User talk:Softjuice

We've the Zenith
Before you left the edit summary stating that "WTZ is the only supertall residential building under construction right now" did you even care to look at the under construction section of the article I linked? There are 14 supertall residential buildings under construction at the moment, at least ten of them likely to be completed before WTZ. -- timsdad  (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work
Hi there. I'd just like to let you know that I really appreciate the work you've been doing in the area of skyscrapers, notably those in South Korea. I'm impressed with how you've improved Digital Media City Landmark Building in particular. Because of the recent work you've been doing in the area, I'd like to suggest you join the WikiProject for skyscrapers. Again, thanks for the great work and keep it up. -- timsdad  (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, I will join the Wiki project. I can help out on South Korea-related architecture. Just thought most articles about South Korean buildings were really badly written with outdated infos on the English Wiki. So decided to revamp everything. I think I will go to bed for now, it's 10AM in Seoul right now. :) I will come back tomorrow and improve the DMC and other articles. Softjuice (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the world
You have no sources like CTBUH or Skyscraperpage.com that says, that Inceon and Digital Landmark Building are under-construction. After my knowledge, they are proposals. Only Busan Lotte Tower is under-construction. See here: Tallest buildings in the world under-construction as of November 2009, Tallest buildings in South Korea. Please do not add both towers until they appear in the official CTBUH list. "Ground was broken" doesnt mean, thats under-construction. Jerchel (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CTBUHs lists are updated every week. So in this list, those buildings are not under-cinstruction (as of November, you say construction started in October!). Inchon Towers construction should started in 2008, but until today construction has not begun (--> . Jerchel (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether CTBUH or any other English-based sources updates them doesn't matter because consensus exists that they are under construction. As a matter of fact, if you think any buildings under construction should be based on those lists, you are under WP:POV, which needs consensus. I am afraid I live right next to the DMC Landmark Building and yes, construction has started. In fact, construction has begun immediately following ground breaking, this is the picture of the DMC Landmark Building under construction on 17th October 2009 (one day after ground breaking), with land being carved out for foundation: DMC Landmark Building under construction 17.10.09.jpg, 151 Incheon Tower construction started in 2008, direct from the horse's mouth: . Right now they have completed draining out seawater and carving out the dunderground floors. Softjuice (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not see a contruction site, thats a pit in the ground. And I´m living next to Nakheel Tower, where contruction resumed. CTBUH is the official adress for those lists, so I do not see a reason for adding those building in the UC-list. Jerchel (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is the construction site with ground being carved out for the underground floors. There is no source stating that CTBUH or any other website is the "official" address for those lists. That is your WP:POV that needs consensus among other editors. The fact that you live next to that Nakheel Tower has nothing to do with this. Softjuice (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the world
Hi. To prevent another needless eight-a-piece edit war between you and Jerchel, I have begun a discussion at the talk page of the article in question. I invite you to drop by and provide your reasons. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will join the discussion once I am able to edit again. Softjuice (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Digital Media City
Earlier I removed db-spam from Digital Media City. I did this assuming the complex was open for business.

It looks like this is a future office complex. As such, it's notability is not yet established and it would almost certainly fail if nominated for deletion through Articles for deletion.

Can you find independent, third-party sources to show why this office complex meets wikipedia's notability requirements? If not, please tag the article with db-author so it can be deleted, and notify me so the deleting admin knows I have no objections. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, keep up the good work on notable structures and related articles. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually this complex has been in existence for some time now. Obviously, there are some pieces still under construction and new ones being added, but the main complex is complete, open for business. As such, it's notability is already established. In other words, theres is no need for this article to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. However, I will go and find some sources for you. In addition, I will significantly improve this article once I'm done with other projects. Thanks. Softjuice (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "theres is no need for this article to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." - the subject of every article has to meet notability requirements. However, this shouldn't be hard under the circumstances. Please change the tense back to the present and remove the crystal template once you've added references to show it's up and running. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no need for this article to meet Wikipedia notability requirements" GIVEN those circumstances. Just wanted to clear up misunderstanding here. Rather than telling me to do all the work, I would appreciate if you could help me out by editing some details yourself since I'm busy with other projects already. Thanks. Softjuice (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop some more refs on the talk page or article page and I'll read them and see what I can do. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Development Assistance Committee. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Claimd (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Information for you
Hello Softjuice. I just wanted to tell you that CTBUH has not added DMLB and Incheon in its under-construction list (from December 2009) this list. So I still doubt that your sources are saying the truth. Greetings, Jerchel (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I remind you that we have gained consensus that CTBUH is now irrelevant as a "reliable" source? That source doesn't include Korean skyscrappers - see here: - Korean buildings were updated on OCTOBER 2009 - not December 2009. Softjuice (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its true, that the korean list wasnt updated for months. But the worldlists is updated every month. Jerchel (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can now see how ignorant CTBUH is about Korean skyscrapers. Leaving aside the fact that the ground breaking news from the primary sources is simply not getting through, they don't even care to update their own lists. 14:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know. Maybe youre right. Another example: CTBUH writes Pentominium is 618m tall, the official website says 516m, as well as the architect. It´s possible, that "groundbreaking" is not enough for CTBUH to put a building into under-construction. In the case of DMLB you might be right, but Incheon is still proposed, like skyscraperpage.com and Emporis say. Jerchel (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Softjuice. I just wanted to tell you, that CTBUH has answered Timsdads request about Incheon and DMCLB. Perhaps we have again to discuss about this topic.

Here the message from CTBUH:

''Hello, Sorry that you did not get an immediate response to your question, but this is the first time I received this. We have both DMCLB and Incheon 151 Towers still listed on our proposed list, since we have not confirmed that construction has started. In order to show that a project is "under construction", the site must be cleared and foundation/piling work has begun. We do not list a building as "under construction" if there has just been a ground breaking ceremony or excavation work is going on. I will e-mail Portman and SOM to see if I can get the current status of these projects.''

Regards, Marshall

Marshall Gerometta Database Editor
 * As I have been consistently pointing it out, CTBUH essentially turns a blind eye on Korean skyscrapers because there are no immediate widespread secondary English sources. That e-mail is the perfect proof of this - these guys haven't got the message from the primary sources. This is the first and foremost reason why CTBUH is unreliable. It is just another secondary source that specializes in skyscrapers. The clear consensus we have gained is that the primary sources (i.e. the developers) all state the construction has started and the above definition is indeed CTBUH, a secondary source's self-definition of when a building starts construction - not the primary sources' definition. If you were to follow CTBUH's definition, then firstly, we have to change the entire list in Wikipedia and secondly, it wouldn't be Wikipedia but a mere copy of CTBUH, which violates international copyright laws. Softjuice (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Softjuice, that´s ok now, have too much talked about this. But please do not change back the height of Pentominium, its not 618m tall. That says the official website (the primary source) as well as the architect on it´s website. CTBUH and Skyscraperpage.com also changed back to 516m. The height of 516m is enough to become the tallest residential building, because the Chicago Spire will most likely not be built. Jerchel (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Pentominium is 518m tall according to your sources. However, do not delete 151 Incheon Tower 1 and 151 Incheon Tower 2 - these are two independent towers being constructed in one complex. Softjuice (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

On renderings Incheon Towers appear as two conntected towers. Jerchel (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Renderings are renderings. It is ridiculous to base your source on renderings, which can never be used as a source in Wikipedia. See Incheon Tower 1 on Emporis and Incheon Tower 2 on Emporis. Softjuice (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be correct. Softjuice, and I don´t know, why you say Icheon will be 610m. Your source (Note 7, list of tallest buildings in the world) gives 587m, as well as skyscraperpage and CTBUH. I still doubt, that those two are under-construction. Ground is broken, that´s correct. But thats not enough. Site must be cleared and foundation works begin. The picture from autoumn this year doenst show any progress, although construction began in 2008. In the case of DMCLB I will wait until CTBUH replies to Timsdad (CTBUH contacted SOM). If I won´t hear, I will contact SOM and the developer via Mail to get an answer. If the developer says constriction has begun and show a few photos of the site, I agree to leave DMCLB in the UC-list. Greetings, Jerchel (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 587m is the old height - you see CTBUHG and skyscraperpage have STILL not updated the figure. These guys seemingly never bother to update their lists. Yes Jerchell, that is your own self-definition of when a building starts construction - there is no consensus at Wikipedia of such a definition. The existing definition is ground breaking - this sit the first construction work of a building or structure. Again, you are copying CTBUH's definition, which is simply another secondary source. Whether you believe they are UC or not, is your self-opinion. Their private e-mails can never be a source for Wikipedia articles. If you were to follow their self-definition, you would need to gain consensus from other Wikipedia editors, and change the entire lists in the article to suit your definition. Softjuice (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Softjuice, this has nothing to do with my own definition. I can´t say a building is under construction because there is a ground breaking or excavation work is going on. If groundbreaking would be enough, I can also say, my uncle (which is an architect) has broken ground for 1,000m tower... And then I can say, too, it´s under-construction (and appears in the list). Yes, youre right, there´s no consensus for that. But CTBUH creates those consensus. The completed list is also "copied" from CTBUH. Or should be measure the buildings diffrent. In my opionion, we should list all towers by pinncale height, and the Sears Tower at 527m. But my personal opionion is not imporatant, because CTBUH is creating the rules how to measure a building. At 200 Greenwich Street ground is broken too, and excavation has finshed. But that´s not enough, because no foundation work is going on. So 200 Greenwich Street is still (an approved) proposal. Emporis says as well proposed (it´s not only CTBUH). Softjuice, all reliable sources I found in the web say it´s proposed. Your source (a reliable newspaper), says that ground is broken and thats one year ago (and I can not see progress on your image). That´s most likely correct. But that´s not enough. There must be a proof that foundation work/pilling work is going on.

Softjuice, you might contact CTBUH and send your sources to them. They will answer and check the situation. I also contacted CTBUH about Pentominiums height, and you see, they changed. Jerchel (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't but emphasize that this definition is CTBUH's definition, not a definition that gained consensus at Wikipedia. That 1000m tower has nothing to do with this, again, don't try to get off-topic here. CTBUH creates those consensus?? Where did you get that from. Find me a source on that please. Do you think CTBUH is the god of everything for skyscrapers? I don't think so. CTBUH is just another secondary source. The only difference is that it specializes in skyscrapers, which doesn't make it any more reliable. Indeed, this seems to be "your opinion" - I would like a source on the fact thtat CTBUH "creates rules" as you say - this seems to be a complete POV. 200 Greenwich Street has nothing to do with Incheon Tower, again don't try to get off-topic here. You seem to be doing this all the time. A reliable newspaper? Emporis is only used to demonstrate these are two independent skyscrapers - the sources we have are PRIMARY sources, from which CTBUH, Emporis, Skyscraperpage...etc all source from. If you want an any more reliable source than those, you should try to think twice about changing the entire Wikipedia list. I'm not a photographer who goes around those buildings every day to see what they're doing. If you want an updated image, why not go there yourself and see for yourself? Softjuice (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Softjuice, 200 Greenwich Street is no off-topic. The situation is the same: Ground is broken, but foundation work didnt start. For CTBUH there is no reason to ignore Korean Towers. And this has nothing to do with an English spaking region. China isnt an English speaking country, Russia as well. And CTBUH is up to date about chinese towers, and as well in South Korea. CTBUH is no god, but it creates a few rules about skyscrapers. CTBUH decided, that Petronas Towers are taller than Willis. And CTBUH decides as well wehen a tall building is considered to under-construction.

Your sources give only the information, that ground was broken. And thats over one year ago. Are there more sources, that tell that those towers are under-construction. And are there images that show any progress of construction of 151 Incheon. I didn´t see.Please show me those images and those articles. The newspaper articles are right, but there are no newer articles that show progress. And that´s the simply reason, why CTBUH doesnt add your buildings on it´s UC-list. I´m talking about Incheon, not DMCLB (we will see later wheater there is progress). But Incheon Towers construction did not start, that say all sources. Only your newspaper says that ground was broken in 2008. I don´t doubt about this. But again, ground was broken is not enough to consider a tall building under-construction.

Here´s a link with al list of tall buildings under-construction:. And here an interseting link for you Softjuice: here you find information when buildings are conidered to be under-construction. .

I dont see any reason, why we shouldnt use the criterias from CTBUH. There is no reason, why Wikipedia should create it´s own rules.

Please show me a recent newspaper article or any source that says, Incheon is under-construction and foundation work is going on. And one more source, that says, Incheon is 610m tall. Your source gives 587m. Perhaps this is an old design, but show ne a reliable source, that says 610m. Jerchel (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, yes, there is a very good reason for CTBUH to ignore Korean skyscrapers because there is simply no secondary English sources available. As simple as that. This is the first and foremost reason why CTBUH never updates them. The tower's height is confirmed by two of the country's largest newspapers: and . What has Chinese towers to do with Korean towers?? China is a much more well-known country than Korea when it comes to skyscrapers. Korean skyscrapers have only began construction in the last 1 year, so it's very new to 500m+ supertall skyscrapers. You can't compare the two. You are being an utter racist when you try to take both of them as the same, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.


 * And could you tell me why you base your entire definition on CTBUH? As I'm repeatedly saying, I'm NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. Go and take those photographs yourself if you want. Don't tell me what to do or not. If you want to see progress, don't ask me - go and do it yourself. Why do you tell me to do everything??


 * Yes, because there is simply no reason why there should be updates about a project that has already began? Why should newspapers bother reporting about the same thing over and over again? They only report the beginning and the end. That's it. Unless they are colossal headline projects like Burj Dubai, reporters aren't too crazy about projects like these. Newspaper? Portman Holdings, the developer of this project, and Thornton Tomasetti, the architect BOTH OF THEM confirm they have started construction? Why do you keep arguing against primary sources? There is a clear consensus that the primary sources all tell they have started construction - no discussion is necessary I'm afraid. Softjuice (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why souldn´t they update about the towers? This question is silly. The answer is simple: Becuase there is progress. What whould be, if cinstruction will be halted? No one whould take notice. 151 Incheon Towers are a huge proejct. And no one shows progress, although they are going to built a tower, thats nearly as tall as Shanghai Tower? Ridiculous. I know you´re no photographer, but I´m no one too. And normaly I don´t care about what happenes in South Korea. But I´m angry about showing wrong facts here. And I´m angry about uses that igonre the facts and create their own rules when a building is under-construction. And it´s simply wrong, to say, there are no sources (in English) in Korea. Your sources of DMCLB are also in English. So this has nothing to do, that CTBUH only updates English news. Portman (developer of Incheon) has a website in English. And I didnt find any information on Portmans webite, that is showing progress on the project. And that´s the simply reason, why CTBUH doesnt add this towers on it´s lists. Now again, show me a reiable source that says, 151 Incheon Towers are under-construction (not that ground is broken). If this is true,it won´t be so difficult the find sources that supports you. I have listed you a lot of sources that tell the opposite. Show me reliable sources, and I won´t doubt anymore about this. Jerchel (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't I stated the reason for this so many times now? Do you still not understand? There aren't a sufficient number of secondary English sources to spread the news. Get it? 151 Incheon Tower is a huge project HERE, but not outside of Korea. There are projects far more grandiose than that. Shanghai Tower is located in the world's second largest economy and in a city 4 times larger than Incheon. You can't compare the two. I'm even more angry that you're trying to convince me to believe your ridiculous view. It's pathetic you're trying to go against consensus again here. Create their own rules? Wikipedia is all about consensus. You're the only one who disagrees here, which goes against consensus we have gained. I don't think it's wrong at all - yes, we are very lucky yo have an English source for DMCLB. Of course this has to do with CTBUH because they never bothered so far to update their lists - that email has shown this perfectly. Why would Portman repeatedly state what's going on when they had a press release of construction taking place? Why would they bother to report if there is nothing interesting to report? Your "sources" tell me only one thing - they have never bothered to update their news or even more importantly, they haven't even got the news from the primary sources. Softjuice (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, I will contact John Portman about 151 Incheon. Who agrees with you, that 151 Incheon is under-construction? Softjuice, my view is not redicolous, I only estimate CTBUH as a reliable and indepedence source. Thats all. And I do not see a reason, why CTBUH should ignore the facts. I will let you know, when Portman replied to my request. Jerchel (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your "estimation" is proven to be completely inaccurate - CTBUH still lists Busan Lotte World's ground breaking as 2000 - when in fact, it was done in 2009. How unreliable is that?? DMCLB is still listed as "seoul lite" by CTBUH, which is the codename of the project used in 2008. Again, totally outdated and unreliable. Who would you believe now? CTBUH or the developers?? Softjuice (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Softjuice, the developer doenst write "under-construction" on it´s website. This has nothing to do with Busan Lotte Tower. Skyscraperpage.com write that ground was broken in 2000, not CTBUH (here . Busan Lotte World has been in the category "on-hold" for a long time (at skyscraperpage). Now they changed into under-construction, because I wrote to Skyscraperpage, that it´s under-construction (like CTBUH says). CTBUH is good and reliable source and CTBUh updates it´s lists very often (nearly dayly). One example here, tallest buildings in South Korea, updated in December 2009 . Jerchel (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would any developer write that statement on their website? This is a term used in Wikipedia and websites specializing in skyscrapers - Busan Lotte World (yes, it's NOT Busan Lotte Tower) is a perfect example of just how unreliable CTBUH is. Your entire view here is based on CTBUH being the master of everything. Which I disagree with, I'm afraid. Nearly daily?? Ridiculous. Don't try to fake facts here. Give me a source that it updates DAILY and I will believe you and CTBUH forever. Softjuice (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Softjuice, it´s in fact so like I say. Have a look, in January, in few days CTBUH will write in its lists "updated in January 2010". This has nothing to do with Busan Lotte Tower. Why shouldnt a developer write about its projects and the status of the project? That´s ridiculous. Now have an indepednece view at the current situation: Your sources for 151 Incheon is a article of newspaper, which is one from June 2008. And this article says, that ground was broken (and again, Groundbreaking menas not under-construction.. read the criteria page on CTBUH). My sources are CTBUH, Skyscraperpage.com and Emporis: all three reliable sources. They dont sleep. They take notic of that what is going on. On Thornson Thomasetti and Portmans websites I didnt find information about a real construction process. Now decide by yourself whats true and whats false. I dont say, the article is wrong. I´m sure that ground is broken at Incheon Towers, but I doubt there is a real construction progress.

Why I write to you: You´re the only one that is convicted that this tower is under-construction. Jerchel (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the point is that CTBUH is unreliable in the first place - why would you consider an unreliable source, regardless how frequently they update? Again, ground breaking or otherwise, this is the definition that has consensus at Wikipedia and your POV is that it is not, which is derived from CTBUH, an unreliable secondary source as proved by the Busan Lotte World, and yes you got it WRONG again, it's not Busan Lotte Tower - it is a complex that INCLUDES a supertall that hasn't even been named yet. Yes, they do seemingly sleep because if nobody reminds them, they do nothing. You should seriously reconsider your statement and gain consensus first. It's all based on your own mistrust and belief. In fact, you're the only one here who insists a POV without consensus. Softjuice (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CTBUH
Hello Softjuice. I wanted to tell you that I changed my opinion about CTBUH. I have visited CTBUHs website very often in the last days. And it isn´t a reliable source anymore for me: DMCLB is still proposed, but thats not all: Nakheel Tower was last week cancelled, now it´s on-hold again. In the proposed list, there appear buildings that have been cancelled in last summer. And a lots more... I think they do what they want and igonore some facts. If you´re right with DMCLB, it woun´t be the worlds secondtallest: They list another buidling in China with 646m (after my knowledge still proposed and 508m). They list proposed buildings as U/C and they other way around. Regards, Jerchel (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dream Tower
You undid a big edit to simply remove the "(formerly KORAIL Tower)" and in doing so removed quite a bit of reliably referenced information. FWIW, the article was originally named KORAIL Tower, and (although forums are not reliable source) the skyscrapercity forums seem to indicate that KORAIL Tower and Dream Tower are actually the same project. Anyway, I have reverted your rather heavy-handed edit and simply removed the "offending" phrase. Astronaut (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice you persist in removing the non-breaking space between "665" and the "m". Please read the relevant section of the Manual of Style where it says: "Values and unit symbols are always separated by a non-breaking space".  Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Night view of Shinsegae Centum City.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Night view of Shinsegae Centum City.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —ADavidB 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, with my apologies. I've withdrawn my report regarding this file. —ADavidB 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Supertall
Have you actually followed the link to supertall? The article that was there was replaced long ago by a redirect, as a result of this AfD, and now there are moves to delete the redirect altogether (see this discussion). I really do not think it is necessary to say "...665 m supertall skyscraper..." when "...665 m tall skyscraper..." serves just as well without making use of a made-up term like supertall. Astronaut (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Made-up term? Did you realize that supertall is officially recognized by both SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity? In fact, the entire skyscraper lists in Wikipedia are based on SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity. So no wonder the official definitions from them are used here. Softjuice (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing official about forums like skyscraperpage and skyscraprcity, neither of which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia due to their user-created content.  The term is a made up word that has found its way into Wikipedia.  Astronaut (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at almost all skyscrapers who have made into the under construction section of Wikipedia (e.g. Shanghai Tower, 1 World Trade Center, China 117 Tower...etc.) they all cite skyscraperpage as their primary source. If they are as "unreliable" as you say, then why would other Wikipedia editors use them as the source for all facts like height, no. of floors and construction start/end dates? It's because the user-reported contents are filtered by the administrators and are the most accurate because they are updated far more often than official press releases. Softjuice (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Incheon Tower image
Must you have uploaded this image? Now one of them has to be deleted. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the old one. Thanks Softjuice (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I prefer the old one, to be honest. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an outdated rendering released back in 2008, the new one is the latest rendering released last year. The masterplan for Songdo Landmark City (not to be confused with Songdo International City) has changed substantially since 2008. Softjuice (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. I've nominated the old one for speedy deletion. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

KTX
Talk:Korea_Train_Express Hello - there seems to be some minor edit to-ing and fro-ing on this article - Please discuss any issues with the articles current state on the talk page. I have already noted one problem there. (message left on more than one talk page)Shortfatlad (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Softjuice, I know you like the Korean skyscrpaers, but adding them permanent on the under-construction list, altough most sources say something differnt is not working out. Please provide reliable sources for that. I know, you dislike CTBUH (I do not trust in CTBUH to 100%), but there are a few more sources, like Skyscraperpage, Skyscrapercity or especially Emporis. They say all the same. Have a look at recent images, they do not show actual construction work. In the case of Busan Lotte World I was surprised about that it is still proposed, but in fact it is. The image you took shows the under-construction shopping-mall.

Here a few sources (you give them in the articles as well):

DMCLB is not under construction even not Approved for construction,

It says DMCLB is Propsed and construciton will start in 2010.
 * CTBUH.com

It says its been planned (site preparations),but it doesnt mean its under construciton.
 * Emporis.com


 * Other Emporis links you find in the articles.

I do not doubt that you are able to contribute with useful things, but nearly all relibale sources say the same. And you´re the only one who adds those structures over and over again. And please, do not change the height of the Al Quds Endowment Tower, it will be 500m tall. Jerchel (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Night view of Shinsegae Centum City.png
Please provide a source for this image (with date and camera metadata, preferably) to verify that it is your work. There is already a problem with copyvio images of locations in South Korea being uploaded with false licensing claims. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Orphaned non-free image File:151 Incheon Tower, South Korea.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:151 Incheon Tower, South Korea.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=44785516&postcount=591, watermark cropped, date October 10 is obviously wrong. As a copyright violation, File:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Construction site of Busan Lotte World 10.10.09.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Uploads
Can we please nuke this users uploads? Its pretty clear that all of this guys sockpuppets have stolen the files they uploaded to the projects. --Martin H. (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4520635&postcount=14 - watermark cropped - all files uploaded by Softjuise are stolen. As a copyright violation, File:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Construction site of Lotte World 2.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=jinsub0707&logNo=140095658380 of December 3 2009. As a copyright violation, File:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Iaan Taewha River Exodium.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:151 Incheon Tower, South Korea.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:151 Incheon Tower, South Korea.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion request on Commons concearning your uploads

 * See for details c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files from enwiki user Softjuice. --Gunnex (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Incheon International Airport skyline.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Incheon International Airport skyline.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from copyvio via http://www.anna.aero/2008/06/20/incheon-continues-to-make-sweet-seoul-music/ (2008, © 2007-2015 - anna.aero) = http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/seoul-incheon-airport.jpg or grabbed from Internet. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gunnex (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Elfpension in Pyongchang, South Korea.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elfpension in Pyongchang, South Korea.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Gunnex (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple files nominated. --Gunnex (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lotte World 2.png
Thank you for uploading File:Lotte World 2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Busan Lotte World.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Busan Lotte World.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Busan Lotte World.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Busan Lotte World.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)