Difference between revisions of "User talk:Supernutorcrazy"

From SgWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(159 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--C851E : 2018 6 NEL 11 CCL 2019 12 CCL-->
<!--C851E : 2018 6 NEL 11 CCL 2019 12 CCL-->
<!--This section are reserved for unsolved case
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.
*I will not entertain any request under BCM transition.
 
==Leave your message below==
 
===Rail Wiki Expansion===
 
Hi Supernutorcrazy,
 
Is it OK to add info of train deployments (including TRNs and their sequences), acronyms legend and train fleet info (similar to what's done for buses)?<br>
Data can be obtained from here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMuCeF31etWzPv_U42qMaFoHvYwDpnkSWHgjvuuTxdg/edit<br>
All data collated in the above document are based on spottings and observations from fellow enthusiasts.
 
I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.
 
== Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout ==
 
No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop?
 
Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority.
 
I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are.
 
===Reply===
I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop.
 
And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out.


== User SBS3107H ==
You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops.


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
For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station.


== User SBS3107H ==
===Reply (11/1/2023)===
Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map.


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?  
Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations?  


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?
Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards.


rgds
===Reply (12/1/2023)===
lemon1974


== User Bus33333 & Tangabriel ==
In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction.


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.
Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit.


I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare.


== AMDEP Rostering ==
== Map progress ==


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.  
Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process.


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.  
== Reply: Fleet Size of 912 ==
Hi.


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.  
I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day.


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.
== Concourse and exit layout WIP ==


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.
Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout.


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
Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note.


~ Arthurjie
As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards


===Add on===
== User : Draconite Dragon ==
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.
Hi Admin,


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 would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon


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.
On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161.  


Thanks.
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281)


== SMRT AMDEP Services ==


22 March 2020
He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily.


Good evening Sir,
(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/)


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.  
After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.".


'''1) Making a separate page for Mandai Services only, allocating the actual roster deployments apart from the deployments in reality.'''
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379)  


'''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. )'''
I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later.  


'''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.)'''
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon&offset=&limit=500&target=Draconite+Dragon)


'''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.
I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist.


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


Regards,  
Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki.


SimonLim88
Regards,


-->
Haram


Rules for my feedback to stop irritate me.
== Recent edits==


*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.
Hi admin,
*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 ==
Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks


Hi Supernutorcrazy,
https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history


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?
== ItsRaboot ==


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.
Hi, <br/>Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.<br/>Thanks,<br/>AirFan19


Much appreciated. Thank you.
== User Weilong ==


Themystery
Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not


== Re: Recent Edit ==
== user: Draconite Dragon ==
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
pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon
: 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).
all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment.
: 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.
and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??)


Thanks.
seem like his edit are based on single day spotting.  alway have to undo his edit...

Revision as of 12:57, 11 March 2024

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.
  • I will not entertain any request under BCM transition.

Leave your message below

Rail Wiki Expansion

Hi Supernutorcrazy,

Is it OK to add info of train deployments (including TRNs and their sequences), acronyms legend and train fleet info (similar to what's done for buses)?
Data can be obtained from here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMuCeF31etWzPv_U42qMaFoHvYwDpnkSWHgjvuuTxdg/edit
All data collated in the above document are based on spottings and observations from fellow enthusiasts.

I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.

Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout

No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop?

Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority.

I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are.

Reply

I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop.

And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out.

You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops.

For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station.

Reply (11/1/2023)

Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map.

Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations?

Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards.

Reply (12/1/2023)

In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction.

Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit.

I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare.

Map progress

Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process.

Reply: Fleet Size of 912

Hi.

I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day.

Concourse and exit layout WIP

Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout.

Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note.

As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards

User : Draconite Dragon

Hi Admin,

I would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon


On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161.

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281)


He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily.

(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/)


After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.".

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379)


I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later.

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon&offset=&limit=500&target=Draconite+Dragon)


I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist.


Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki.

Regards,

Haram

Recent edits

Hi admin,

Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks

https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history

ItsRaboot

Hi,
Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.
Thanks,
AirFan19

User Weilong

Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not

user: Draconite Dragon

pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon

all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment. and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??)

seem like his edit are based on single day spotting. alway have to undo his edit...

Retrieved from "https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Supernutorcrazy&oldid=605337"