" 
 

 == Petronas/ Sears Tower == 

 I recently edited the Sears Tower Page to say that the tallest building in the world after it is the Petronas Towers.  I did see the disclaimer about not changing it from Taipei 101 to the Petronas Towers.  The reason I changed this is that the Petronas Towers were credited as the world's tallest building upon their completion by the CTBUH, the group that officially declares the world's tallest building.  There is some controversy at to which is higher but according to the number one standard which is the highest architectural point the Petronas Towers beat out the Sears Tower.  If you look on the tallest building webpage you will see the four categories that were created by this controversy.  This controversy was taken hard by a lot of people from Chicago and I believe the article was originally edited to say that the Sears Tower is taller because the person did not want to accept that the Petronas Towers had taken the title of world's tallest building.  I have multiple sources that can back up that the Petronas Towers were the World's Tallest Building including a book published by the CTBUH as well as multiple others.   12:33 February 20, 2007 

 == It is wrong. == 

 He should have the advertisement of himself removed. 

 It is spam who0ring and the super stunt should be removed.  It has no place on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by   . 

 == Once more,  == 

 Hi Jeremy, I still can't find a sensible place to report Lewis as he has once more chosen to use profanity to express himself. This is not the first, nor the second time this has happened. I am asking you to look into this seriously so as to not be the recipient of such language from the user. I have for a long time thrived to apply to rules and when such rules are repeatedly broken I have repeatedly reported them, the latest wave of ill-language happened here: , please sort him out.    

 :Hi Greg. Whilst it is clearly preferable for people to engage in mature and intelligent discussion, there is (so far as I am aware) no explicit ban on the use of profanity on Wikipedia talk pages. So there is not much that I can do about the language that you point to above. I don't perceive Lewis's edit as a direct personal attack on you, even if it does show that he misunderstands the purpose of talk pages. As for more general relations between you and Lewis, I watch both of your talk pages, so I am aware that the two of you don't get along. However, I think that I would be abusing my admin powers if I were to intervene in any stronger way than I have already (although I would use blocks if I saw any more direct personal attacks). 
 :I don't think that it has gone this far yet, but you might want to consider some of the options described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. But at the moment I suggest that you try not to rise to the bait—as an admin I have had much worse personal attacks made against me (take a look at the history of my user page), the secret is just to ignore them. You may also find that it is better if you try to avoid entering into discussions with Lewis for a while—other editors will eventually spot and correct copyright problems or poor editing (even if it sometimes takes longer than you would like). You will remember that some of the early encounters between you and I were not exactly amicable, but I hope that you will agree that we are able to work well together now.  —  
 ::Cheers for the pointers. Yes we weren't best of friends at first, but I don't think we went the way of colourful language ;) It's just getting boring, we must be on the third, maybe fourth instance if this happening, and I've sen contributors get vasectomy for less D    

 :::I feel bad for passing the buck so to speak, however, I feel uncomfortable mediating between you and Lewis because you both edit pages that I frequently edit and admins are encouraged not to use admin powers in disputes related to articles that they themselv