Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your IP address, 155.69.190.63, is registered to Nanyang Technological University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.
If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia'sXFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.
In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
So you just ignore the so-called 'unverified mess' in the page you mentioned without even trying to ameliorate it, then clearly who is the one being disruptive and not creating constructive content? Don't you find it self-contradictory and very funny? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the one making unsubstantiated claims in the first place and denying burden of proof?
Let me show you what it means to be a page full of puffery and lies: [[1]]
First sentence into the article, I already saw the biggest lie about the second largest urban agglomeration without any substantiated claims.
While I have already shown you how to do citations properly in the JB page. You seem to have pretend not to see it due to some inferiority complex. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tallest building claim and the number of 200m bulding numbers claim are both supported by reliable and exactly the same sources (one is The Edge Malaysia and the latter by CTBUH which uses the same source as the one you used), but you couldn't bother to even look at them, and this really astonishes the audience. And it also leads me to ponder why some users can't accept the facts that a city is better than the other where perhaps they originated from. This is indeed very sad and is a type of inferiority complex. I feel you. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I even need to explain primary maths on what's the difference between a building that is 150m tall and another that is 200m tall? The only thing you need to do is just open the CTBUH website I used in the content (exactly the same organisation you cited before) and scroll through the ranking then you will find the stats? What is so difficult about that actually? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I also saw that mentioned buildings taller than 200m, so what are you trying to confer here? Buildings have different heights and Dubai page also mentioned that they have one of largest number of supertall buildings in the world. So what's exactly wrong with the facts there? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already, just look at the previos versions where I cited EXACTLY the same source as utilised by the complainer above. It is just different ranking on different criteria (150m and above vs 200m and above, other pages about differenbt cities in Wikipedia also did the same thing). 155.69.190.63 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Newslinger, thanks for the feedback. Could you help do a favour by asking the user to reply on the main talk page as the user has not been replying for more than 12 hours since my last question. Instead, the user kept reporting me to other admins which some of them have told the user to stop and focus on the main talk page but the user hasn't. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some additional advice to HundenvonPenang in the incidents noticeboard discussion. I do not recommend engaging with HundenvonPenang in separate user talk page discussions such as User talk:LivinAWestLife § Seeking arbritration/intervention, even when they are commenting about you, because the conduct discussion is already taking place on the incidents noticeboard. If you wish to post a defense of your edits, a comment in the noticeboard discussion would be much more visible than a comment on an uninvolved editor's user talk page. — Newslingertalk05:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
