User talk:LivinAWestLife

Welcome!

Hello, LivinAWestLife! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Speedy deletion nomination of Fractal (EDM Artist)

Hello LivinAWestLife,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Fractal (EDM Artist) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fractal (EDM Artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fractal (EDM Artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal (EDM Artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Learn from your mistakes. This 'artiste' fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Monstercat

Template:Monstercat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --wooden superman 09:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Au5

A tag has been placed on Au5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LivinAWestLife, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:1CFD:A2E8:8DDB:FF0F (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fractal (producer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fractal (producer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal (producer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaia (Fractal album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Au5

Hi. The correct place to appeal a deletion is Wikipedia:Deletion review, not the talk page of the deleted article. All talk pages that have no corresponding article will be speedy deleted so it's unlikely that any meaningful discussion will take place there. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Au5 (Musician)

A tag has been placed on Au5 (Musician), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Micro (Talk) 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Au5

A tag has been placed on Au5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Au5

A tag has been placed on Au5, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Au5

A tag has been placed on Draft:Au5 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Au5

Draft:Au5, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Au5 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Au5 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Austin Collins (Musician)

A tag has been placed on Austin Collins (Musician), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Au5:Draft

A tag has been placed on Au5:Draft requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of tallest buildings in North America

Hello, LivinAWestLife,

Thanks for creating List of tallest buildings in North America! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never Say Die

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Never Say Die. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of tallest buildings in the United States into List of tallest buildings in North America. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your addition to Boulder, Colorado has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fujian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jinjiang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Aegean Sea. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia

Usually, a GA nomination should be started by a major contributor to the article. And from a look, you do not appear in the top editors here, and Philadelphia is nowhere to be found in your top pages edited here. Please consult one of these people before nominating an article. You could also ask for a peer review to find things to fix. Cheers! NightBag10 ^(talk) 13:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat and primary sources

Hello, I have a feeling that you don't like templated messages, so I'll just say this in my own words. Regarding recent edits you made to Monstercat, Wikipedia has always relied on reliable third-party sources for all content. Since there's no third party coverage for early Monstercat releases (at least not until a reliable news feed or documentary releases containing a history of the label that covers individual songs), it's probably best not to include the material for now. See also WP:YOUTUBE.

However, before you ask about the artists section, I'll just say that the Monstercat website is the only verifiable source we have for most artists' inclusion until something else in the current year comes out. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Fredericksburg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fredericksburg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Fredericksburg

The article Battle of Fredericksburg you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Fredericksburg for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philadelphia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of OCL97 -- OCL97 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia

The article Philadelphia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Philadelphia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of OCL97 -- OCL97 (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lei Yue Mun Plaza for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lei Yue Mun Plaza is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lei Yue Mun Plaza until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello LivinAWestLife, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Benin City have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never say die

Please note that disambiguation pages like Never Say Die are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

There is no mention of the record company on Dubstep, so it is not a good link for this subject. However, I did notice that quite a few articles mention Never Say Die Records, so I chose one which mentions the record company many times (Eptic) and added it. Feel free to change Eptic for something else, but please make sure that it mentions Never Say Die Records. Leschnei (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I moved it up with the other non-song, non-album music entries. Single-entry sections clutter up the page and make it harder for readers to quickly scan for their article of interest (in my opinion). Leschnei (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I know this thread is old, but I just wanted to inform you that the article, that you are referencing, Never Say Die Records has just been approved. And have already included it in the disambiguation page: Never Say Die.

You're welcome to contribute on Never Say Die Records. Leewilliam236 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from SSC!

Hey LivinAWestLife! This is A Chicagoan from SSC. It's nice to see you here, I was just checking out the skyscraper WikiProject, since KillerZavatar mentioned in a thread about the new CTBUH site that we could collaborate to improve Wikipedia. Kestreltail (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MUST DIE!

A tag has been placed on MUST DIE! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUST DIE!. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from MUST DIE!, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha, Nevada moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Alpha, Nevada, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alpha, Nevada has been accepted

Alpha, Nevada, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins of Huanchaca moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ruins of Huanchaca, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ruins of Huanchaca

Hello, LivinAWestLife. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruins of Huanchaca, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ruins of Huanchaca

Hello, LivinAWestLife. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ruins of Huanchaca".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

55 Bishopsgate

Hi, thanks for creating the 55 Bishopsgate article. However, for consistency we use AGL height on Wikipedia, not AOD. In the article you have given the AOD height of 284 metres, which is as per source but it would be better if a source could be found for the AGL height. Going by either AGL or AOD height it will not be the tallest building in the City of London, unless you are mixing AGL and AOD heights. It also does not say it will be tallest in the City in any of the sources. QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will correct that soon. I’ve heard much the same on SkyscraperCity but I couldn’t find a source that used the AGL height. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LivinAWestLife. Thank you for your work on List of tallest buildings in Sapporo. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, wish you a good day as well LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of tallest buildings in Kobe

Hello, LivinAWestLife. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of tallest buildings in Kobe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Zionism article is subject to a consensus required restriction, meaning that reverted additions cannot be restored without consensus. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that with your series of edits at Special:Diff/1249128458 and Special:Diff/1249129510 you have violated WP:1RR restriction once and the consensus required restriction twice. Please take care in regards to this matter in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 00:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of tallest buildings in Kobe

Hello, LivinAWestLife. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of tallest buildings in Kobe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is LivinAWestLife. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR, as you did at Zionism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Birmingham, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victoria Square and New Street.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava

Dont start edit war or you will be blocked again. You changing photos as you want in all articles wihtout any discussion and you starting edit war with other users. Stop it. Dasomm (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only person that has had any problem with my updating of articles is you, bud. Maybe you should start a user page on your account so other people can settle out disagreements with you? Not having an account means I also can't determine how much experience you have with editing Wikipedia at all.

Wikipedia is ultimately about all participants contributing, not one control freak trying to keep a page the same way as it is without proper justification. If you have a problem try to bring up the issue on the Bratislava talk page and see if others want to reach a consensus. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have more then 4000 edits and I contributed mostly to articles about Slovakia and Bratislava so dont tell me I dont have experiences with editing Wikipedia. Your chosement for photos is very poor, you have no eye for nice photos and you trying to downgrade the article. Stop with your disturbing edits.Dasomm (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a lack of good, recent photos. If you're Slovak you could consider taking a new picture of the new skyline. Otherwise having the outdated skyline picture would be a problem for the article's infobox.

My edits are not "disturbing" by the way - it seems like you don't know what that word means in English. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Photo Gallery

Wikipedia is NOT a photo gallery. Stop adding images to the articles without any good reason. Edard Socceryg (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has photos, in case you couldn't tell. There were 7 before, and 7 after. So your reply makes 0 sense. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell you barely have any experience with Wikipedia, given your userpage and talkpage are both short, and you don't edit much pages other than a vested interest in the Tehran page for some reason. Please explain why you would prefer the old collage with the Azadi Tower as the first image rather than the one I propose. I wouldn't mind hearing you out. If you don't have a legitimate reason then what you're doing is simply blind edit warring. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LivinAWestLife Azadi Tower is the main icon for the city. Tehran is NOT a western city and nobody knows Tehran because of its skyline. The image you suggested actually is not presenting the city. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide any proof saying that Azadi Tower is the definite main icon of the city. The Wiki page for the tower only states it is one of several famous landmarks in Tehran. Many cities across the globe have many identifiable landmarks but they will still have a picture of the skyline as the first image: New York City, Tokyo, London, Toronto, Milan, Madrid, etc. because it is near universally agreed that an overview of the city represents the city best - not a single monument.

If no one knows Tehran because of its skyline, hardly any non-Iranians will recognize Azadi Tower either. LivinAWestLife (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azadi Tower article on Fa wiki actually explained that. Btw.. Half of the population of Tehran barely has enough food to eat. According to the official statistics of the city council, a large part of the city's population lives in the slums. Then you suggest the photo of the most expensive neighborhood in Iran as the main photo of the article? This is (kinda) like a propaganda for the Iranian government. If you repeat it again, I will report it to the administrators notice board. Edard Socceryg (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using Ad hominem attacks against another editor? I'm no fan of the Iranian government. This is simply the part of Tehran that is most built-up. Every city's downtown is more built-up compared to its poorer parts. Look at Mumbai, which has a lot of slums, but whose main picture is yet again a picture of the skyline. Same for Dhaka. This line of reasoning makes no sense. If it is about wealth then a section of a more common area of Tehran would represent the city more accurately.

You will find that you have very little ground to stand on if you report this issue. I also wonder why you have such a vested interest in keeping the article this way. Going through the edit long I don't see that you have contributed much to the article besides reverting my changes. In any case, you only have 86 edits - likely a new or infrequent editor. This indicates you don't have much experience with how standards and guidelines are applied on Wikipedia. Again, if you have an issue, bring it up on the article's talk page. LivinAWestLife (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of edits I have has nothing to do with this. On the contrary, you have a history of edit wars. You add images to important articles without any discussion. The presence of many of these images in articles makes no sense. Edard Socceryg (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which of the images I've added make no sense. Go ahead. Name a single other article. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never added an image unreasonably to an article. I've only done one of the following:

- Replace an old or poor quality lead skyline image with a newer or better one;

- Modernize the image collage format;

- Find a new lead skyline image in the absence of one. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check ANI

I reported your behavior to ANI. Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. You'll find you have no basis to stand on. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Do

Hey :)

I just checked your user page and saw that you have the lists of tallest buildings in Kobe and Sendai on your 'To do' list. I've been thinking about creating those articles too, along with a few others (for Hiroshima and Kawasaki, for example). I think I'll go ahead with the Hiroshima and Kawasaki articles, and I’d be happy to help with the others if you want.

Cheers! 8Tokyo8 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I’d be happy to let you do those. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking arbritration/intervention

Hey LivinAWestLife. I saw that you've been active with regards to articles about skyscrapers, and I'd like to seek your advice/arbritration regarding this issue in WP:ANI.

Essentially, an IP address has been making unsubstantiated claims that Johor Bahru is the "nation's second tallest city", while citing the CTBUH database which by itself states that Johor Bahru and Penang each has 3 skyscrapers above 200m. This appears to me to be a misrepresentation of facts, since both urban areas have equal number of buildings above 200m, and in any case, contradicts List of cities with the most skyscrapers. Said IP address has also been making fallacious arguments and personal attacks ever since, insisting on arbritrarily using the 200m limit to measure the "tallest cities".

What's your thought on this? Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll offer some thoughts over there. For a start I will say that "tallest city" is a nebulous concept as there are many different ways you can define it; instead having "largest skyline" as a metric would make more sense and we can just count the number of 150m+ buildings. I'll comment on that thread. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might not do it immediately though, it's late in my area. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LivinAWestLife.

The ANI case appears to have gone nowhere. I have opened a new DRN on this issue. Feel free to add your feedbacks there. Cheers. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LivinAWestLife, as you can see in the thread, we are not arguing which city has the tallest skyline, but instead is about the number of 200m+ buildings which has nothing to do about which city has taller skyline. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"not arguing which city has the tallest skyline"

Excuse me, who wrote this?

"Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second tallest city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers."

Denial of your own claims? Funny! hundenvonPG (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remain calm and be civil, instead of using the word like ‘Funny？’? There's nothing to be panic of. Stay back and relax so we can discuss in a peaceful manner, okay? As of current version of the page, I didn't see there is any sentence that says "Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second tallest city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers.". All I saw was second highest-ranked that the one you mentioned was the versions way before this discussion? You want to talk about the current version or what? 155.69.190.63 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that there's significant difference between second tallest city and second highest-ranked? Again, I hope that you will be able to stay calmer and we are here to help you. There's nothing to worry about. And most importantly, we are here to make Wikipedia better, isn't it? If you keep panicking, it is definitely not helpful for us to achieve this goal, right? Let's maintain peace in the discussion page. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see that the Wiki pages for other big cities in the world like Dubai and Tokyo also mention the same thing about the number of 200m+ buildings (not which city is taller), the argument that which city has taller skyline is started by @HundenvonPenang, not me, I am just arguing on the ranking published by CTBUH. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the number of 200m+ buildings, I have recently informed CTBUH authority on the completion of the two new skyscrapers of Space Residency, standing at 230m both. The number will add up to 5 soon. I just received email from CTBUH that they will update the JB list and ranking later. 155.69.190.63 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING hundenvonPG (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Republican Party (United States), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Republican Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

A discussion at ANI has been opened regarding your recent edits.[1] Springee (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Instead of vandalizing the article why don't you hop on Google scholar and review some sources. There is quite a lot of untapped academic writing about the ideology of the Republican party and, as I've mentioned recently at article talk, it's frankly far more than one editor can read (likely in a lifetime). That'd be a more productive way of trying to correct the neutrality issues with the article over a long-term period. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only edited the page out of frustration, with the intention to change it back an hour later. Am feeling very pessimistic about world events right now. LivinAWestLife (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get being frustrated but those feelings are probably more suited to a group chat than to Wikipedia. The invitation stands open: I could use some help cataloging all the unique ways academics call the Republicans far-right extremists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like I've stirred up a bit of controversy (as my edit made its way onto r/WikipediaVandalism, which I did not intend) so I think I'll likely not involve myself in this further, seeing that it's very likely I won't be perceived as a neutral party. LivinAWestLife (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to remove these old threads; your talk page is not meant to be a pillory or a forum for comments such as the one above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will do just that! Thanks. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi LivinAWestLife. Thank you for your work on National Satellite Test Facility. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved; feel free to remove this ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LivinAWestLife (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't actually do any actual vandalism - I originally corrected someone else's vandalism that I found on the 2025 4 Nations Face-Off. You can see that I undid the edit from the editor that vandalized the page in the first place. I was then unsure if just reverting was the best choice for the page, especially for a potentially politically sensitive page, so I undid my own revert and wanted to let someone else fix the page. (You can see that I reverted my own edit to fix the page). You can check the edit history on the actual page for proof.

In any case, I have made good-faith edits on Wikipedia for over 6 years.

Accept reason:

As discussed below. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, do you notice more than one instance of vandalism? I've quickly glanced through this user's recent history and didn't see any other disruptive edits, but I could be missing something. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this user's explanation is quite reasonable; I can't think of any other explanation for the edit sequence, really. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really buying it. The user has recently vandalized an article to make a political point ([2]) and has described the initially-reverted vandalism as "nice" with a smiley ([3]), before restoring it over 15 minutes later ([4]) without any indication of just having restored something they correctly had identified as vandalism and found nice. I'm not questioning the good faith of other edits, I'm questioning what I perceive as a dishonest excuse. Vandalism from experienced users is especially dangerous because it misuses reputation that makes most recent changes patrollers overlook such edits. It can take weeks until an experienced editor's vandalism is noticed and undone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept responsibility for that edit a few weeks ago. It was not sincere of me to do so and I did it out of frustration. My nice was intended to indicate that I found the vandalizing edit amusing before changing it back. I'm unsure if such behaviour is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia or not - if it is, I apologize. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that's far closer to an unblock for me. The issue with the amused action (and I do understand your amusement, I'll admit) is twofold:

By performing any action on Wikipedia with your experience, your history, your contribution count, your extended confirmation, your perhaps even known-as-good-editor name, you signal to others: It's unlikely that this action will be harmful. Others don't have to check it the way they check every newcomer's edit. So re-doing vandalism makes the situation worse than it was: Okay, someone trusted had a look, I'll look at something else in the queue. By re-doing vandalism, the vandalism disappears from [5], [6] and whichever other filters other recent changes patrollers have set up in their tools.
By performing any action on Wikipedia including restoring others' additions, you take full (including legal) responsibility for them. You are responsible for your own actions, not Wikipedia and not others who made similar edits before. If something libelous is added to the article about a living person and you undo and restore it blindly, that's really dangerous. Wikipedia is not a playground and actions here can harm real people due to Wikipedia's reach and the trust people place in the encyclopedia despite disclaimers telling them not to. I know you didn't vandalize a biography but [7] came close.

If that's clear, I personally am fine with unblocking. Perhaps you can confirm and I'll go ahead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that harmful edits and vandalism are not to be taken lightly, especially if Wikipedia is to continue to be seen as a reliable source for millions. If I ever commit another infraction like that again, please feel free to ban my account. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

`{{usurped}}`

I noticed in Special:Diff/1278631621/1278672436 the 1= was removed from the {{usurped}} template. In this case it didn't cause a problem, but would if the URL contained an "=" which is fairly common. Thus recommend avoid removal of "1=" for this template as best practice, for any template where a parameter is a URL. For example:

URL without "=" and without "1="

[8]^[usurped]

URL with "=" and without "1="

{{{1}}}^[usurped]

URL with "=" and with "1="

[9]^[usurped]

--GreenC 18:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Please make sure to transclude Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Vancouver/archive1 to WP:FLC and complete the nomination. Sounder Bruce 20:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for improving skyscraper articles and adding maps. Grimes 2 06:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for 100px images

In the skin Vector 2022 the maximum total width of the screen is 1000px, otherwise the table overlaps with the sidebar. So its better to have 100px images. Grimes 2 06:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks then! LivinAWestLife (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Mumbai Article

Took notes of your comments on the cities with most skyscrapers article about Mumbai. I will do my best to change the format so it looks more appealing. As far as the building heights is concerned, the RERA numbers are usually given in those developer websites. The way to find the heights is to use those RERA numbers and go to this link that i linked in the Mumbai article as well - https://maharera.maharashtra.gov.in/projects-search-result. This is a search portal for real estate projects across the entire state that Mumbai is in. If the RERA number on the developers site does not work ( although rare ), just type the building up online such as "Kalpataru Immensa RERA Number" for example and you will find many property sites that provide it. there will be a shit ton of documents depending on each project so you basically have to click on each one and view them manually. Many times there are cases where partial RERAs are filed, such as when a developer files approvals for 30 floors but then constructs 46 after getting approvals for it but those are somewhat rare. that is where the heights and other documents are there. Also it looks like i am the only editor making these changes and i am not sure how to contact the rest. The main editor on the thread i believe did say i could go ahead with making changes and he will fix them if something is wrong. Also i am a major geek when it comes to Indian cities especially mumbai since even i did not know there were so many completed and u/c and believed CTBUH all my life like everyone else. I lost my mind when i saw what it really was and i am simply eager for others to come across the same realization that i did lmao. Ahahahaa (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, in truth I genuinely do believe the number of skyscrapers in Mumbai is close to 250-300, I will see how you can cite these official documents soon (I believe there is a way to cite any PDF as long as you can access them online). If you're unsure I think you can ask more experienced editors on how to cite them. I think the world should know how build up Mumbai is getting, just have to do it properly. I will also have to look more into RERA numbers and how they are used in Indian real estate.

As an aside I am on a mission to make tallest buildings articles better in general, so maybe I will do the Mumbai one eventually, but I really hope it will encourage other editors to do the same. I hope you don't take my reversals as being a personal attack or grudge against changing the number lol

As you've said, there are a surprisingly few number of editors working on tall buildings. If you look at Wikiproject Skyscrapers the number of participants seems like it's not high. One other reason I'm cleaning these articles up is to encourage more interest in high-rises for future generations.

On a side note, the number on Mumbai's article will soon surpass 317, which will probably lead many Indians to claim Mumbai has more skyscrapers than New York. Hopefully this could spur CTBUH or another organization to investigate or establish a more accurate number. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nah man i understand your intentions clearly and i am not going to rage over something like this lmao since its not like we are enemies. We love skyscrapers and that basically puts us on the same page. I dont see a problem with the format in the Mumbai article apart from the "red links" or whatever that is that you mentioned imo. Also RERA numbers are absolutely crucial in indian real estate to know the details about projects and enabled a large degree of transparency in indian real estate. Also when you look through RERAs you need to go through each and every document on there and there can be dozens at times. it is painful work but you will mostly find the architectural drawings. if you need help i am ready to assist and do what i can. Ahahahaa (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may have already surpassed it since there are various tall slum redevelopment buildings where data is hard to find. Leaving that aside, if Mumbai does surpass NYC which i think it will this year since Mumbai averages 32 completions a year since 2018 to the start of 2025, All it will lead to is pure skepticism and even racism ngl. There are a ton of CTBUH Meat riders out there who refuse to believe in anything like this. "An INDIAN city surpassed NYC in number of skyscrapers" is not something the rest of India will believe let alone people abroad since no one has really done the heavy lifting or digging to see at what scale Mumbai has built skyscrapers and is still building at a pace never seen before. The only way to raise awareness is to update the wiki article and the cities with most skyscrapers article that's why i seem "eager" since no one else will believe that if it is not updated. Ahahahaa (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also about citing the govt documents there were citations listed for some buildings from RERA before i started editing. I clicked on them and it said "site cannot be reached". Those sites are very protected so i doubt they can be cited directly. If they really could be cited, it would have been done already. For example, tell me if you can access this - blob:https://maharerait.maharashtra.gov.in/a8bff464-782f-4ce1-a80d-4bdf4bf5785b. that is the architectural drawing for 73 East which stands 171.55m. It is Topped out and ready for handover. I never really tried this so i am sending that link to see if you can access it. i tried citing RERA in the past but it never worked lmao. Ahahahaa (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you think i should improve or add onto in the article? Also alert me to any mistakes if i made any. It is a massive article and it seems i am the only one doing the heavy lifting currently. Also i looked at the list of tallest skyscrapers in NYC article, i put the coordinates right below the areas they are located so i did not understand why you mentioned that the coordinates should be listed separately. Citations in the NYC article were linked at the end of the notes section but that type of section does not even exist for Mumbai. The Mumbai article always had citations after the years the buildings were completed so i ended up following that format. I also did not understand what you meant by red links. Is it the names or the locations being in the color red or what? i am new to editing after all so i would like to understand. Ahahahaa (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that, what I meant to say was that column should be centered. You can just add a new column to create a notes column (easy to do on VisualEditor). Red links are links to articles that don't exist on Wikipedia. Your username is in red for example since you haven't made a user page, which a lot of regular editors have. LivinAWestLife (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of locations in the article are in red but those are the locations on google maps. Should i just change Thane West to Thane for example?. Also i dont see a point for a notes article for Mumbai since there is really nothing noteworthy like the ones in NYC article. Ahahahaa (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LivinAWestLife i changed the red links so they arent red. For example thane west was changed to Thane. Please let me know what else can be done to improve the quality Ahahahaa (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Skyscraper Article clean up and U/C + Upcoming list talks

Just wanted to let you know that i cleaned up the red links as well. I am thinking on working on the list of U/C and Upcoming as there are over 360 skyscrapers U/C + Launched and there are 237 skyscrapers that are upcoming/sanctioned/announced ( 200 or so out of 237 will materialize in the next 2 decades as they are very large projects and releasing that much supply at once will crash the market lmao ). I will focus on those 2 lists next in the future. Also I am planning on asking someone i know to ask more users across forums like skyscrapercity for images for a lot of the buildings and put them in wikimedia commons so lets see how that goes. Also, Did you try accessing the link i sent for a RERA height drawing? I could not myself after following the link. I think the only option is that if a user wants to check the heights he should go to the website themselves and put the projects RERA number in it. I dont see any other option. You mentioned there could be a way PDFs can be cited as long as they are accessible online but i dont think that will work for protected government sites. I see no other alternative. Tell me what else should be done to the Mumbai Article so its real numbers is reflected. We both agree that everyone should know about this. Ahahahaa (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can try starting a discussion over on Wikiproject Skyscrapers or the general Wikipedia:Teahouse board on how you should cite these things. Also, if you can't access the PDFs, how did you obtain the height? LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said the PDFs and documents cannot be cited. Not that they cannot be accessed. the only way to access it is to go to the website i linked, type the RERA number of a project and view its documents. I think there is no use in starting a discussion on citing these because they simply cannot be cited my normal means as those sites are protected. I feel the only way is that if someone wants to verify them they should go to the RERA site themselves and do the lifting which i understand is very annoying but there seems to be no alternative. Ahahahaa (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i even sent a link as an example and asked you if you could access it because i wanted to test if it can be cited. I was not able to access it myself though. I understand this is very annoying but i dont think there is much anyone can do. There are a lot of document pictures posted on Skyscrapercity though but wikipedia wont allow those to be cited. Maybe linking those documents from skyscrapercity is another option if that is even possible in the first place. I understand SSC can have a lot of unverified claims but no one can fake official documents however. Maybe we should try something along these lines or just stick to asking viewers or whoever to go to the site themselves and look for the details. These are the only 2 things i can think of. Ahahahaa (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if they can’t be cited in any way the information can’t be on Wikipedia, sorry. Plain as that. Still I suggest you ask the question on the Teahouse forum, I myself am nowhere near a Wikipedia expert. LivinAWestLife (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why i said a google doc with the heights for them should be linked. Pictures of their architectural drawings for example. I think that is the easiest way. i will ask the teahouse forum tho Ahahahaa (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can gather pictures of all the clearances and height drawings and link them in a google doc for the buildings that dont have a citation from Emporis, CTBUH or Skyscraperpage Ahahahaa (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the best option. Everyone can see and understand. Ahahahaa (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? @LivinAWestLife Ahahahaa (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problems for the Mumbai Article solved

I found a way to cite the RERA documents. the citation includes what document has the height ( Document 43 for example ) is listed in the citation so you just need to click it, go to the site and click the document number that i specified in the citation. I also found some more emporis and skyscraperpage citation for many buildings. There are a few buildings completed before RERA such as Ruparel Nova. RERAs could not be found in those cases although those cases are minute but should. I cited RERAs for literally 90%+ of the Towers that did not have a citation. Please review the changes i made and the citations. I really cannot do more than this. I am literally the only person doing all this and it is kinda getting frustrating :| Ahahahaa (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything else i need to do, let me know ( Hopefully there isn't ) Ahahahaa (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll go check on them later. Again I will suggest you try to relax a little because it does seem stressful for you to work on this so hard, if the work is good enough the article will eventually be changed. I'll make sure the PDFs are properly cited.

Are you using the visual editor? Seems like many problems with the Mumbai article can be easily fixed if you are. LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that is supposed to mean "Visual Editor". I just saw a shit ton of inaccuracies and fixed them with correct citations and added RERAs. I dont think there should be anymore effort made on this such as the PDFs being cited normally. Its very simple to find the heights now since i literally grinded for that purpose. Click the citation and the document number containing the height info is specified in the citation itself. Click the link and go to the document that i specified in the citation and done. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's one way you can edit Wikipedia. How are you editing it? Are you editing Wikipedia on mobile? Are you only using the text editor? LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am on my laptop. I click edit source and add changes in wiki text. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable visual editor, you can easily create a notes column and move all the references and details to that column. LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Will do. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there are still a few issues, like how citations don't just have the title of the website on them. The citation title should be the same as the website title, not adding "All towers from T1 to T9 have the same specifications as T3. The Other Towers cannot be found". This should be explained as a note/footnote instead. There are lots of weird empty rows when the table is viewed in the visual editor. Seriously, maybe take a couple of weeks break or ask your friends or on an Indian forum online for other, more experienced editors to help you out. There is also Wikiproject India which I'm sure has lots of editors that would be willing to help.

By the way, I clicked on the citation for The Address by GS Raymond Reality (https://maharerait.maharashtra.gov.in/public/project/view/38947). Which PDF is the height stated in? You can cite the links to the PDF directly: click on website when selecting manual citing, then enter the PDF in the URL and give it a title. LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ALL of the new buildings you added from 250-300 are not ranked properly by height. That's a serious omission. Buildings whose heights are approximate should not be included at all. LivinAWestLife (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a filter for heights from ascending to descending right? Ahahahaa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Document number 2. I indicated that at the end of the topped out description. Tower A and B were built to 193m. Also the PDF cannot be cited apparently because its a blob or something. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you believe i should make a notes section just for that i will do it. But it will look odd if there is an extra row for notes. If that is better in your opinion i will do it. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the citations are not the problem right? Only the fact that descriptions like this - "All towers from T1 to T9 have the same specifications as T3. The Other Towers cannot be found". should be listed on a separate notes column.And also the title for the citations should be same as the website title. ALso the empty rows in visual editor need to be removed. Is this What is left to be done? Ahahahaa (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If these are really the only issues then i can do it myself and maybe not bother with asking other editors now. I really should have done that at the start lmfao but i guess i have gone too deep. Ahahahaa (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i took a good look at the Hyderabad Article. Will Mirror the same formats for Mumbai. This seems like the only thing left so i will finish it. Ahahahaa (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to lists of tallest buildings in Australia

I just thought I should get in touch with you about the recent edits you made on List of tallest buildings in Adelaide, List of tallest buildings in Perth and List of tallest buildings on the Gold Coast, Queensland between 13-15 July, which included reorganising the colour-coded lists of buildings under construction or proposed into two separate lists, so that the buildings under construction are in their own individual list. I noticed that these edits appear to have been made to conform with international Wikipedia standards as I have observed articles including List of tallest buildings in South Africa, List of tallest buildings in New Jersey and List of tallest buildings in Vancouver (which I also noticed you have edited). As the three articles on the lists of the tallest buildings in Adelaide, Perth and Gold Coast are part of a series on Lists of tallest buildings in Australia, if you could please reformat the remainder of the series in order to maintain consistency, that would be great. --Tomcollett (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I should change the under construction format for Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane to fit with international standards? I do intend to do so as I plan to work on those articles at some time in the near future. LivinAWestLife (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Article successfully reformatted, edited and overall quality improved

It is me again and i hope this is not getting annoying haha. I reformatted all the building in the Mumbai article with the help of a fellow editor to mirror the list of tallest buildings in Hyderabad article since it was much better. We also reorganized all the building from tallest to shortest heights since that was something you rightfully pointed out ( i did discover 4 buildings to be 173m as 150m when i finished editing and that is the only thing left to reorganize and i requested a fellow editor to do it ). I also added valuable and insightful notes to notable buildings and Towers that were sourced from RERA. There are a few towers with estimated heights but were still included in the article as - 1. They were confirmed to be 150m+ but the exact height is unknown as an overhead structure was not counted as part of the total height ( this is because it is a common practice in india that heights are calculated till the last habitable floor and not the total height) or their height documents could not be found or were very bad quality when found but where only included since they are certainly skyscrapers and that they are more than likely as tall as their listed heights when we taken into the consideration the typical floor to ceiling height of over 3m+ per floor as they are all luxury skyscrapers and the general heights of podiums if they have one like the many other skyscrapers in Mumbai. Please let me know if there is anything else left to do. I can say one thing for sure and that is the quality of the Mumbai article for completed buildings has drastically improved and i would like to thank you as your comments helped me improve it. I will work on the U/C and proposed list in the article soon since they are very messed up and inaccurate. If the changes made to the mumbai article as satisfactory, Please change the number to 301 from 106 in the article for cities with the most skyscrapers. Ahahahaa (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]