User talk:Imveracious/Archive 2

Politics in the valley

Thanks for taking care of the rest of that. I said I'd do some of it and then it slipped my mind as soon as I hit save. Anyway, nice work.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) _________________________________________[reply]

No problem, that happens. Thanks Imveracious (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hollywood Reservoir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Service Commissioners</ref> which is {{convert|2.5|e9USgal|m3}} and a maximum water depth of {{convert|183|ft|m}). The reservoir level varied, though for most of the time it was kept a high level and was filled

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Your editing

Are you a descendant or relative of William Mulholland? I ask because the vast majority of your edits here have gone towards minimizing or mitigating Mulholland's responsibility for the collapse of the St. Francis Dam. If you are in some way personally connected to Mulholland, then you need to read our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and editing from a neutral point of view. It would also be useful for you to read about righting great wrongs.

You need to re-evaluate your editing here before your behavior is brought to the attention of the community, which could result in your being topic banned or even blocked from editing in the future as a single-pupose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BMK,

No, I am in no way related to any Mulholland. You, perhaps, are simply confusing my correction of past mistakes which has fostered much of this distortion of the truth. Conversely, in reading many of your edits and revisions of edits, one might ask why do you attempt or feel the need to continue the vilification of the man? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but, not their own facts. Do I not edit and give citations from reliable and verifiable sources? I thank you for your concern although, you need not attempt to school me on such as COI, RGW or other Wikipedia policy. As toward such as a Topic ban, please explain how my edits have been "disruptive" ; as per the definition of this ban. SPA? While indeed your numbers far surpass those of myself, though I do believe we should look more at substance than quantity. And, if you look you will see that my edits do cover a number of unrelated and other subjects.

At times BMK I find it amazing that 11 times your name appears on this page. One would think, if these matters are of such magnitude, someone else would make mention although no one does. No one but you- Imveracious (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my correction of past mistakes which has fostered much of this distortion of the truth Obviously you have not read WP:GREATWRONGS, but I'll add another WP:TRUTH. While many of your edits are indeed accompanied by sources, and I assume (but don't know for certain) that most of them are reliable, the sum total of your editing has been to minimize the responsibility of Mulholland for the St. Francis disaster.

Please don't get me wrong, I have great respect for what Mulholland accomplished, but I also see that he often worked around the edges of the law, and on occasion allowed the need for the completion of the overall system to cloud his judgment. The St. Francis dam disaster was one terrible result of that, and just as Mulholland himself felt the weight of the responsibility for the death and destruction which it caused, we should respect that he was, to a large extent, responsible for it, not simply because it happened "on his watch", but because he personally made decisions that contributed to the dam's failure -- that's what the sources say, when one doesn't cherry-pick them to support a pre-determined point of view.

Your continued grinding down of the facts, with each edit making Mulholland a little less culpable, is the action of someone not committed to factuality, but to the "truth" as you perceive it. Such an attitude does not lend itself to editing with a neutral point of view, and is not consonant with how Wikipedia works.

Please consider this a warning: if you continue to edit these articles with the purpose of undoing what you see as a "distortion of the truth", I will take your behavior to the community. We cannot afford to have the accuracy of our articles warped by Single Purpose Accounts out to undo "distortions of the truth". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you were to take the time to read the source cited you would understand far more than what you believe you do. Yes, my correction of past mistakes which has fostered much of this distortion of the truth. Is correcting a statement with verifiable FACT and TRUTH, as opposed to assumption, wrong? I think not- Again, you assume. Also if you have read my edits, I do not absolve Wm. Mulholland nor do I "cherry pick" fact. That I leave for those such as you who "believe" they know the history of the disaster. The history and the "story of the history" have become very blurred and as such, as are you, unaware of many important facts and details. This is where we need to turn to Reliable and Verifiable documents for the TRUTH. These documents are what I use to make edits. Not what an author thought but rather the FACT. Do you think that I made up the Report of Committee appointed by the City Council of Los Angeles, Annual Reports of the Board of Public Service Commissioners or Transcript of Testimony and Verdict of the Coroner's Jury In the Inquest Over Victims of St. Francis Dam Disaster? Did I write Man Made Disaster or The St. Francis Dam Disaster revisited? Read for yourself the truth and do not only read or listen to second-hand information and write here as if you have this knowledge. You then may not make such statements as "the sources" claim to "know" what Mulholland felt, "know" that "he personally made decisions that contributed to the dam's failure". Who or what are these sources, please give these nameless "sources" a 'face'. What you are writing is what I believe a perfect example of NPOV, and this also an example of how you "wish" all editors would think and edit and also is an example of when they do not this odd rampage you take to. This event, after eighty-five years, is as contentious and galvanizing a subject as it was in it's day. Please do not make 'threats' they tend to show your weakness as this means you need to turn to others to bolster so-called "fact" and near psychic knowledge you do not, can not and never will have. Why? Because it simply does not exist. Though if you wish, take your way of thinking to whoever and consider that my warning. I will continue to edit articles using only the highest quality, reliable and unbiased sources available. Imveracious (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please do not remove sourced content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to St. Francis Dam, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit summary, it was noted. Why are you adding Water and Power: The Conflict Over Los Angeles' Water Supply in the Owens Valley. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1982. p.312? If you read that page, you will see that what you have written in the Notes section is ALREADY being used as a reference for that section in the article.

In "Water and Power" what you have written has it's own reference, #283. #283 is City of Los Angeles, Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, Sixth Annual Report to the Board of Public Works, 1911. That Annual Report is reference # 12 in the article--

If you would take the time to research and read what it is about, it has NOTHING to do with the red conglomerate. It speaks to what Mulholland wrote about the "dip and strike of the slate such as to threaten slips, in case of hill-side excavation." As what you are referencing is incorrect, it is subject to removal......

We can work together to better the article but not if you can not get beyond your dislike of my use of CORRECT information. Why not give it a try? Thanks Imveracious (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove material from articles that is referenced to reliable sources. If you have concerns about the material, the proper thing to do is to discuss it on the article talk page. You have a very specific point of view regarding this subject, and therefore are not in the position to decide what is or isn't appropriate to use in the article. Continuing to remove material without a consensus reached by discussion can get you blocked from editing in thte future.

Please also read WP:OWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make your position on working together most clear... "Your way or No way." You should become a politician, you write all that but do not give an answer to my question. You've done it before, I should not be surprised. Perhaps you should read that section, as well and most definitely the NPOV! As toward the removal of any material, if need be, it will be done in accordance with and supported by the Wikipedia guidelines regardless of your 'threats'. If only to complain, throw tantrums and act as you do, please do not write here again. Imveracious (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Los Angeles Aqueduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrison Gray Otis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Hello, Imveracious. You have new messages at Talk:San_Fernando_Valley#.22Silicone_Valley.22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—rybec 20:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done