User talk:SG5064X

TIB1206A

Hi,

 I am user SG5119Y.I am a SG forum user but my SG forum name is not SG5119Y.Regarding on your edit,I can understand how both u and other user feels.TIB1206A is now perm.I also text that user already.Cheers.Thanks.

RE: Suspected Multiple accounts hold by TIB1152X 190

Hi SG5064X,

Thank you for whistle blowing the two accounts for suspected multiple account holders. I had been observing the two accounts that you had provided over the days. As the editing patterns are different from one another, there is no concrete link to be hold by the same users.

Regarding on the clause on editing false information/disruptive editing, I would sincerely apologies as my main duty in-charge (as admin) is under the RAIL sector and not buses. You may wished to inform another admin @ Apex-LW'21 or any of the long-time editors to backed your claim before I could do any preventive measures.

Thanks & Regards

--Supernutorcrazy (talk, administrator) 27 June 2017 16:49 SGT

OC deployment

Hi,

I believe that 107L should be more sticky to 975 now that it has the nursing advert. Meanwhile for 104U, it keeps jumping around, or operates during peak hours only hence it's not seen.. hope this will help --TIB965Z (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2018 (+08)

Perm status

Dear user,

It has come to my attention whenever I edit something as a service perm u would always remove without hesitating. I does fact check to make sure I do not miss or get any facts wrong as much as possible. For instance,SG5172S has been always a 190 perm just that it spawn abt other services for a few weeks. Recently it have come back on 190 performing on their usual duties. I sincerely hope you can check for yourself before jumping to conclusion. Thank you.

Kranji B1s

Hi, just a quick check from your perspective, how often do these batch 1s spawn on 979 in your point of view?

Based on my checks in Bukit Panjang last month for weekdays, I have seen them going on 180, 190/A, 922, 972/M, 991 during morning peak and 3-6pm.

I have never seen them for every morning peak hour along 979 route, and occasionally only one Batch 1 will appear on 979 during evening peak at least once per week. In their place there will usually be a Euro 6 A95 and a random split shift slot for single/double decker.

Would appreciate if more checking is done, I will try relay the info from my part the best I can! Thanks and regards.

Edit: Other than the Batch 1 Euro Vs, have confirmed that all the current E500s, 5494, 5887 are still in 979 fleet on a daily basis.

Wekelwrady

Perm on 975

Hi,

SMB104U more or less act as a spare for this time being because it runs around for the month of December . As it is common for 190 and 985 OCs perm to run around on this service with duration of consecutive weeks, it will be well appreciated if more checking is done before edit. For instance, SMB42P previously also spawn 975 for weeks to last month. As for SMB107L, don’t think is really 975 perm too because it only run around for 2 weeks. After that, ur cameo other route such as 307/T and 976 before it went back to 190. So this bus does not serve as a direct swap for SMB104U or SMB108J.

Cheers and thanks.

Counter-point

From what I witness and remember, SMB107L had in fact been doing 975 for at least the entire of September 2022 and still saw it some time into October. SMB108J was SMB107L's direct swap. At the time when SMB108J started perming 190A in early September, SMB107L was entirely nowhere to be seen on 190 even during peak hours, not even showing up for 190A duty. SMB108J was directly doing the same duty that SMB107L previously did. As for SMB104U, it was still sticking to its original perm slot and was never involved in swapping (in fact it was the front bus of SMB108J). And to add on, I would agree with user SG5064X's explanation that this GoMo ad has a perm service to stick to for its ad contract.

Thank you user SG5064X for keeping a lookout.

Bus deployment for KJDEP

Dear user,

I would like to bring up the point that 5454D has been a 190 perm since early this year and 5587D & 5601X are direct swap for 5596C and 5597A for 176 & 190. I believe you can see it for yourself if you are not aware of it. Cheers. Thanks.

Counterpoint

190 and 176 DDs are involved in cameos quite often these days, even buses like 5497 to 5499 and 3614U are doing 190 often and are also seen on 176 as well as far as I remember. Nevertheless, thanks for your inputs

Cheers.

Re CCK deployments

Hi as a matter of fact, none of my edits were based on 'one-off appearances'. 5026D had been running on 184 for over a week before I made that edit. I also saw it on 184 last Fri, on Tue and on Wed. I take 190 daily and I have never seen it on 190 since it got the ad. For 5037Y, it was also on 190 for a while and also ran on 190 last Fri. But it also runs on 67 at times so it could still be a 67 perm. Same for 3613Y. Running on 190 regularly full day including last week and yesterday. Long-time perms are not immune to redeployment. Just look at SMB5Y

For 302, 5930X is definitely not a 'very recent' addition. As stated previously it already came in in late-Oct/early-Nov and runs on 5825S' slot and subsequently replaced by 6110P. In fact it seems that 5930X's time in 302 has already come to an end.

SG5497E

There is an assigned perm slot to this bus since late Nov 2024 after LTA specifiy is for 190. FYI this ad is still intact and it has always been on 190. The reason why occasionally on 176 which TBH never even seen at all, is because 190 and 176 DDs are interchangeable. You don’t have to reply to my page because what I am stating is fact and based on 190 perm rosters.

Therefore, there is no rationale for you to remove and even denying former deployment. Furthermore, if you don’t believe, you can see for yourself for weeks,5497E alongside 5493R has been doing 190 full day slot. Facts are facts no matter how one dislikes or deny.

I respect you as one of the more reputable user in Wiki I believe repeatedly denying facts isn’t what you intend.

Falseful blockage of my account

Dear Admin,

It is unfortunate that my account have been forcefully blocked for vandalism which is false because my edits have basis. 983 have 2 SDs on weekdays and no notice spotted on footnote stating 2 missing buses. Even so, I am disappointed with the immediate blockage to a long time users with credible knowledge over bus deployment. Hope this matter can be resolved and looked into.

Thank You.

Re:

According to old policy is consider disruptive and perma ban.

Refer to your edit: https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_980_-_993&action=edit&oldid=700467

Affected summary:

'''SG5533J'''<br>
1 Volvo B9TL ''(1 WEG2 Batch 4)''

'''Any 2 Single decker buses'''

}}
{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
!Notes
|-
|
* Down-route from Choa Chu Kang Grove (Bus Stop 44891 - APSN) towards {{Int|Choa Chu Kang}}:
** '''3 buses''' will perform one (1) down-route trip before Weekends & Public Holidays AM Peak at 0543 hours, 0545 hours and 0555 hours.
** '''6 buses''' will perform one (1) down-route trip before Weekdays AM Peak at 0528 hours, 0533 hours, 0538 hours, 0543 hours, 0549 hours and 0555 hours.
* Down-route from Choa Chu Kang Avenue 5 (Bus Stop 44589 - Opp Blk 489A) towards {{Int|Choa Chu Kang}}:
** '''1 bus''' will perform one (1) down-route trip before Weekdays AM Peak at 0525 hours.
** '''6 buses''' will perform one (1) down-route trip before Weekends & Public Holidays AM Peak at 0525 hours, 0533 hours and 0540 hours.
* 2 missing SDs.
* '''2 buses''' will perform two (2) short-trip as Short-Trip 983A after Daily PM Peak at 0005 hours, 0025 hours, 0045 hours and 0105 hours.
* '''3 SDs (SMB315C (Service 172) & 2 random SDs)''' will operate on Service 983 on Sundays & Public Holidays.
* '''SG5949T, SG6025C (Service 61), SG5874A, SG6110P (Service 991) & several Service 61 & Service 991 DDs''' will operate on Service 983 on Weekends & Public Holidays.

Your addition in bold. Affected footnote in bold&underlined.

And if by your logic - you are credible as you had claimed, it was even stated way before which you obviously didn't - so its consider vandalism/disruptive editing/false information. There is no excuse that you didn't notice it. Even if you sidetrack one revision earlier at:

https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_980_-_993&direction=prev&oldid=700467

The 2 missing SDs footnote still exists.

Re:/ Re:

Dear Admin,

Appreciate your prompt response and clarification over my concern. I apologise for the careless editing earlier on. However, I stand with my edit that the SD deployment on 983 are flexible. KJ routes like 983 and 991 have random SDs being deployed on weekdays daily and it is quite clear on this point through constant observations. Therefore, I seek to appeal to reinstate this account as it is quite unfair to classify me with actual disruptive users who provide misinformation and false edit on a constant basis. In contrast, I have made tangible observations and edits over the years and have even corrected other users edits when the information are not well synced. I have always diligently done my part to ensure accurate and timely information are reported over the years. I remain committed to play my part in keeping this page reliable.

Regards, SG5064X

Re

According to old guideline, no room of recourse. The room for recourse is implemented by me, which all of you decided to revert and stated I was unfair, so I am just applying the old guideline by community standard. If it's broken, why change. Hoped this explain.

Re

I wasn’t involved in any sort of debate or opinion regarding the guidelines changes and relevant affairs. Hence, never had I found the “new guidelines” unfair and whatsoever. It’s therefore disappointing that I was accused of being disruptive and deliberately providing false info despite not displaying intentions of it. It’s as if I was a rogue user all the while despite my years of making tangible contributions in providing accurate and timely information but anyways, I appreciate the effort of the admin team in building and maintaining the page well and wish you well.

Re

Rules are rules. That what all of you agree for. That was the reason why I was trying to rebuild. But all the backlash against me in wanting to preserved the old legacy. Thats was another reason why sgwiki.miraheze.org was born. It will be the "new" version where it takes a more modern, encylcopedia approached, and yet trying to preserve the legacy at here. And as all the other had raised objection, I can't do another to here, but stick to the more old legacy rule. Sorry but it hurts.