User talk:Timsdad/Archive 3

Burj Dubai facts......
Plz see Burj Dubai talk page i have listed some more facts about burj dubai.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Russia tower
I know that its status is cancelled and it shouldnt be added in this list, its a notable supertall skyscraper and its neccessary to mention it here in list.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes absolutely no sense. Oh well, it's likely the article will be deleted anyway, so it hardly matters. -- timsdad  (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brisbane Buildings
Thanks Timsdad for amending the Riparian Plaza height - I accidently quoted height above sea level rather than height above ground. I went back to fix the mistake but found you had done it for me. Please note that I have changed your edit regarding the Developer. I have added references, although I would have thought that this fact was an obvious error by the orginal editor.MyFavco (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You would have noticed that I have added considerable new data to the Brisbane Building List. This data comes from various published databases, however not freely available on the internet. I can assure you that the facts I have added are 99% correct, and can be verified. Please discuss with me first if you intend to revert any of my edits.MyFavco (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I trust that your data is correct, however I'm not too sure how other editors will feel about unreferenced information being added. That said, the changes are only minor differences in heights, floor counts, etc. so I doubt too many people will be getting upset over it. Thanks for all the hard work you've put into the project... -- timsdad  (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Circle On Cavill Information
Thank you for the message regarding 'spam' edits on the Circle On Cavill page.

You should note that the Circle On Cavill page has incorrect information.

You have listed the page www.circleoncavillapartments.com.au as an 'official website' for Circle On Cavill. This is a commercial website owned by a company trading as A1 Gold Coast Holiday Accommodation - a privately owned Australian company who manage a small number of the total apartments in the Circle On Cavill buildings.

The term 'official website' in itself is misleading as there are many Circle On Cavill websites - all of them commercial in nature. You see each apartment in the Circle On Cavill buildings is privately owned and there are many apartment managers (some holiday let, some permanently let) and also owners who live in the buildings.

Pacific Lifestyle Property Pty Ltd own and operate several commercial Circle On Cavill websites. These websites, which we have attempted to list on Wikipedia several times, are often used by Journalists/Travel Reporters, Students and other commercial enterprises when looking for more information about the buildings of Circle On Cavill.

Our websites which we request inclusion (of at least one) are: www.CircleOnCavil.com - Circle On Cavill www.CircleOnCavil.com.au - Circle On Cavill Accommodation www.CircleOnCaville.com - Circle On Cavill Private Holiday Apartments

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.156.64 (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you care to actually look at my edit (please click this link) you'll see that I was the one that deleted all other links and left www.circleoncavil.com as the "official website" and it was this anonymous editor that changed it to www.circleoncavillapartments.com.au. I've reverted the anon's edit. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Timsdad, hope you don't mind but I replaced the two links with a third that I found that is registered to Sunland Group, the builders listed on the article. Both the sites added by the IP and the sites listed above look like they aren't official to me. Camw (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recently added http://www.circleoncavill.com.au as an authoritative web site for Circle on Cavill. The web site is run by Jones Lang LaSalle, who own the management rights for the retail/shopping precinct. Circle on Cavill is a trademarked term, which is shared by Mantra Group (who own the management rights for the hotel aspect of the building) and Jones Lang LaSalle. All other web sites previously listed are not official in nature and have not been authorised by Mantra Group or Jones Lang LaSalle to use the trademark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair.lattimore (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in 2020.
If the information on CTBUH, which give us informative facts about skyscrapers then, its article must be created in Wikipedia. I know that the list i have created is based on speculation, but CTBUH and some other sources suggest this point, that the current situation of Economic crises(which are not going to be stabilize until 2012-2014), no supertall skyscraper(taller than 600 meters) could be built until 2020, see this |Link. and |Link 2.

The CTBUH also states that there could be other proposed buildings in coming years, but their status in currently unknown. However, in my point of view we can change the titile of this article, as it violates WP Policy Suppose the global economic crises lasts until 2014, then any supertall skyscraper was Approved for its construction which leads to its construction.Construction could begin in 2015, then how it will be completed before 2020 ?? it will take atleast 6-7 years to built(if its height will equivelant to Burj Dubai ot Greater)...... As Burj Dubai has taken almost 6 years but even it is not completed yet. Give your comments on it !

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You really should be making this comment on a discussion about the article if you are trying to save it from deletion. It's not just me that's voted it delete. -- timsdad  (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Article needs attention.
See talk:Skyline

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Circle on Cavill
Please be aware of the Three-revert rule when dealing with edits which are not clearly vandalism. I am not informed enough on the subject to make a concrete ruling, but it appears the IP whom you have been reverting is trying to point to a different website in good faith. I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page, unless you have good reason to believe that these edits are pure vandalism. Any questions/comments, don't hesitate to go to my talk page. - Running On Brains (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should avoid linking to commercial websites unless they are the subject of the article. Unless it is clear that one of these websites is the "Official" website, IMHO it's better not to have any links at all. I have to say, just from browsing, the address the IP was changing it to looked more "official" to me, not that it matters.
 * I'd love to see a discussion on this, even if it is just you posting your reasoning, since at least two discrete anon users (in reference to the IP who posted above) have commented/edited on this subject. I'll be watching the page, so if IPs become troublesome and edit war instead of discussing, I'll be there to back you up and do any reverting/blocking/protecting that might be needed.
 * And for the record, most administrators would probably just block the IPs and hope the problem went away; you just happened to get the anal one :-D. Thanks for your understanding. - Running On Brains (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steigenberger Hotels
A tag has been placed on Steigenberger Hotels requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A-League ladder
Hey. Thanks for adding the plus and minus signs to Template:A-League Ladder2, I never would have figured out how to do that myself. Is it at all possible to change that minus sign from a hyphen to an actual minus sign, like the ones the Fb templates use? That's what myself and WiJG? were aiming for. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger, I thought I'd got it, but it still displays the hyphen as well as the minus sign. Can you help me out? Cheers, timsdad   (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to use #expr:abs, I'll fix it for you. --Squilibob (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was me being lazy. I only made the first value absolute. I was supposed to nest the whole calculation inside an expr:abs. Give me a break I've been watching football all weekend :) --Squilibob (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no probs. I'll rest you for a few days then you can get back to work before Round 2. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm glad we brought this template back into focus. I can't believe they haven't fixed the bug in metawiki that causes our negative numbers not to sort properly. So that has been unglitched too (on the current template, anyway). --Squilibob (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest towers in the world
Hello Timsdad,

this is not correct. The final high of this tower has been reached May 2009. The Burj Dubai is also under construction but is listed at List of buildings with 100 floors or more. Greetings -- – Wladyslaw (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide recent and reliable sources for this? -- timsdad  (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

CCMFC
I'm hoping to get a chance to go through it and update it early next week. Daniel (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then. In my edit summary, I wasn't necessarily saying it was a bad article, but it just needs a bit of updating and more sourcing to keep it up to FA status, I think. -- timsdad  (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bad article though, at least at the moment :) Daniel (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vector image / program
Hey, timsdad. I answered your comment on de:User Talk:Chrkl. (The talkback template apparently doesn't work across projects) --chris &#35542; 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I realised that just after I'd posted it... This works just as well. -- timsdad  (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sydney FC Yellows...
According to the Match Summary against NQ Fury in Round 1, there weren't any yellows issued to Sydney FC that match. I remember that from watching the game as well... - RedsUnited (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear I saw three in that match summary. I checked it about three times! Well, thanks for pointing it out, I really should have checked a few more times before reverting your edit. Sorry about that. -- timsdad  (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne Heart
umm, i cant find it online but if you read the herald sun, it does say that it is confirmed that they will be in the 2010-2011 a-league season, although melbourne heart is a working title, plus it also said they are looking for a coach, so if a team is looking for a coach how dont they exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm859 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're really going to need to provide a reliable online source that we can all verify for the club to have a Wikipedia article. I understand that the organisation running the bids and everything for the possible future club might be looking for someone to coach their possible future club, but it doesn't mean that that possible future club is already a club! -- timsdad  (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

i don't want to sound cocky, but i expect a sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm859 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely pathetic. As I've made clear at the AfD nomination, all I wanted was a few more opinions and some evidence that the club does exist. I wasn't pushing for deletion, and even if I was, and I was wrong, I would decide myself if an apology was in order. -- timsdad  (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

mmm, really? okay. sorry to you then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm859 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  05:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A - League Fixtures
Hello, message from WikiSandbox1.

Sorry about this but the Victorian Government and Melbourne Victory just mentioned today that the Melbourne - Sydney game has been moved from Docklands to the MCG because it's being used for something else.

A pity it's not Adelaide where playing, Grand Final rematch, MCG and a good thumping!

Regards

WikiSandbox1 (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe you, but can you provide an online source for this? It needs to be clarified which matches have been relocated so we can reference it and note it in the article. Also, it might disappoint you to know I'm an Adelaide supporter. -- timsdad  (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite well aware that you follow Adelaide United and there's only one team in the league that goes in a grand final without any finals experience and thumps you guys 6-0 and then to do it again 2 years later shows sheer quality.
 * Have a look at other sources and they might tell you. It started off as a proposal and the FFA/Vic Gov are about to agree so keep an eye out.


 * Regards.


 * WikiSandbox1 (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go digging around for sources, and I have had a quick look, but I didn't find any. You've edited the article to reflect the relocation but haven't provided a source for it. Unless you can provide a source, it will be removed. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yellow card summary for A-league
I do acknowledge that by the summary page that you have noted for the North Queensland Fury v Melbourne Victory match on the 22nd of August there is no yellow card stated. This summary is incorrect and is only update for the first half of the match. Paul Kohler received a yellow card in the 68th minute after entering the game as a substitute (which is also not noted). This page on the A-league site is still an unofficial summary (as are all games from the previous round) and when updated it should show updated statistics from the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.124.158 (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mosman FC
First two messages copied from User talk:Mfcpresident. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Regarding the article you recently created, Mosman Football Club... Wikipedia has a policy on the notability of its articles. I'm not an expert on the subject, so don't really know how to explain it all very well. What I can say is, as Mosman FC doesn't appear to have a team competing at the highest state level, the article may fail Notability. I'm going to place a tag on the article to let other editors know, and start a discussion at the the WikiProject. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please edit the Mosman Football Club article, which is now the replacement for the uncapitalised Mosman football club article. The latter redirects to the former. -- timsdad  (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Timsdad, I'm not sure if Mosman FC is notable either! What I really what to do is build a history of Mosman FC, and am thinking about using Wikipedia as a tool. I wanted to see how easy it is to use, and think its a bit too hard for the average punter, so it may well not be the right approach. Looking at it another way, we have 1,250 of the 400,000 active amateur players, so if every club at our level wrote a page, there would be maybe 500+ pages - is this too much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfcpresident (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, however I would suggest building the history in your user mainspace, rather than the article mainspace. I very much doubt you understood that, but there's no real way I can explain it otherwise. For example, many people keep what are known as sandboxes in their user namespace. I have one at User:Timsdad/Maps. I can put whatever I like there, as it's not actually considered an article. You can create an article exactly as you would normally, but you won't have other editors like me pressuring you to improve your article and do it quickly! If you are willing to continue using the Wikipedia interface to write the history, I suggest following this redlink: User:Mfcpresident/Mosman Football Club and copying all the stuff you currently have at Mosman Football Club (go to Edit and copy it from the edit box) and pasting it in the brand new edit box on your user subpage (the redlink you just followed). Good luck, and give us a shout if you need a hand with anything! -- timsdad  (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I want it to be collaborative, as I only know about the last 5 years or so - so it would need to be in a public space. Its going to take years rather than days to complete this, so this approach may not be the right one. Personally, I think it would be good to include the amateur clubs, as these were the main vehicle for the early development of football in Australia, but would be interested in what others think. - MFCPresident  11:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit a page in your user namespace, it's just whether or not you want to mess around with code and things. If you want an easy to use page that anyone can edit, (as long as they log in) I suggest creating a page at Webs.com. You can customise how the page looks unlike on Wikipedia, and you can have multiple pages as well.
 * Regarding your interest in there being articles for amateur clubs on Wikipedia, feel free to join the discussion here. Or you could start a new one on the same page, it's up to you. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-rate importance of Architecture of Croatia
Hi Timsdad, you have | re-rateed importance of an article Architecture of Croatia from top to mid. Can you explain why? All others articles about architecture in other countries (like Talk:Architecture of Portugal, Talk:Architecture of Montenegro, Talk:Architecture of Bosnia and Herzegovina...) are rated top on the importance scale within the scope of WikiProject Architecture. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry... I think I recall checking a few other articles about architecture in other countries and seeing them rated mid, however I have looked again and they're all top, as you said. Sorry for the mistake, I've reverted my change on Talk:Architecture of Croatia. Thanks for pointing this out, timsdad   (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A-League
First comment copied from IP's talk page. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your edit on the A-League article... I put a lot of time and effort into sorting all of the players alphabetically regardless of what country they have represented internationally. I know this is not a reason for it to stay that way, but can you provide a reason for your sorting all of the countries alphabetically instead? The list is about the players, not about the countries they represented. Please reply here or on my talk page. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it wouold be more convienient for wikipedia readers if the players were ordered by country, also it makes it look alot cleaner. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.147.41 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I sort of see your point. However, you could have provided this reason in your edit summary and I would have understood instantly. That's what edit summaries are for. Please use them for all of your edits in the future. I also suggest you get an account so you can be easily recognised by any of us regular editors. Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AFL Grand Final infoboxes
First message copied from User talk:Edelmand. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First of all I'd just like to commend you on your recent work on the 2009 AFL Grand Final article. I'm just wondering why you are going around changing the infoboxes in all of the AFL Grand Final articles from Template:Infobox football match to the simple Template:Infobox. You haven't left any edit summaries, so could you please do this in future explaining your actions, or at least linking to a discussion where you have explained them. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Timsdad. Sorry, you're right I should have been leaving edit summaries - that's my mistake.  I was changing the 2008 and 2009 Grand Final infoboxes to make them consistent with all the the other Grand Final infoboxes from the 1970s onwards. I'm happy to change this approach if this is considered incorrect. However, I would argue that all the infoboxes should be consistent in their content/format, for all Grand Final articles. Cheers.Edelmand (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. No problems... For some reason I didn't check the histories from Grand Final articles from earlier than 2008, so I didn't realise they weren't changed by you. I'm happy with the changes, anyway - I wasn't particularly fond of the huge bolded scores for AFL football (for association football scores it looks fine, which is what the infobox was designed for). And, just a tip, in future, please use the "new section" or "+" button at the top of a talk page to begin a new discussion. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries - cheers Edelmand (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Angela Fimmano
Hey, not quite sure what happened there as there was already an article on the player. Anyway, no harm was done and I've added back some information that got removed when you put the new page up. Camw (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry. I originally visited the article for a cleanup, but forgot by the time I had finished and wrote the wrong edit summary. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll be more careful in the future. -- timsdad  (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraj Al Bait
First two messages copied from User talk:Aseer22. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my removal of the image you added of the Abraj Al Bait Towers to the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article. Could you please provide your reasons for wanting to keep the image in the article either here, or on the talk page of the article in question. In future, please leave edit summaries to explain your edits, especially when they are controversial, such as this one. Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit because this section is only for completed buildings and the Abraj Al Bait Towers are not completed. -- timsdad  (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim, thanks for mentioning the reason to me, I was myself frustrated at the reson why this pic was removed. This article does include references to tallest buildings under construction - The criterion is still undecided, the article does not mention only completed buildings can be counted towards being the tallest and being mentioned here. The picture on top of the page (Of Burj Dubai) is itself of a building under construction (and officially unopened). Abraj Al Bait, being the second tallest building upon completion and having the largest floor area in the world of any skyscraper or any other building already, should remain on the page. It may not be much known because of most of world's polulation not being permitted in the city, but it's worth being displayed on the page, more for the reason that it will remain relatively unseen by world because of restrictions to enter this city. But despite the secrecy, it is still going to be a landmark skyscraper made by human race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseer22 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your reasoning to me. However, I still believe the image has no place at the top of the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world article. As this is a list of tallest buildings, the fact that it will have the largest floor area should not be a reason for the image being kept. This would most certainly allow it to have a place on the List of largest buildings in the world article, but it is custom in the tallest buildings lists that the tallest building/structure has an image in the introduction, and images of other buildings are displayed further down, next to the list. This is the case because most of the time, the tallest buildings is mentioned in the intro, and an image is required alongside for the reader's reference. May I also add that Abraj Al Bait may not be the second-tallest building on completion in 2011, the Federation Tower in Moscow will be completed in 2010, and will be taller than the Abraj Al Bait Towers. -- timsdad  (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I see you have added the image again. Please wait until we have reached a consensus before making controversial edits. -- timsdad  (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reftools
Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out now. Camw (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, not sure if it works with the beta editing interface. Are you using it with that? Camw (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, sorry, I should have mentioned that. It never worked with the beta, so I switched back to the old version as I was struggling with getting used to the beta anyway. Besides, I use wikEd which also isn't supported by the beta version and its "enhanced" edit toolbar. -- timsdad  (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraj Al Bait
Dear Tim, I really don't see what the problem is. I completely understand the purpose of this article and I do understand the building is to be completed in 2010 and hence, WILL be second tallest in the world. Not only for that reason, I am also publishing the picture on the grounds that it is one of the tallest buildings under construction and upon completion will be the largest high rise ever built. Even the smaller, surrounding towers, which are already complete are higher than any buildings in countries the likes of UK and France and majority of the world. Having travelled more than 30 most developed countries, I have seen many buildings first hand, but I've never seen a skyscraper as impressive as this one anywhere in the world and I beleive this complex is a prime representative of supertalls in the world. As for your comment about "Title Picture", this is in no way, a policy or statement of Wikipedia. All these arguments combined, I'm very aware of and in no way, in violation of any known Wikipedia policy.

However, since you are constantly removing my picture, so to resolve this issue, I will move the picture to segment about "tallest buildings under construction" Have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseer22 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing by Tim
Dear Tim, will you please give your reasons for consistently trying to edit my contributions about Abraj Al Bait Towers everywhere I enter it ? I know you mentioned the tower in Russia, but that tower has a planned height of "506" M and is to be completed in 2010, while Abraj Al bait has a height of 595 M (officially) or 575 M even at the lowest estimates. While the construction IS set to finish in 2010. Here is a link to unbiased pages where you can verify the height and completion dates by yourself :

completion Year : http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/cx/?id=110663 height : http://www.emporis.com/bu/?id=abrajalbaithoteltower-makkah-saudiarabia

Please, before editing it again as the "3rd tallest" upon completion, please inform me of your reasons for doing so. I would very much appreciate it. I hope you consider this message with due understanding. Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseer22 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I'm sorry for changing it back to "third" without an explanation, however I did explain my changes on the Abraj Al Bait Towers article. The link you gave above for the completion year is for the entire complex, I did not check this. The only source for the completion year I could find was the SkyscraperPage entry, which said 2011, because the Emporis entry for the Clock Tower (hotel tower) did not have a completion date. Another reason for my changing it to third-tallest was that on the List of tallest buildings in the world, it originally said 495 metres and I forgot that I had found a reliable source for the 575 metres. I'm willing to trust the completion year source you gave above and will revert my own edit on Abraj Al Bait Towers. Again, sorry for the trouble. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's okay tim :) . I apologise if I said anything harsh at any point. Although I am glad you are safeguarding information on this page with help of your critiocal thinking. Keep on doing the good work and correcting me if I'm making a mistake at any time in the future :) Have a nicve day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseer22 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in the world
Seems i missed something in my revert. Thanks for correcting. ZooPro (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Buildings under construction
Thanks for your note on my talk page. The buildings Softjuice added on the list of tallest buildings in the world are not under-construction. Digital Landmark Building (Seoul Lite) and Inceon Towers. CTBUH as well as Skyscraperpage.com say that those towers are proposals. But Softjuice doesnt understand this. CTBUHs lists are the official building lists and they are updated every week. If you want to create your own opinion please have a look here: CTBUHs list of tallest buildings in the world currently under-construction, and Skyscraperpage.com´s World Skyscraper Construction. Soul Lite and Incheon Towers are in the following list (updated in November 2009!): CTBUHs list of tallest proposed buildings. As well as here: Skyscraperpage.com: Buildong Page Incheon Towers. Construction of Incheon Towers should start in 2008, but construction did not begin until today (Status: proposed). Only those Korean newspapers write that "ground was broken". But this doesnt mean that a skyscraper is under-construction. Ground for the Busan Lotte Tower was broken in 2000, but the tower isnt finished until today (construction is currently active). As well as CTBUHs list for tallest buildings in South Korea, which contains completed, topped out, under-construction and on-hold buildings, doesnt include Digital Landmark Bldg. and Incheon Towers: See here. Greetings, Jerchel (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Marina 106..


you comments are required here on account of Marina 106.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perth, Australia?
Coordinates for the DMC Landmark Building is wrong. You have inserted Perth, Australia, when it is actually in Seoul, South Korea. Can you explain why you did this? I would appreciate if you could insert the correct coordinates. Thanks. Softjuice (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised I had inserted incorrect coordinates after your removal of them. However, I didn't realise I'd have to explain it to you, but because you asked, it's because I used the infobox from a skyscraper in Perth and forgot to remove the coordinates. I will attempt to find the correct coordinates for DMC, but that might be tricky because I don't think the satellite maps will have updated since construction began. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found the coordinates of Digital Media City and added them to that article, but I don't know where the Landmark Building construction site is. Do you think you'd be able to help me out? Thanks, timsdad   (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's basically near the World Cup Park, a huge green space visible from satellite images. Here is a map of the Digital Media City and the Landmark Building's location (it's being constructed at location 'F'): Hope this helps. Softjuice (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Thanks for your help. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job.Softjuice (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?
Excuse me, but sockpuppetry..? I don't even know this user. Obviously, he shares similar views as me but basing that to claim sock puppetry is unacceptable. I expect you to apologize regarding this matter as your suspicion is incorrect, I'm afraid. User contributions might be the same, but that alone does not justify sockpuppetry. I have put a note on his user page (User:Alohahell) about this. Let's hope he responds. Thanks. Softjuice (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you are either the same user or you are taking credit for his exact comments. See this edit. -- timsdad  (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that is the problem here. When I have written that post at a PC bang, I was logged in as 'Alohahell', so I immediately logged out and logged in back as my original account and corrected it. Clearly, this "user" is someone I know in real-life (who I have yet to figure out who it is) trying to make fun of me on Wikipedia. I have yet to get a response from this "user". Softjuice (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry for making the sockpuppet accusation but I assume you can see why I made it, as it's a very tight situation where you happened to use a computer after this editor (whom you do not know). -- timsdad  (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the past week, I have deliberately not edited on Wikipedia to avoid confusion with this "user". Now I have found out it was actually a graduate friend of mine who saw my link about the DMCLB on facebook and deliberately used this account to make fun of me. Interestingly, I found out he was editing Wikipedia articles previously before quitting last year. I have asked him politely to stop editing skyscraper related articles. I suppose he will be reading this as well. :) Well, there you have it...a week of confusion for me now solved. Softjuice (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

CTBUH
Did you get answer from CTBUH, because of Seoul Lite and Incheon? Jerchel (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not received a reply from the yet, and I doubt I will be. It's been almost 40 hours since I sent the email. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know, if you get an answer. Thanks. Jerchel (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello timsdad. I wanted to ask you again, wheather you got an answer from CTBUH. I asked CTBUh about another subject last week, and CTBUH answered within two days.

Comment: In the CTBUHs list of December 2009 Seoul Lite and Incheon are not included. See here:

I wanted to ask you as well, how I can join the Wiki Project of skyscrapers (I saw youre a member)? Thanks. Jerchel (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. The CTBUH have not replied, and it looks like they're probably not going to at this point. Strange, as you got a reply from them. Did you use the "Contact Us" feature at the bottom of the CTBUH homepage or some other means?
 * To join the WikiProject of Skyscrapers all you have to do is visit the WikiProject homepage here and add your name to the bottom of the list of participants further down. You may also add one of the userboxes you can find at the top of that section, like the one you have seen on my userpage. It's always good to have another editor on board! -- timsdad  (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I used the conatct us on the website, yes. I asked, wheather Pentominium is 516m or 618m tall (because the architect and official website says 516m). CTBUH replyed within two days, and said, that they will contact the architect via mail. CTBUH promised, that they will contact me again, when the architect answered. Jerchel (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I received a reply a few hours ago. It is as follows:


 * 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'

I think we should create our lists like CTBUH. The completed list is also "copyed" from CTBUH. Another update: Do you know whre is Nakheel Tower, it doesnt appear in any CTBUH lis anymore. I wondered about this. Jerchel (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nakheel Tower project appears to have been cancelled.
 * As for the lists in the list of tallest buildings in the world, we really need a lot of discussion on the talk page before we go around majorly revamping the lists and how they are written. -- timsdad  (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Timsdad, please let me know, when CTBUH again replies to your request. Jerchel (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

RE football
Hello, I have noticed your posts regarding that soccer should be referred to as football once it established as the code. While I agree it should be stated at the top on articles about soccer then called football thereafter, ie Association football in Australia, A-League, etc, I noticed your edit on Willow Sports Complex, you refer to it as football (soccer) at the top and football later down. Normally this would be fine, but this particular article also mentions rugby league, which is commonly reffered to as "football" as well. It's not really fair to give association football the "football" title as the rugby league section has an equal claim to it as well. Although I agreed with it in articles that are predominately about soccer, it would seem that this would be a case where it would be better to just leave the football (soccer) tag as it would be confusing. But in the section, there is no reason you can not refer to it as football as the title of the section does what refer to which football it is. For example, where it says Australian Olyroos football (soccer) friendly, there would seem to be no need for the soccer brackets here. Many people may go to the article thinking the football would be about rugby league. Best in this case to leave as it is. But good editing so far on articles which I've seen Sliat 1981 (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with that myself. I've changed this in the article. And in future, please use the "new section" or "+" button at the top of a talk page to start new discussions. Cheers, timsdad   (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adelaide Crows logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Adelaide Crows logo.png. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tower height
How high must a structure be before notability is inherent in it's height? 300 meters? 400? Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's 300 meters, isn't it? Any tower 300 meters or higher is likely to have something written about it. Look here; LORAN they are even in bold in this list if they are greater than 300. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, I see now that wveral 600 meter plus towers have no articles. Are they going by HAAT though; cause that would be Bull Shit to count a mountain as part of a tower's height. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it's just like it is with buildings... There is no real height restriction to the notability of a structure. If enough reliable sources are found for a structure, then it is probably notable. I'm sorry I can't be of more help in that regard.
 * As for the HAAT measurements, in the lists of the height of the structures, I agree that they should definitely be measured by their actual height as the HAAT gives no real representation for the height of the structure. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know; are you saying that in those lists they are going by HAAT?!?! No way they are; cause a whole bunch in a row will be exactly the same; i.e. 10 2000 foot towers in a row; all the same model most likely. I'm saying that they had better not any of them be going by HAAT; but I'll bet some do if ametures put them there cause on EVERY TV station page the transmitter height is given as HAAT. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said they should be measured by HAAT, I said they shouldn't. -- timsdad  (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am asking; do you think some are? I mean the only place I'm against HAAT is in structure height comparison lists. For articles on TV antennas and stations themselves it's the best thing to go by, because a hill makes a little bit of a HUGE differecne and should be included as it is effective height. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

W-League Final
Hi I noticed you were also updating teh W-League page for this weekends games. I can't find a reference as to teh final being played at "Shark Park". I thought it was going to be at SFS? Just wondering why you updated the GF with that info? Trent McCrow (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The W-League fixtures say it will be held at "Shark Park" which is Toyota Stadium where Sydney played their semi-final. I thought this was odd as well... -- timsdad  (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is correct that it will be at Toyota Stadium. Probably has to do with cost. I wish it were at the SFS as Shark Park takes for-damned-ever to get to from here. Camw (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was also wondering about the correct use of name for the stadium. Should it be Toyota Stadium or listed as Wolloraloo (or whatever the name of the place is) Stadium? I ask this as to teh references of Suncorp Stadium as Lang Park and otehr instances with Etihad and Emirates. Trent McCrow (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What we do in these cases following numerous discussions on this topic is link to the neutral (non-sponsor) name of the stadium and pipe it so that the sponsor name is displayed (e.g. Toyota Stadium ). This is only for season and grand final articles. On the W-League page, the neutral names should always be displayed un-piped. -- timsdad  (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ThanksTrent McCrow (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Emporis makes a blatant error?
Is this the same building? They have the same golf ball thing but look different; Emporis claims the floor count to be only 12 while Wikipedia claims like twenty some odd. Etisalat Tower.

http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=etisalattower-rasalkhaimah-unitedarabemirates Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Etisalat Tower 1 in Dubai has its Emporis page here. As Etisalat is a telecommunications company, they have other buildings in other cities. The link you provided is for a 12-storey building in another city, Ras Al Khaimah. -- timsdad  (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So is the golf ball which appears on both like a logo of theirs or something? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know... When I was there I remember seeing it on a lot of buildings, very strange... I assumed it was some sort of telecommunications antenna. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tower; structure, that is height/aircraft warning lights
How high is it when a structure, mainly my concern is radio masts; has to have a warning light(s). 200 feet? Cause I found this tower in my area; right out back of my house; that has no light and appears to be aboyt 200 feet. It has no antenna elements; just 5 anemometers (weather tower). Also it is not a lattice, the stays are loose, and it is bent! LOL Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a video of it. It's actually a part two. Do you think it looks to be 200 feet? I think it must be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T06ytx34Ks Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I researched and found that it's basically 200 feet is the point at which a tower needs warning lights. Sometimes a little less; it was not as easy to find as I thought it would be. And the red and white expensive paint is needed at like 300 feet. Anyway, how can i calculate the height of this tower without knowing any angles EXCEPT the 90 degree one of the tower to the ground? And obviously I would measure the distance to the furthest stay. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting on Burj Dubai
First message copied from User talk:Nabil rais2008. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your edit again because edit-warring over formatting is stupid, but might I let you know that formatting by adding numerous blank lines is just not done. This is mainly because there are many different computer monitor sizes... Also it looks untidy and unprofessional to add a large whitespace to any article. The solution on the Burj Dubai article would be to remove some other images to make room. -- timsdad  (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it might be the reason, but i dont know how its looks in your Monitor !!! we can reduce the size of this image, wht do you think ?? Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have cropped the image to the subject, the fountain itself, as the rest is basically darkness. I have also reformatted it to be normal thumb size in the article along with another image, but it still hangs over the section heading. A solution would be writing a few more lines in the section. -- timsdad  (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Supertall skyscrapers template
Thak you for your generous message, Timsdad. I've just returned to finish doing the same to the other lists in the template.

I found out that the "Navbox with collapsible groups" template has a neat trick to show the section of the template where the skyscraper page you're viewing appears. If you add "|current", "|under-construction", "|halted" or "|former" after the template name ("Supertall skyscrapers") then that section is shown on the page. I've just done this for Baiyoke Tower II. Maybe there's an automated way to do the same for the other skyscraper articles.

Anyway, thanks again for your warm words. Best wishes, 212.84.120.221 (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I first noticed you did this on the Ryugyong Hotel article; it's a great idea. Cheers, timsdad   (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. As they're relatively short, I left the "Construction suspended" and "Former" sections without the extra subsections. 212.84.120.221 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nakheel Tower
Hello Timsdad. I found many differnt information in the Internet and here as well. Do you know something about Nakheel Tower. CTBUH pushed it back from "never built" to "on-hold". Greetings, Jerchel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Its me again. Can you explain, why in this article the infox says proposed, but when I edit it says cancelled or never built. There´s something wrong. Jerchel (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, ever since the skyscraper infobox template underwent a series of edits by an IP editor, it hasn't worked the same with regards to the construction status. See this discussion.
 * As for Nakheel Tower, I don't know what its current status is. -- timsdad  (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CTBUH list Nakheel as on-hold again, altough it is cancelled (after my knowledge). I´m unsure, whether CTBUH is a reliable source. I guess they do what they want. In their proposed list there appear several buildings that have cancelled months ago. Jerchel (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)