Difference between revisions of "User talk:Supernutorcrazy"

Revision as of 21:20, 23 February 2018

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 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

suggestion (20/9/17)

(Files)

Delete	Reason		Note
(File:102 (Medium).jpg) & (File:SLRT.JPG)	Poor lighting quality	Pictures of other sets are available	Do kindly check & relink images if necessary
(File:BPLRT 109.jpg)	Poor lighting quality	(File:Set 109.jpg) (Better quality)
(File:Set 116.jpg)	Poor angle of picture
(File:NE8 RFP.png), (File: NE10 PTP.png), (File:NE11 WLH.png), (File:NE13 KVN.png), (File:NE14 HGN.png), (File: Senja.jpg), (File:Jelapang.jpg), (File:Segar.jpg), (File:Fajar.jpg), (File:BP2.jpg), (File:LorongChuanMap.png)	Location of station on map is no longer needed in new sgWiki Train format

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 |colspan=2|Location of station on map is no longer needed in new sgWiki Train format
 |}
-== Application for declaration to classify 24 Citaros as Batch 2 instead of Batch 3. ==
-Greetings.
-Perhaps you may have forgotten, we once had a debate as to whether SBS Transit's Citaro Batch 2 have 24 extra buses back in November 2015 by exercising its "option". Now that all the Euro V Citaros from LTA and SBST side have been completed (culminating in a total number of 1,104 Citaros for these batches), I am led to the inference that what you said is the correct position. However, last year, another fellow user had suggested that SBS6819S-SBS6821J and SBS6509L-SBS6529D (total 24 buses) were under Batch 3 based on inference from chassis numbers, and successfully obtained leave from an administrator to reflect it as the current position. I do not doubt and had not previously suggested that his position is wrong, but at this stage I am seeking leave from you to overrule that position and shift the said 24 buses back to Batch 2, thus reflecting the correct position as follows:
-Batch 2: 474 buses (SBS6342A-SBS6549X, SBS6600E-SBS6865H)<br>
-Batch 3: 330 buses* (SBS2000M-SBS2004C, SBS6550R-SBS6599B, SBS6866E-SBS6893B, SG1000G-SG1071B, SG1080A-SG1245S, SG1691L-SG1699R)<br>
-*The issue of whether to create separate pages for SBST and LTA batches is not before us currently, though it may be helpful to discuss about it as well.
-Thank you.
---[[User:ASA1234|ASA1234]] ([[User talk:ASA1234|talk]]) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (+08)
-== Admin Rights Applications ==
-Added
---[[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 14:41, 17 January 2018 (+08)
-== Sync of Batch 2 Citaro's Former Deployments Data ==
-Hi there,
-I would like to highlight that, while we had all agreed on the classification of the Batch 2 Citaros, we have not actually synced the Former Deployments data for the particular bunch of Citaros (SBS6509L - SBS6529D)?
-The Former Deployments data for that particular bunch of Batch 2 Citaros, are still listed in the Former Deployments page for the Batch 3 Citaros.
-Likewise, the Former Deployments page of the Batch 2 Citaro have not included in that bunch too yet. (and Former Deployments data = both the SBST section & GA section for the SBS6509L - SBS6529D bunch)
-So, would like to seek some clarification on what to do / where to go about with this? Thanks & let me know!
-Regards,
-SBS9631X
-==Locked Page Template==
-Hi Supernutorcrazy.
-I have created a template <code><nowiki>{{Page Locked}}</nowiki></code> specially for active pages that are being locked.
-Do add this template in after locking the pages.
-Thank you and I am sorry for any inconvenience caused to you.

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Supernutorcrazy"

Revision as of 21:20, 23 February 2018

suggestion (20/9/17)

(Files)

Navigation menu

Search