Jump to content

User talk:115.134.36.76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 115.134.36.76 (talk) at 23:26, 31 October 2019 (→‎Reliable Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reliable Sources

Please refer to WP:RS and WP:BRD and WP:V. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) is the most reliable source for heights for buildings. Please go to their website and see that CTBUH is a member organisation which has as its members the architects, building companies, funders and other organisations that work together to build the structures shown on their website. This is why they are reliable because they source the height of buildings from these primary sources for information. Other sources are not as reliable. If you disagree you need to go to the talk page of the main article for the building in question and dispute my conclusion about the reliability fo CTBUH there. This allows other editors to comment and consensus to be reached. Please see WP:DR Robynthehode (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I been there like 10x visit their website and nothing changing there. Reliable sources is not only about CTBUH Or what. It's about to find the good and reliable evidence that they can find. what if in future that Readers especially malaysians who will read PNB 118 Height on wikipedia then they will check on other website offcials (more than 20 i guess) that it was 666 meter. the tower info was also Good Realible sources. please be tolerate about this ok. i am trying to help you too. i not against you or what but please be tolerate on others ok. (continue from 60.50.23.96)60.50.23.96 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CTBUH height of PNB 118 has not changed because they don't have reliable evidence from their members that it has changed. It is about the most reliable source and CTBUH is it until it is proved otherwise. Have you read the links I asked you to? Here's another one that relates specifically to your news sources WP:NEWSORG. I don't think your sources are reliable. That is the dispute. Also Wikipedia is not about truth. Its about what can be shown by verifiable reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH. As editors we follow reliable sources and consensus. Please take this discussion to the talk page of PNB 118 and if you want to, ask for a request for comment from other editors (RfC). But please read the information at all the links I have posted here it will help you understand what Wikipedia is and is not - WP:NOT Robynthehode (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep In deniel on this. No one will listen to you. Im just a ametur guy who knows outside. What if Readers says wikipedian can't be trusted CBTUH and Keep spinning around. Again i am not against you. Just trying to reliase which can be trust.115.134.36.76 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]