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) _________________________________________
No problem, that happens. Thanks Imveracious ( talk) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please also read WP:OWN. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
— rybec 20:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)