) and he undo all the edit of these registrations? and he edit it back himself? so being a moderator is allowed to do this?

rgds lemon1974

User Bus33333 & Tangabriel
Hi, both of them have been doing disruptive editing to "quarrel" and both of them used a mod notice ok each other's userpage. Could you look into this? Thank you.

AMDEP Rostering
There has been alot of conflicts of what was reflected in AMDEP's rostering v.s. what is deployed by the starter each day. The way 167 roster put all MAN buses but reality deploys so many more OCs, 980 full fleet OC + 1 Citaro in roster but in reality alot of MAN buses + minority OCs, 854 put OC500LE SD perms but in reality MAN A22/Citaro perms.

However it is also impossible to tell readers that AMDEP has many spare buses (like telling people AMDEP has 100-150+ spare buses in the past?!?!?!) because AMDEP practices rotational/random deployments unlike other depots out in KJ/WL/SBST depots. All my edits have followed based on the rostering, so by implementing that warning point it shows your admin team obviously doesn't know my current jobscope & industry I'm working in. Besides, your service pages has many outdated rostered duties both weekdays & especially wekeends, which some services could have received various timetable updates.

Oh you can also tell SimonLim88 if spotting the fleet is the way to deduce perms every single time, den I also wish how I'm able to figure out the actual deployed perms through how AMDEP deploys their buses.

It is also worth letting ya know 1709 1710 1711 1733 are reflected as 882, 981 perms in roster, which obviously I don't dare to edit knowing AMDEP deploys them on 171 way more frequently.

The question now is whether your team want to tell people what the roster reflects each buses are, or you want tell them how each buses are observed as which perm. After all, there should also be ways to explain how do the adverts from each buses come about & a rough gauge which service.

Thanks and no thanks to the warning point. I will defintiely appeal against this warning point and hope this can talk out to your team why I should not deserve that warning point. However if your team insists then I'll step out from all other accurate edits since more contribution = more warning point/editing ban. Thanks

~ Arthurjie

Add on
Hi. Apologies for the late response.

I feel that it would be appropriate to indicate these AMDEP buses similar to GA flexi-deployments. I wanted to implement this since the early days of this practice by AMDEP but I have been suggested to keep them as spare buses to keep them consistent with the other two depots KJDEP & WLDEP. This also caused AMDEP to accumulate many spare buses over the 3+ years.

I understand that you have been editing according to AMDEP's roster, which I have no objections regarding this as you have been trying to clear out the excess number of spare buses under AMDEP. Likewise, it could have better if the deployments are based on observations but minority of us have the spare time to spot the entire fleet of every single AMDEP services under a daily basis.

I will remove your warning point as it is clearly not 'false information' by tallying the scheduled deployments with the actual deployments.

Please do update me your thoughts regarding this matter.

Thanks.

SMRT AMDEP Services
22 March 2020

Good evening Sir,

This matter is in regards to the recent conflicts that happened between me and Arthurjie about Mandai deployments. While I believe the admins should have made it clear on whether Mandai services rely on roster or actual deployments, I do personally feel that it was unfair to give Arthurjie a warning point because he was merely showing another side of the truth, which is the "roster". You can deem the roster as unreliable, but Arthurjie was not wrong to actually show what was in the roster. In fact, if there is anyone to blame, blame it on SMRT for having a roster but not following it. (Basically having a timetable in secondary school but lessons are on a random basis, which makes it completely unreliable.)

To prevent any future conflicts, I will go over a handful of solutions that I have thought of to help bring this matter to a close, so that both parties can reach a win win situation. Please do note that this list is non-exhaustive and can be added to suit better needs.

1) Making a separate page for Mandai Services only, allocating the actual roster deployments apart from the deployments in reality.

2) Relocate all Mandai allocated buses back to "AMDEP SP"

'''3) Open a vote to all sgwiki admins / users to decide if Mandai deployments should be based on roster vs reality ( Like an election basically. )'''

'''4) Have a discussion before deeming the bus as a permanent. (For example, SG5879L has been performing on 965 regularly but in the roster it is actually on 857. Keep the bus on hold until SG5879L has been observed appearing a certain amount of times on 965 and then verifying that it no longer appears on 857 on the following day.)'''

'''5) Open another block to differentiate reality vs roster instead of creating a new page. A new notation can also be introduced to indicate a roster to reality basis. (Eg. SG5879L AMDEP 857///965) Or any other notations deemed fit.'''

I do know that I have no right to make decisions but I feel that point 1 would cater to both the general public as well as the administrative roles. This is because in any case, if the general public is curious on what buses are actually shown on the roster, there is actually a reference for them to look into it and compare it with the actual deployments. While at this, may I also suggest regrouping the SMRT services into AMDEP / WLDEP / KJDEP. This is for easier reference for the public light and also much more easier for the general public to see the actual vs roster. I do hope you will consider my suggestions helpful and do feel free to add a topic into my discussion if you seek any clarifications.

Thank you for your patience, understanding and time into reading this.

Regards,

SimonLim88

-->

Rules for my feedback to stop irritate me.


 * Please kindly wait for up to 7 days unless stated otherwise for my reply to your feedback. No reply will be given if your feedback does not require reply or I could not answer to your feedback.
 * Please do not ask for general question like How to etc.
 * Please do not ask for permission to do something.
 * Please refrain from requesting to retrieved deleted article as excessive history will be cleared.
 * When requesting me to edit locked pages, please give either
 * Affected sections code
 * Advertisement in full
 * Affected parts to change in details.
 * Avoid statement like same as other vehicle
 * Please kindly indicate Autoblock ID if you have been affected from it.

Re: Polling Request
Hi Supernutorcrazy,

Sorry but I do not really quite understand the rejecting of the polling request as per mentioned by you. May I ask where is it otherwise?

Also, I would like to hear your opinion on this possible change for interchangeable buses. Personally, I also use this website to check the bus deployments by bus model. However, I am always thrown away for the fact that I am left wondering if buses from Service 162 are used for Service 162M too, for example, since it is only classified as SEDEP 162, which does not give any indication that it performs on Service 162M as well.

Much appreciated. Thank you.

Themystery

Re: Recent Edit
Hi.


 * Reverting back of the trial of subpages for deployment service (eg. Clementi Feeders) which allows administrators to lock section of the page to prevent disruptive editing
 * I understand your intention of trialing this, as it is much easier for the admins to lock the sections instead of pages. However, it is quite troublesome for editors (including myself) to edit if someone have the intention to modify the subpages all in one go. Plus, I found out that it is difficult to trace back the edit histories for the respective sections as they are separated accordingly unlike in the past where they are all compiled together.


 * Creating Templates (Template:Spec) for bus model information which only a single page can be used. (In violation of SgWiki:Guidbook Chapter 4 Paragraph 8).
 * I am currently creating these templates for the former buses specifications as there are some editors who have been amending the information for several former bus models. It is troublesome for me to edit them by their respective pages (those refurbished ones) as those locked ones are only accessible by the admins. I don't think it's fair for me to constantly transfer the recent edits without their heads up, hence the creation of these templates so as to synchronise the information with the refurbished pages as well as the former specs page. And yes I wasn't aware that I was violating the guidebook rules.

Thanks.