User talk:SimonLim88 - Revision history

Supernutorcrazy at 07:19, 8 September 2020

2020-09-08T07:19:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 8 September 2020
Line 75:		Line 75:

	Thanks.		Thanks.

			==Reply==
			Hi,

			I would not be able to give you a definite answer as of now, due to multiple accounts are accusing me of abusing my power ([[Special:Contributions/Gorving\|User:Gorving]] etc.). However I would explain to you the rational of why some users are able to keep their registration plate number username despite it being an unacceptable username.

			Before the time you created your account, multiple trolls created account with bus registration number and perform countless disruptive editing. Blocking those an potential disruptive editors resulting in many appeals of false ban (i.e. non-account abusers). To prevent such matters, any form of vehicle registration number or model was now considered unacceptable.

			To prevent inconvenience, those having a bus registration number before that are allowed to continue having their existing username.

			However, if the judgement had been made by the owner [[Special:Contributions/Jason\|User:Jason]] that I had been abusing my power, than the unacceptable username list may also become invalid which is why I am unable to provide you a definite answer.

			Thanks & Regards

			-Supernutorcrazy

SMB315C at 06:16, 8 September 2020

2020-09-08T06:16:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 8 September 2020
Line 66:		Line 66:

	Yes I agree that the current notes arrangement is really messy ever since the early trips & down-route trips information were transferred over. I have previously attempted to input these into a wikitable under the notes section. However I feel that the presentation may not be any better as there might be different buses deployed under different duties for the respective days. Hence it would be best if we could to stick to our current arrangement.		Yes I agree that the current notes arrangement is really messy ever since the early trips & down-route trips information were transferred over. I have previously attempted to input these into a wikitable under the notes section. However I feel that the presentation may not be any better as there might be different buses deployed under different duties for the respective days. Hence it would be best if we could to stick to our current arrangement.

			Thanks.

			== Reply: About a username change... ==
			Hi.

			I would suggest you to enquire Supernutorcrazy with regards to this matter.

	Thanks.		Thanks.

SMB315C: Reverted edits by G0rv1ng (talk) to last revision by Themystery

2020-09-06T12:49:47Z

Reverted edits by G0rv1ng (talk) to last revision by Themystery

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 6 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Block User\|Defining Superowner power}}~~

	== Service 854 using OC500LEs in the fleet ==		== Service 854 using OC500LEs in the fleet ==

G0rv1ng at 11:50, 6 September 2020

2020-09-06T11:50:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:50, 6 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Block User\|Defining Superowner power}}

	== Service 854 using OC500LEs in the fleet ==		== Service 854 using OC500LEs in the fleet ==

Themystery: /* Re: Notes Section */

2020-08-07T09:00:30Z

Re: Notes Section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 7 August 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Thanks & Regards		Thanks & Regards

	== ~~Re: Notes Section~~ ==		== Service 969 ==

	Hi SimonLim88,		Hi SimonLim88,

	I ~~would still prefer the current arrangement of displaying the notes as it is more tidier in my opinion. It is better~~ to ~~list~~ the ~~specific bus right away.~~		I refer to this below mentioned note on the Service 969 deployments:

	~~Hope~~ that ~~helps~~ you. Thank you ~~for your clarification~~.		* '''SG6080S (Service 969)''' will perform on Service 854 during Weekends PM Peak & Saturdays.

			I would like you to kindly change the phrasing of this note as I completely do not understand what the note is referring to. The "Weekends PM Peak" that you have mentioned is very contradicting to the fact of putting the word "Saturdays" there. Kindly please make the necessary changes to make it clearer as I cannot get your point across effectively. Thank you.

	Themystery		Themystery

SMB315C at 05:42, 2 August 2020

2020-08-02T05:42:05Z

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * 1 edit for unregistered batch 1 citaro buses [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=SBS_Transit_Non-Revenue_Buses&diff=prev&oldid=479003]
 :''Those 2 were missing from the Batch 1 Page. If someone can fill the svc please do. Missing from OM so I <big><b>presume</b></big> it's scrapped?''
 Thanks.

Themystery: /* Re: SG6087Z (HGDEP 161) */

2020-08-02T05:02:48Z

Re: SG6087Z (HGDEP 161)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, 2 August 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Thanks & Regards		Thanks & Regards

	== Re: ~~SG6087Z (HGDEP 161)~~ ==		== Re: Notes Section ==

	Hi SimonLim88,		Hi SimonLim88,

	I ~~have seen your reply on my Talk page. However, I am uncertain and unsure if SG6087Z is now a permanent bus~~ of ~~Service 161, so I unfortunately am not able to give you an answer. I have not observed either of these buses at~~ the ~~moment.~~		I would still prefer the current arrangement of displaying the notes as it is more tidier in my opinion. It is better to list the specific bus right away.

	~~Pertaining to your other query, I removed the clause because SBS Transit~~ as ~~a whole generally do not practice random deployments~~. ~~Hence, I feel that it~~ is ~~inappropriate~~ to list the ~~clause at the SBS Transit pages~~.

	Hope that helps you. Thank you for your clarification.		Hope that helps you. Thank you for your clarification.

	Themystery		Themystery

	~~Update on Status of SBS3683K:~~

	~~I have seen this bus plying Service 163 as of today. Hope that helps.~~

	== Reminder ==		== Reminder ==

Themystery: /* Re: SG6087Z (HGDEP 161) */

2020-07-11T10:56:33Z

Re: SG6087Z (HGDEP 161)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 11 July 2020
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Themystery		Themystery

			Update on Status of SBS3683K:

			I have seen this bus plying Service 163 as of today. Hope that helps.

	== Reminder ==		== Reminder ==

Themystery: /* Re: SG1854J */

2020-07-07T15:50:15Z

Re: SG1854J

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 7 July 2020
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Thanks & Regards		Thanks & Regards

	== Re: ~~SG1854J~~ ==		== Re: SG6087Z (HGDEP 161) ==

	Hi SimonLim88,		Hi SimonLim88,

	I have ~~understood~~ your ~~concerns regarding the above mentioned bus~~. ~~While~~ I ~~have also personally noticed that it has been performing Feeder 372 in recent days~~, I ~~would like~~ to ~~reassure~~ you ~~that this deployment is temporary and is likely due to COVID-19, where~~ the ~~E6 A22s act as spare buses, since its perm service, City Direct 654 is suspended~~.		I have seen your reply on my Talk page. However, I am uncertain and unsure if SG6087Z is now a permanent bus of Service 161, so I unfortunately am not able to give you an answer. I have not observed either of these buses at the moment.

	So as a ~~matter of fact, deployment changes during this period may~~ not ~~be a representation of an actual deployment change~~. ~~Unless it continues to be seen deployed this way post COVID-19~~, it ~~would be better~~ to ~~leave~~ the ~~deployments as they are, since they appear to be acting as "temporary perms" and not actual deployments in~~ the ~~databases etc~~.		Pertaining to your other query, I removed the clause because SBS Transit as a whole generally do not practice random deployments. Hence, I feel that it is inappropriate to list the clause at the SBS Transit pages.

	Hope that helps you. Thank you for your clarification.		Hope that helps you. Thank you for your clarification.

SMB315C at 05:48, 24 May 2020

2020-05-24T05:48:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 24 May 2020
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Themystery		Themystery

			== Reminder ==
			Hi.

			Please be reminded that you should not add any information that you are unsure of.

			* 2 edits for deployment of SG1854J on 372 [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=MAN_NL323F_(Batch_4)&diff=prev&oldid=478420] [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Sengkang_Feeders&diff=prev&oldid=478421]
			:''<big><b>Don't know</b></big> how SBST deploys their buses but I have noticed it performing on 372 when I was heading to Yishun to observe 854 fleet. <big><b>Idk</b></big> if crossovers exist in SBST. (Update : 1815 Depart SK int)''

			* 1 edit for unregistered batch 1 citaro buses [http://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=SBS_Transit_Non-Revenue_Buses&diff=prev&oldid=479003]
			:''Those 2 were missing from the Batch 1 Page. If someone can fill the svc please do. Missing from OM so I <big><b>presume</b></big> it's scrapped?''

			Thanks.