User talk:Duskbean

Welcome!

Hello, Duskbean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse

If you're intent on becoming a well-established editor like me, please check out the Wikipedia:Teahouse. It's a nice place for new users like you to ask your questions and describe your progress. I think you'll like it there. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Towers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of tallest buildings in Bangladesh. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

A bigger problem than whether Iconic Towers should or shouldn't be on the page is that the entire "Approved & Proposed" section cites no sources. Without references, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The news website you linked to just says that various ground based preparation has been done to a larger development. The most reliable source for tall buildings is Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Check Iconic Towers there and you will it is stated as 'visionary'. CTBUH has specific criteria for calling a building project 'approved' or 'proposed'. If you have alternate reliable sources (but first read what reliable sources are WP:RS please take this information to the article talk page and discuss this disagreement there. At the moment excluding the Iconic Towers is the correct thing to do according to Wikipedia guidelines.Robynthehode (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do find another reliable source to support the inclusion of the Iconic Towers, you may discuss matters on the article talk page. Please do as such rather than adding it to the article directly. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]