User talk:Imveracious/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Imveracious, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Dam

Please provide citations for your changes to St. Francis Dam. Changes without explanations are sometimes mistaken for vandalism. Will Beback talk 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make changes to this article without providing citations to support your alterations. In particular:

Do not change numbers without providing a citation. Number changing is frequently a sneaky form of vandalism, and without a citation it is impossible to tell your changes from a vandals'.
Do not change the wording of a direct quote supported by a citation. If the wording in the article is incorrect, please note in the edit summary that you are correcting it to bring it in line with the citation already there.
Do not remove material from the article which is supported by a citation from a reliable source. Continuing to do so may be construed as vandalism and may lead to your editing privileges being blocked.
Please use the edit summary box to provide a short description of the changes you made in each edit.

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You once again tweaked the article, changing "3 minutes" to "2 and a half minutes" and "450 dead" to "600 dead". Please provide a source for these changes. If you do not have a source, and are changing numbers without one, I will seek to have your account be blocked from editing for vandalism. If you do have a source, please cite it when you make such changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 11:57:30 p.m. time noted, is referred to as such throughout in the Transcript of Testimony and Verdict of the Corner's Jury in the Inquest Over Victims of the St. Francis Dam Disaster (also referred to as the Los Angles County Corner's Inquest) by all parties involved. As to the number of dead, this is a -best estimate of today- using a number of resources and is in general, agreed among most to be more correct. It is known that at the time there were far more living in the region and who were not considered to be, or had been counted as residents. The area of the flood path was, and still is,agricultural and many of who work in this industry are immigrant and-or transient workers. If you should have reason to believe that the time and-or number of dead is incorrect, please cite your source. Thank you Imveracious (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is you who must provide sources in order to insert new information, not the other way around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the wording of the article in such a way as to make the meaning different. The article previously said that the color of the spillage could indicate that it was being undermined -- that is, that it was a possibility. Your changing it to would makes it more definite, and unless you have a new source to support that, the change is not warranted. Do not revert my edit again, or I shall bring this to the attention of the noticeboards, as you have a habit o making changes without changing sources. I suggest you edit some other articles and stop your singular focus on this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any leakage that is discharging "Muddy" water means only one thing--the foundation is being washed out. It's also know as Piping. To the rest of your ramblings, do whatever you wish, on this topic you are beyond your ken and I need not satisfy what you feel is needed. Imveracious (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR, get a source that says that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter one bit what you or I or a general textbook on dam engineering thinks that muddy runoff indicates, what the sentence in question is talking about is what the dam keeper thought. Did he think it was possible that it indicated an undermining of the dam -- in which case "could" is the correct word -- or did he think that it did indicate it, in which case "would" is the appropriate word. The source that is necessary is one which supports one of these two possible states of mind on the part of the dam keeper, not some general text. When you've got that source, you can change the wording to match what the source says. In the meantime, please do not continue to change the meaning of the sentence without proper support from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far be the book cited a general textbook" aside though, the matter remains the same as in the past. Seepage of 'muddy', 'dirty', or anything other than clear water is an indication of foundational erosion. As Harnischfeger felt it necessary to not only to call Mr. Mulholland and inform him of the new leak but, to add that it was 'muddy' gives to his state of mind. This was not a 'routine' but serious condition. It was also the reason that Mr. Mulholland was in a hurry to get up there and see this leak accompanied by Van Norman. Even moreso when you read that it is noted in the Coroner's Inquest, at his office, he originally told Van Norman the reason for going to the St. Francis was merely that water was being blown over the spillway and he wanted to see it. He did not inform Van Norman of the true nature for their trip to the St. Francis dam until after they had left his office. Therefore we have three parties who felt this a serious problem, why? Anything other than clear water can mean only one thing....... Imveracious (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is original research, which is not allowed. Please get a citation which specifically covers this poiint, rather than relying on your own interpretation of events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... Outland, Charles Man Made Disaster: The Story of St. Francis Dam. Try this--Read It! I have been trying to do all that I can so we can resolve this but for some reason you appear to have a 'need' to keep it alive and every thing one-sided, your sided and wrong. You ran on crabbing for a citation before, I gave it. You didn't feel it was up to your standards and undid my changes. Shortly after you also made a second, though minor edit, adding the word "concerned" without any citation. Please feel free to use Outland when you undo the edit again. Which way do you want to keep playing your silly games BMK? What 'dirty' water coming from under a dam means or what T. Harnischifeger understood it too? I honestly don't want to play games, yours or anyone elses. What I do want is to make this article as complete and factual as possible. I hope we can get beyond where we are now and achive this. Thanks, Imveracious (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to St. Francis Dam. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what part of all this do you want a source? Imveracious (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of it; everything that you add. But mostly, I want you to understand that articles can't be built on your (or mine, or anyone's) expertise: they must be built on reliable sources. Finally, I would like for you to stop edit-warring, since that's likely to get you blocked. Please see WP:EDITWAR--it's edit-warring even if you're right. Now, if you have publications that address the specific issue at hand (not whether unclear water contains mud, but what was going on here in this precise event), please add them--but adding original research (WP:OR) and synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is not OK. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the question of foundational erosion and how this seepage was perceived, what is there? On the prior, a citation was added but subsequently removed by an editor. Did it not fulfill the criteria for such? As to how this seepage was perceived was noted and a citation given though all of this was on my talk page alone. I now understand this is "warring" and I will not continue, hopefully neither will he. Although, if proper citations are added, only to be removed and the edit reverted, what is my recourse? Thank you, Imveracious (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion here is that your citation is about the state of knowledge about dam engineering in general, and does not address the question of what the damkeeper himself thought at the time, and the reason he called Mullholland in. That issue would be addressed by, say, a citation from a contemperaneous source quoting the damkeeper, testimony of the damkeeper as to his state of mind, or a quote from a current reliable source about the St. Francis Dam failure which analyzes or interprets the damkeeper's actions. I do not question that the citation you provided would, if I had access to it, say that muddy discharge indicated an undermining of the dam, but is that what the dam keeper thought at the time? Perhaps it's obvious to you that he should have, but was he competent, did he have the degree of expertise required to know that? Those are questions which cannot be answered by your citation, which is why using it is, by Wikipedia's definition, original research.

It appears to me that you have fairly extensive knoweldge about the dam failure, and are familiar with the primary sources such as the coroner's inquest testimony. Could you search through that material and find something that indicates the exact reason that the dam keeper called Mullholland, what he, himself, (the damkeeper) thought was going on? That would answer the problem in a precise way and would conform to Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse the unavoidable absence and delay in responding. I do believe that he understood that such was a sign of erosion of the foundation. He was not using the word as a modifier, he was using it in a way consistent with the terminology of that field of employment. Which, the ramifications of such were defiantly understood by Mulholland simply by taking notice of his actions immediately after the call from Harnischfeger. The call was cited in most all the investigations and brought up at the Inquest. The jury needed no explanation of what was meant. But, as Harnischfeger was, in all likelihood, one of the first to die we have no testimony of his directly. Tony Harnischfeger is another enigma within the this. He was openly vocal with his thoughts on the condition of the dam and his fears the dam would not last long. Fearful to the point that he had built stairs up the mountainside behind his house as a means of escape. But yet on the night of the 12th, despite everything that had gone on that morning, he and his family were still there. You are far more knowledgeable on the "rules" such as what may be OR or not. Therefore if you feel that this is, then let's move on. In the entirety of the story of the St. Francis dam and the disaster, this one point is not of such great importance that we need to spend all of our time on it. ThanksImveracious (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do appreciate that you are much better versed in the details of the St. Francis Dam disaster then I am, but I'm afraid that I do indeed think that what you wish to add to the article would be considered original research. If you do come across a reliable source which says it explicitly, please feel free to add the information to the article with the supporting citation. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Dam again

You keep tinkering with this article -- in fact, I don't believe you've edited anything else! Please, we've already gone through all the nonsense above, which indicates that your re-writing can say things that you don't intend it to say. If there are factual errors in the article, please correct them without altering the wording, becaiuse when you do so you do not improve the article. That may be harsh, but it's true. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, yes I have. What was in contention in the past was a very fine line of what may or may not have been OR. This in not the same and please tell me how does one correct an error without changing the wording when the wording of or the entire statement is the error? As to your intense dislike toward my style of writing, I ask then why is it that you alone complain? I am not trying to be argumentative. Thanks Imveracious (talk)

Northridge quake

Nice compromise there. It improves the paragraph.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I am glad to read that you feel it does so. Imveracious (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

William Mulholland

I note that several editors have now reveted your changes to this article. I know that you and I have had conflicts in the past, but may I suggest that to avoid problems again you might want to discuss your potential changes and the reasons you think they should be made on the article talk page before you make them? That way, other editors can discuss their objections (if any), and perhaps compromises can be arrived at. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your suggestion and will consider such in the future. Imveracious (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done