User talk:Empire1472

Empire State Building

If you disagree with the well-established purpose of the first structural-height table at List of tallest buildings in New York City and the well-established consensus there, please explain your views at Talk:List of tallest buildings in New York City. The first table, as it says, compares the structural height of buildings below radio masts, antennas and other superstructures. The second table compares the total (pinnacle) height including superstructures. While there is legitimate debate over what criterion to use, you cannot compare one building's pinnacle height to another's structural height in the same table. (If instead you want to move the entire "pinnacle height" table intact up from second place to first place, while leaving the individual heights in the structural-height table alone, that would be a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion and consideration.)

Setting up a WP:single-purpose account just to establish your numbers before gaining consensus about them will get you nowhere, as someone else will continue to revert your edits. Reverting reversions without discussion can lead to what's called an WP:edit war.

Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued reversion of edits on List of tallest buildings in New York City could constitute an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period; you have not broken this rule yet, but if you continue to make further reversions, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Therefore, if you plan to change the height of the Empire State Building on List of tallest buildings in New York City again, please discuss first on the talk page. The purpose of the table, as User:Shakescene stated above, is not to list a building's pinnacle height. Rai•me 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]