User talk:Looseybella

Delhi Dam
Looseybella, in your edits the other day, I saw the e-mail you had pasted in there and I looked at the links. Yes, it was not the record flood level, so I removed the part about it breaking the 2004 record. Thank you for helping to confirm that. With that though, the information you put in there isn't all that necessary anymore so I removed that as well. Also, the sources you put down at the bottom were from a 2009 report and did not have proper inline citations. In addition, when you undid my change before, you undid other edits aside from the removal of your info. I had updated other areas of the article with those reports you provided. That 2009 report was helpful, thanks. If you have any questions, please let me know. --NortyNort (Holla) 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that you decided. My my. I would suggest that you replace the information (in the proper location with the the proper citation(s). There are others that want and need the raw data, not your subjective assertions.

For your information, this is a real life situation that affects thousands of people in the area and amounts to millions of dollars of damage. Every indication is that the dam was operated improperly, was not maintained properly, and was not repaired in a timely manner. Deaths easily could have happened.

As for removing the 2009 report: It is more than helpful. It states unequivocally that the dam was not in ". . . generally good condition. .  as Mr. Allen asserts. Gates not working, 13,000 tons of riprap (that is over 800 tandem truck loads) needed to control undercutting of the concrete section of the dam, levee riprap, and no independent inspection in 2007 are not . . .generally good condition. I would note that Mr. Allen stated that his inspection of a dam in Fort Dodge, Iowa stated the same:  only problem is that in that case 3 or the 5 flood gates do not work properly.  This dam, in my opinion, should have been de-watered and repaired in 2008.  To think that divers could properly inspect the dam and that repairs could be made during potential high water events is unconscionable.  If funds were not available, it should have remained de-watered until such time as repairs were completed.

As for removing the USGS information: I have contacted most of the major and minor news outlets and government officials. No one will publicly state that the stream flow was less than the 2004 record flood. This is a fact that has to be disseminated to the public for their knowledge base and to attempt to make the right decisions about the dam and lake's future. How exactly do you suggest that this information be made public?.

Now, why don't you do something worthwhile, since you know the ins and outs of posting. Restore the material in the proper format and slot so that the public can make their own decision with all the available data.


 * Please understand, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum just to make stuff public. If what you say above is true, and you have reliable sources stating that, then sure it can be included with due weight on the subject. The 2009 Dam Safety inspection was included as a reference (#2). I used it for some of the basic information in the infobox on the right of the page. I know the event was tragic for a lot of people and mistakes were probably made but that can't be included in here without reliable sources. Neutral point of view is important to Wikipedia and we can't put information that isn't verified in the encyclopedia. I am sure there will be an investigation on the dam's failure and once it is published by the gov't or analyzed by the press or academics, it can be included. Here's what I can do, I will go find those web-links you had to the USGS river flows and work that information in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added the river flow data in but only what I could verify. I used the websites here and here. Those are considered reliable sources and can verify the river flow. If you believe the river flow was less, you need a reliable source to verify it. In my opinion, I saw video of the over-topping and the later complete breach of the dam and honestly, it just looked like it took on too much water. One of the floodgates was broken which obviously didn't help as well. But we can only put what can be verified in the article. Your work to investigate the matter is consider original research until it can be verified. --NortyNort (Holla) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)