text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsafe camp

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into Hobo Jtkiefer  T - 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsafe camp
Nonsense linkspam. This user has posted links to this site in several other articles pretaining to cryptozoology, and in the cryptozoology article itself. --Aurochs 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. I had alredy nominated the article for speedy deletion (see here) but the user (152.22.18.16) removed it (see here); but i guess it's better if it goes through the afd process rather than being speedy deleted.--Carabinieri 13:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe some self promotion but not entirely. There is merit regarding folklore and history.  Sorry about the removal of your process flag.  Just learning. --User:152.22.18.16 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what Bigfoot has to do with hobo camps. The article itself has the same name as the linked image, so I'm not abandoning my spam argument yet. --Aurochs 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What does Bigfoot have to do with hobo camps? I'm not sure either but my best search for a hobo campsite symbol illustration yielded the link.  I just thought it was a nice illustration of a hobo camp and hobo symbols.User:152.22.18.16 17:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You also added this link to Cryptozoology, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and Jackalope. None of those articles are in particular need of new images. Further, this article reads as if it was an explanation of all hobo signs, while the "unsafe area" symbol is only one of them. --Aurochs 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Granted, the hobo signs pages have merit, but not one of the Hobo signs pages makes an attempt to illustrate what an [Unsafe Camp] could be. --User:152.22.18.16 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we need an illustration of this? Any sane reader (and probably most insane readers) could imagine what might constitute an unsafe campsite. And why do we need an entire article devoted to one sign? --Aurochs 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually those links added were to a slightly different site I believe. There was a whole array of these things they call [cryptids] and some other interesting illustrations.  Sorry I just thought there were some things on that page wholly unaddressed by any other single page. --User:152.22.18.16 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples? Maybe you could make articles on the criptids in question? --Aurochs 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily nonsense. Citing hobo symbols link. --User:152.22.18.16 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * IMHO, I simply feel that deleting this article would result in a huge loss for Wikipedia. The hobo culture is often overlooked in texts...please do not make the same mistake here. --User:24.167.152.21 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ¿Que? --Aurochs 02:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Que buena informaccion a saber.--user:huckit 09:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (user's first edit)
 * Keep it. --User:huckit (this edit actually by 24.148.240.33 10:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Hobo symbols or Hobo signs. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge this information into the hobo symbols section that already exists in the hobo article.--Isotope23 16:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Isotope23, else delete Jesse 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Isotope23 or delete. C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User:JesseW/wdb format

Yesterday, I was presented with a file format reverse engineering puzzle. My mom had a old address book database that she wanted to recover. It had been created in Microsoft Works 6.0 (I think) database format (the files with the .wdb extension). My first thought was to run strings(1) on it, and see if the data was in connected ascii text. This worked, mostly, as the text did show up; but it was not organized into fields and records, which would make it harder to recreate a database from it. When she explained that she was going to need the whole thing, not just a few entries, I said I would work on recovering more of the format.

My first attempts at finding a wdb parser involved a web search. Google can parse wdb files - but they don't publish their translation programs, and I didn't want to upload our personal address book to the web and wait for google to index it. I found various commerical programs that claimed to be able to recover wdb files, but I wanted to understand the format, not just buy a product which, might, or might not, work. I was unable to find any discussion in the free software/open source world on the details of the format(which is the main reason I am writing this right now). I did find various tutorials on reverse engineering, including a nice page on reversing file formats by John Rittenhouse, and the Reverse Engineering Wikibook. Both of these helped give me some pointers in my work. I also found a few other wdb files to examine via google, which I used a little in my work on the format.

Since I was unable to find a already written tool to do the job, I decided to investigate the format and write one myself. I used Python, along with Emacs, (and a little use of hexdump) as my tools of choice, as they are what I am most familiar with. I examined the files fruitlessly for a while - identifying various often used characters, but not getting a sense of what they meant. The breakthrough happened when I realized there was a recurring, 10 byte header before each of the ascii text strings representing the values of the fields(which were terminated by a NULL). This header always began with a \x0f byte and NULL, followed by 4 data bytes alternated with NULLs.

The format, as I currently understand it, is as follows:
 * A header, from the beginning of the file, ending with \x25\x00\xf2 and 244 NULL bytes
 * A 2nd header-like piece beginning with \xffT - i.e. \xff\x54 and extending for 4096 bytes, that contains column/field names and other things, and seems to begin at byte position 6144, i.e. 2**12+2**11.
 * Each field value has a 10 byte header, with the following format: {type byte} {type byte, part 2} {data byte 1} \x00 {db 2} \x00 {db 3} {db 3, part 2} {db 4} \x00. data byte 2 is the field number, data byte 3 is the record number (adding data byte 3, part 2 when it goes over 256 records).  I don't know what data bytes 1 or 4 do; although in the address book, data byte 1 has 35 different values, and data byte 4 is nearly always \x03, most of the rest of it is \x02, and \x00 in only three lines.
 * The type byte's I've seen are:
 * "6\x00" (0x36) : which serves as a continuation line. I'm not sure when it is used.
 * "\x0f\x00" (0x0f) : strings, null terminated.
 * "\x0e\x00" (0x0e) : standard double float (I think, although this may be wrong...)
 * "[T" (0x5b) : propritary varient of standard float. The exponent, rather than being 7 bits, is extended to 11 bits, shrinking the mantissa. If this is taken into account, integers expressed in this form work.  However, decimals do not.  I don't yet know why.

I've written a program to parse the format and translate it to CSV format; it is available here. If you know anything else about the format, or have any questions, please let me know. Any feedback gratefully accepted.

This tool works fine for me! thanks for the job. --eldraco (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:JesseW/wdb format


text:
User talk:Yiyu Shen

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --PhilipO 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Re: Mao Zedong's poetry
Copied from the deletion vote page: Better idea: move to Wikisource under the main banner of Poetry of Mao Zedong, then create an article detailing Mao's Poetry at Poetry of Mao Zedong then link to the source poems. Best of both worlds, you have the article detailing his style and influence then you have source documents that are linked to. How does that sound? I'd be happy to help finish that up.  Sasquatch  t|c 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That sound good to you?  Sasquatch  t|c 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the wikisource page on Mao's poetry has been deleted the orignial reason for deleting the page was void so I restored Poetry of Mao Zedong feel free to improve it. --Jacobin24601 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource
Ni hau. In response to your complaint about articles that contain the full text of poems, I posted a suggestion on Talk:Ame ni mo Makezu, that the article be moved to Wikisource. The other two poem articles you mentioned do not contain the full text of the poem. I hope this helps persuade you that our votes against "Snow" are not based in anti-Mao or anti-Chinese bias.

Incidentally, I noticed that you did not yet have a user page, so I created one for you. It's very plain, but you can change it to be whatever you want. DS 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mao Zedong
This message is regarding the article Mao Zedong. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Jtkiefer T - 22:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
You should be aware that there is a three revert rule with Wikipedia. Your reversions of Mao Zedong could result in your account being blocked. Try and resolve the issue on the article's talk page. --PhilipO 22:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A bit puzzled
The thing is the passages I tried to delete are obviously POV, I believe it's offensive to most people from China. I don't see why other users keeping reversing back could be tolerated while mine will result in blocking the account. I don't know what Jtkiefer was saying in the message above, I am not experimenting anything.

I think this kind of keeping deleting and reserving between two opposite groups of users is kind of stupid. Please tell me if I can find anywhere on Wikipedia I can complain and argue about POV matters in a more reasonable way. If I can't find a better solution for this problem I will keep deleting those passages in Mao Zedong which seems to me strongly distorted and biased.

If at the end it results in my account being blocked, well, I don't mind. If such things happen then I will believe Wikipedia is not a place as 'neutral' as it claims and I won't bother staying.

Yiyu 23:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history of Mao Zedong you can see User:Great Veritas has reverted at least 8 time

 * Yes, I realise that, and left a message on his Talk page too about 3-RR violations. --PhilipO 23:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked.
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule. If you have any questions about this block, leave them here, and I will answer them as soon as I can. Ral 315   WS  23:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think for this kind of polarized argument it will be better for you administrators to take a look at the disputed passages and decide if it's POV nor not. Anyway it's you guys who decide the definition of POV and you should have a better opinion about it. Yiyu 23:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In future, if you feel there is a POV issue on a given article, please discuss it on that articles discussion page. If you unilaterally remove large parts of the article (regardless of whether the reason is valid or not), it will be quickly reverted and you will not get a receptive audience. Please employ a softer touch, and discuss large edits before making them, since you as well cannot decide what is POV or not. I hope you will come back and contribute to our growing community. - RoyBoy 800 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding an Edit War
Hey. I'm hoping that maybe I can help you avoid a further dispute with User:The Great Veritas - you're both quite new to Wikipedia (he's been here even less time than you!) and I'd hate for you to get disenchanted and leave the project.

First, you were blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule - and so was Veritas. We call this an "edit war". Edit wars are almost as annoying for the witnesses as they are for the participants.

Next, the passage want to remove. Here's the thing - I agree that it's phrased in a very offensive way. But just deleting it is not the way to go.

There are claims that Mao lied about his youth and faked the Battle of the Dadu. You don't deny that, I hope. And the fact that these claims exist - leaving aside the question of whether they are true or not, because I don't know enough about the subject to make a decision - is relevant to understanding how people think about Mao today.

Here's my suggested version:

"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. Some analysts believe that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". It has also been suggested that details relevant to key events in the Long March, in particular the 1935 Battle of Luding Bridge, were falsified.

As well, Mao is widely held responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred during his lifetime - both indirectly, as a result of flawed policies during the Three Bitter Years, and directly, as a result of power struggles and the execution of those who were linked to his opponents and rivals.

Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on works that criticise Mao heavily. The controversial "Mao: the Unknown Story", by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, provides a far less flattering picture of Mao than the Chinese authorities would like."

I think you will find this to be more acceptable; I am presenting this text to Veritas as well, in the hopes that he will likewise agree. DS 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

DS: Thanks a lot for your advices. I think as to the exchange with Great Veritas I could have argued in a less hot-headed way, this is something I will pay attention to.

As to your suggested version I'm afraid I won't agree. In my opinion, the key point is that all the controversial claims that the argued passages, including Mao fabricated many of his youth stories, and Luding Bridge, ect, are all first brought out by Chang Chung's book, which is very biased, I could almost say close to slandering. As I argued in the talk page of Mao Zedong, the official record of Mao's youth experience is consistent with the memoirs of many of his earlier friends, including some who became his dead enemies later. Many criticized him harshly for his political ideas, but almost all agreed he was indeed quite idealistic and brave. And the stories of Long March, including LuDing battle, are also mostly consistent with KMT's history records. Among the communist leaders who took part in Long March, some became the enemies of CPC several years later, like Zhang Guotao, Gong Chu, also wrote detail memoirs. Their records of Long March indicated stories like Luding are not fabricated. There are even more objective records of Long March. For example, in 1935 two French priests was arrested by Red Army during the Long March and travelled with them for almost one year. They wrote a book about this experience after they returned to France and had a high opinion of the Red Army.

Therefore the reason I can't accept your proposed text is that it implies there are two opposite view regarding the authenticity of stories of Long March and Mao's youth experience in SERIOUS historical research, but this is not true. In serious historical research there are no opposite view about these stories.

So that's why I don't want the opinion that Mao fabricated Long March, etc, enter the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and should contain truth. Though sometimes it's hard for us to know what is the truth, we at least shouldn't let obvious lies enter. It's one thing to contain opposite views from serious historical research, it's another thing to present truth and obvious lies as two opposite view, by this way we are hurting the true history.

Yiyu

 * All right, so the first paragraph needs more work. But you'll notice, it's not presenting the alternate historical view that the Long March and the Battle of Luding never happened. It's saying that the alternate historical view is that some details were falsified and/or exaggerated. And that's relevant to understanding how people outside of China think of Mao.

Do you have any problems with the second and third paragraphs? DS 13:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DS: how about this?

"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. As well, Mao is widely criticized for millions of deaths that occurred under his rule - including those died from hungary for his wrong economic policy during the Three Bitter Years, and those killed or exiled during political movements lead by him, including 'Repressing Anti-revolution Movement' and 'Land Reform Movement' in early 1950's, 'Anti-rightists Movement' in 1957, 'Cultural Revolution' during 1966-1976."

I don't think the last paragraph is accurate either, because books having hash critism of Mao have indeed been published in China frequently in last 20 years, though not every book of this kind is allowed by government. For example, the memoir of Li Rui, who was Mao's secretary during 1950s' and been put into prison by Mao after the 1958 Lu Shan Incident, wrote several books detailing Mao's acts in 1950's, and critized his role in Three Bitter Years. The sufferings of ordinary people during Three Bitter Years and Cultural Revolution are frequently recorded in various historical books and literature. Zhang Guotao's memoir, which didn't say much good words about Mao, could also be bought at some bookstores in Beijing and Shanghai, though it's kind of "inner circulation", which means foreigners and people from Taiwain can't buy it, but ordinary Chinese citizen will have no difficulty getting it. On the other hand, Li Zhisui's book : Private Life of Mao, is indeed ban by government, though people can easily get one from black market (I bought one myself in Shenzhen).

What I want to say is that 1) Though there's indeed certain kinds of restrictions on criticism of Mao in China, it's quite loose in general, the current Chinese government has little link with Mao in either heritage or political doctrines and doesn't have much motivation to keep information about him from people 2)Never what kind of 'ban' there is, Chinese people's view about Mao is not affected too much by it.

Thank you very much

Yiyu 15:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Yiyu,

Don't work too much on the Mao article here -- whatever you agree on will have no real strength behind it because you are not working with other editors, and when you polish something together, it will ultimately be destroyed by those that had no part in it.

You also need to watch out for what wikipedia calls "weasel terms" that are used in the draft above. "weasel terms" are ways of saying thing that really avoid the issue. If an editor says "some analysts believe", it really means "I don't know who believes it, but I want it in this article".

Unfortunately, the current wiki has no way to decide "truth" and "lies". The best you can do is present all sides (not just one, or two) and cite evidence. For everything that is a lie, you can add sentences describing why it is untrue. There have been some movements to give weight to editors that are educated in one area more than those that are just shooting their mouths off, but they have failed. As we all know, many times history has been distorted and many people have been fooled, so don't be too sure that you know what really happened, when all most of us really have are hand-me-down stories.

Lastly, be sure not to get too wrapped up in articles. Find other articles to edit and your experience will be much more fulfilling. Come to visit Mao often, and put it on your watchlist, but don't let it consume you or sour you on wikipedia. I can guarantee you that 10 years from now, there will STILL be edit wars on the Mao page. Working through the night to make a perfect article won't stop someone from getting up in the morning and ruining your delicate balancing act. You probably have great insight into many things that are completely uncovered in Wiki -- give those a try sometime.

Hope this helps, Gummy

Gummy, that's very nice of you providing suggestion in such a frank way. I will think about them.

Thank you very much

Yiyu 02:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Good!
I'm very pleased to see that you and User:The Great Veritas have managed to arrive at a consensus about the Mao Zedong article. I actually added some information that you had forgotten to put in, information that you had mentioned in one of your proposed versions. DS 18:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DS, I am also quite glad about this issue having a conclusion.

Yiyu

WikiMaoist
I'd be honored if you'd consider contributing some of your brillant analysis of Mao's poetry to the Mao Zedong wikiproject. http://maoist.wikia.com/wiki/Poetry --Napoleonvii 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful for 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Dynaflow 09:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yiyu Shen


text: File:The Other Side (album).jpg

title: File:The Other Side (album).jpg


text:
Andrea Figallo

Andrea Figallo is an Italian vocal coach, vocalist and producer.

Career
Figallo has been involved for many years in the vocal a cappella music scene, teaching voice, coaching choirs, conducting, arranging, adjudicating vocal contests and holding workshops on many subjects: singing bass, vocal percussion, vocal group singing and all things vocal.

He a member of the Wise Guys (band) and the Flying Pickets. He's also founder of The Ghost Files, a vocal studio project dedicated to original vocal music recordings. He is a freelance conductor working all over Europe. From June 2012 to June 2013 he was the musical director of the choir don camillo chor, Munich.

His original choral music is published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH and Helbling GmbH.

On 31 October 2012 he was introduced as the new bass singer of the German a capella band Wise Guys and successor of the former bass singer Ferenc Husta. Since the beginning of December 2012 he has been living in Cologne.

In February 2016, the Wise Guys made two important announcements: 1) the decision to disband in July 2017, 2) Andrea would leave the band two months later.

Figallo travels around the world teaching music, coaching choirs, producing recordings and adjudicating choral competitions.

Discography

 * Jazz'n Jam, Uno, Tape, 1996, singer, arranger
 * Jazz'n Jam, Libera La Fantasia, CD, 1998, producer, singer, arranger
 * Flying Pickets, Live in Hamburg, CD, 2001, producer, singer, arranger
 * Flying Pickets, Vocal Zone EP, 2002, singer
 * Flying Pickets, Everyday, CD, 2004, album producer, singer, arranger, recording engineer
 * The Ghost Files, New Folder, CD, 2008, album producer, composer, singer, arranger, recording engineer
 * Flying Pickets, Big Mouth, CD, 2008, producer, singer, arranger, recording engineer
 * Esmeralda Grao, Sottovoce, CD, 2009, album producer, recording engineer, singer
 * Bobby McFerrin, VOCAbuLarieS, CD, 2010, singer (3 Grammy Nominations)
 * Flying Pickets, Only Yule, CD, 2010, producer, composer, singer, arranger
 * Comedaccordo, CD, 2012, album producer, recording engineer
 * Wise Guys, Antidepressivum single, 2013, producer, recording engineer, singer
 * Bonner Jazzchor, Bottle This Moment, CD, 2013, album producer, singer
 * Wise Guys, Achterbahn, 2014, producer, recording engineer, singer
 * Wise Guys, Läuft bei euch, 2015, producer, recording engineer, singer
 * Wise Guys, Live in Wien CD/DVD/Blu-ray, 2016, producer, arranger, singer
 * Upsweep, Home, EP, 2017, producer, recording engineer, arranger
 * Takarabune, Live in Kobe 2017, CD, 2017, producer, recording engineer
 * Queen's Tears Honey, JUKEBOX Live From Kobe, CD, 2017, producer, recording engineer

Published vocal arrangements

 * Christmas Lullaby (Andrea Figallo), Helbling GmbH
 * Shine (Andrea Figallo), Helbling GmbH
 * She Walks In Beauty (Andrea Figallo), Helbling GmbH
 * I Don't Know (Noa), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * My Funny Valentine (Rodgers-Hart), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * Letter from Home (Pat Metheny-Noa), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * Watch Them Grow (Zach Gill), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * I Can't Make You Love Me (Mike Reid, Allen Shamblin), Published by Andrea Figallo
 * No Potho Reposare (Giuseppe Rachel, Salvatore Sini), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * Dilly Dilly Baby (Figallo-Kamei), Published by Andrea Figallo
 * What if (Figallo-Hüneke-Kamei), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH
 * Ti Vorrei Sollevare (Elisa), Published by Edition Ferrimontana GmbH

title: Andrea Figallo


text:
Hippomaninae

Hippomaninae are plants of the family Euphorbiaceae. It is a subtribe of the Hippomaneae and has 32 genera:

 * Actinostemon
 * Adenopeltis
 * Anomostachys
 * Balakata
 * Bonania (also called Hypocoton)
 * Colliguaja
 * Conosapium
 * Dalembertia (also called Alcoceria)
 * Dendrocousinsia
 * Dendrothrix
 * Ditrysinia
 * Duvigneaudia
 * Excoecaria (also called Commia, Glyphostylus)
 * Falconeria
 * Grimmeodendron
 * Gymnanthes (also called Adenogyne, Ateramnus)
 * Hippomane (also called Mancanilla, Mancinella)
 * Mabea
 * Maprounea (also called Aegopicron, Aegopricon, Aegopricum)
 * Microstachys
 * Neoshirakia (also called Shirakia)
 * Pleradenophora
 * Pseudosenefeldera
 * Rhodothyrsus
 * Sapium (also called Carumbium, Gymnobothrys, Sapiopsis, Seborium, Stillingfleetia, Taeniosapium), Chinese tallow
 * Sclerocroton
 * Sebastiania (also called Clonostachys, Cnemidostachys, Elachocroton, Gussonia, Microstachys, Sarothrostachys, and Tragiopsis)
 * Senefeldera
 * Senefelderopsis
 * Shirakiopsis
 * Spegazziniophytum
 * Spirostachys
 * Stillingia (also called Gymnostillingia)
 * Triadica

title: Hippomaninae


text: User talk:68.94.10.25

title: User talk:68.94.10.25


text:
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 4

October 4
* PageName from [source]. ~


text:
Great Flood of 1951

In mid-July 1951, heavy rains led to a great rise of water in the Kansas River, Missouri River, and other surrounding areas of the Central United States. Flooding occurred in the Kansas, Neosho, Marais Des Cygnes, and Verdigris river basins. The damage in June and July 1951 across eastern Kansas and Missouri exceeded US$935 million (equivalent to $ in ). The flooding killed 17 people and displaced 518,000.

Flood
The 1951 flood in Kansas began in May with the flood of the Big Creek, (a tributary of the Smoky Hill River) in Hays after 11 in of rain in two hours. The creek overflowed, flooding Hays (the location of Fort Hays State University) to a depth of 4 feet in most locations inhabited by the students on campus, necessitating a midnight evacuation of the barracks by families on the G.I. Bill and dorms to the Stadium's third floor, which was still dry. Dr. Charles F. Wiest, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, and his seven-year-old daughter perished when their home caved in under the weight of the water while he was attempting to save prized texts in his basement. All records at the college were ruined and no graduation was held on the appointed date of May 23. Graduates were mailed their diplomas one month later.

At the time, there were no warning sirens in Hays. Two police officers drove the low riding streets with their sirens blaring, shouting to evacuate. They are credited with saving many lives.

The flooding continued into June 1951 with heavy rains. The flooding reached its zenith when between 8 and 16 in fell on the region between July 9 and July 13. The flood levels reached their highest point since the Great Flood of 1844 and Flood of 1903. July 13 experienced the single highest levels of flood, leading to the greatest destruction by flood in the Midwest as of then.

The specific flood-levels are not accurately known for the Kansas River, as the water crested above all official flood gauges. However, between Manhattan and Bonner Springs flood levels were between 4 ft and 6 ft above all previous records. The Marais Des Cygnes River, Verdigris River, and Neosho River crested more than 9 ft above previous records.

The heaviest initial damage by the flood crest was to Manhattan and Fort Riley. Barracks at the Fort were destroyed, and in Manhattan the downtown business district was deluged under 8 ft of water and two people were killed. Then, Topeka and Lawrence were damaged by the same crest. Approximately 24,000 people were evacuated from Topeka.

In the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, the flood began running over the top of the levees protecting the Argentine and Armourdale areas, resulting in the evacuation of 15,000 people. Water reached the rooftops of houses in Armourdale. The flood devastated the Kansas City Stockyards in the West Bottoms at the confluence of the Kansas and Missouri Rivers. The Stockyards never fully recovered. The flood destroyed the TWA overhaul base at Fairfax Airport in Kansas City, Kansas prompting the city of Kansas City, Missouri, to relocate TWA to a new airport in Platte County, Missouri that later became Kansas City International Airport.

On July 13, a total of 1074000 acre in Kansas and 926000 acre in Missouri were flooded.

The crest continued downstream passing through Boonville, Missouri on July 17, Jefferson City, Missouri on July 18, Hermann, Missouri on July 19, and St. Charles, Missouri on July 20, resulting in further flooding.

On July 17, President Harry Truman toured the damage by airplane, as far west as Manhattan, and declared the disaster "one of the worst this country has ever suffered from water".

Flood levels
Here are the measured river crest levels.

Outcome
Following this flood, a series of levees and reservoirs were constructed throughout eastern Kansas. This new network of flood control structures helped to prevent widespread damage when the region was hit by the Great Flood of 1993.

Prior to the flood, five federal flood control dams were operating in the Kansas River basin: Bonny Dam in Colorado, Enders Dam and Medicine Creek Dam in Nebraska, and Cedar Bluff Dam and Kanopolis Dam in Kansas.

Several others had been planned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, both authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944.

Since then, many dams have been constructed with a total of eighteen dams controlling the flow of the Kansas River, such as Webster Dam and Kirwin Dam on tributaries of the Solomon River in Kansas. Many other reservoirs and levees were built in other nearby basins, which were also built as part of the response to this flood. This includes the Osage River basin above the Lake of the Ozarks.

North Lawrence has a building shaped like a teepee, with a mark on the side indicating the water height of 7 feet around the building.

In 2011, the painting Flood Disaster by Thomas Hart Benton was sold for $1.9 million in an auction at Sotheby's in New York City. Benton had made the painting at the time of the flood and sent lithographs to every member of Congress to support a flood appropriations bill.

Comparison to other big floods
Channeling and levee construction have altered how the floods have hit various areas along the Missouri River. Here is a comparison of the three big floods since the early 19th century.

The Great Flood of 1844 was the biggest flood of the three in terms of rate of discharge at Westport Landing in Kansas City. It is estimated that 625000 cuft/s was discharged in the flood. On July 16, 1844, the crest was almost one foot lower than the 1993 flood.

The Great Flood of 1951 was the second biggest in rate of discharge at 573000 cuft/s. The 1951 crest on July 14, 1951, was almost 2 ft lower than the 1844 flood and 3 ft lower than 1993. However, the flood was the most devastating of all modern floods for Kansas City because its levee system was not built to withstand it. It destroyed the city's stockyards and forced the building of an airport away from the Missouri River bottoms.

In the Missouri River Flood of 1952 in the following year, flooding just upstream on the Missouri River caused the Rosecrans Memorial Airport to be cut off from the City of St. Joseph, Missouri. This was part of a larger series of floods affecting the entire Missouri River basin.

The Great Flood of 1993 was the highest of any of the three but had the lowest rate of discharge at 541000 cuft/s. Though the 1993 flood had devastating impacts elsewhere, Kansas City survived it relatively well because of levee improvements after the 1951 flood.

title: Great Flood of 1951


text: User talk:71.136.89.221

title: User talk:71.136.89.221


text: User talk:71.108.123.251

title: User talk:71.108.123.251


text:
USS John W. Thomason

USS John W. Thomason (DD-760), an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer, is the only ship of the United States Navy to be named for John William Thomason, Jr., a USMC officer who was awarded the Navy Cross for bravery during World War I.

Construction and career
John W. Thomason (DD-760) was launched by Bethlehem Steel Co., San Francisco, California, 30 September 1944; sponsored by Mrs. John W. Thomason, widow of Colonel Thomason; and commissioned on 11 October 1945.

Service in the United States Navy
The new destroyer conducted shakedown training out of San Diego, followed by a series of Naval Reserve training cruises from Seattle and San Francisco. From November 1947 to December 1948 the ship carried out training maneuvers. She sailed on 5 December 1948 for her first deployment to the Far East, arriving at Tsingtao on 1 January 1949 for operations supporting the Marines ashore in China. Departing 24 May 1949, John W. Thomason returned via Okinawa to San Diego on 23 June 1949 and spent the remainder of the year training.

Korea War
The ship returned to the Far East in early 1950, arriving at Yokosuka on 29 January. During this critical post-war period, she operated with British ships on training maneuvers off the coast of Indochina and Korea, returning to San Diego 25 April 1950. Two months later, North Korean aggression plunged the United States and the United Nations into the Korean War. Under the command of Gordon Chung-Hoon, John W. Thomason sailed on 30 September to join the 7th Fleet, operating in the screen of carrier task groups attacking enemy positions and supply lines. She arrived at Wonsan on 9 November to patrol and bombard during the campaign against that port. Antisubmarine exercises took her to Pearl Harbor from January–March 1951, but John W. Thomason arrived off Korea again on 26 March to operate with USS Boxer (CV-21) and USS Princeton (CV-37) during air strikes. Two weeks in April were spent on the important Formosa Patrol, after which she returned to the carrier task force. With battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) and another destroyer, she moved close in 24 May 1951 for gun bombardment of Yang Yang. The destroyer returned to San Diego from this deployment 2 July 1951.

John W. Thomason sailed again for Korea on 4 January 1952 and resumed operations with Task Force 77 off the coast of North Korea. She fired at railway targets 21 February in the Songjin area. During this period of stalemate on land, Navy strikes made up the bulk of offensive operations. The destroyer returned to Formosa Patrol duty in April. Back at Songjin and Wonsan on 26 April, the ship screened larger units, took part in shore bombardment, and patrolled offshore. She was relieved by a British destroyer on 21 June and returned to San Diego on 11 July 1952.

The destroyer operated off the California coast for the remainder of 1952, then sailed once more for Korea 21 February 1953. Formosa Patrol duty alternated with carrier task force operations off North Korea. John W. Thomason arrived at Wonsan harbor on 2 July; while firing at shore targets five days later, she received numerous shrapnel hits in a duel with enemy batteries. Maneuvering in the restricted waters, Commander Ratliff returned the fire until three batteries had been silenced. She continued to operate off Wonsan until the armistice on 27 July, and after a brief stay in Japan arrived at San Diego on 22 September 1953. From 1954-1956 John W. Thomason returned to the now-familiar waters off Korea and in the Formosa Strait, serving with the 7th Fleet. The first half of 1957 was spent in readiness exercises off San Diego. John W. Thomason then sailed on 29 July for a cruise which took her to Pago Pago, Auckland, and Manus. Upon arrival at Yokosuka on 7 September 1957 she resumed operations in the Formosa Straits and antisubmarine exercises with 7th Fleet ships. The ship returned to San Diego 8 January 1958, and conducted maneuvers off California and Hawaii.

In March 1959, John W. Thomason entered Long Beach Naval Shipyard as the prototype ship for the new Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program. During this extensive repair and modernization period she received a helicopter deck and hangar aft, variable depth sonar, the latest electronic equipment, and many improvements in living and working spaces. The conversion was followed by extensive trials and local training operations. As the new flagship of Destroyer Division 72, she sailed on 8 March 1961 for 7th Fleet duty. After further operation John W. Thomason sailed to San Diego, arriving 18 September 1961.

Extensive conversion and installation of new sonar equipment at Long Beach occupied the ship until July 1962. In December she took part in a massive antiaircraft exercise with units of the 1st Fleet off California. She sailed again for the Far East, a part of the ready-hunter-killer group. En route, however, she took part in recovery operations for Project Mercury as part of a task unit built around the aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge (CV-33). During the cruise which followed, the ship trained in her antisubmarine warfare (ASW) tactics and became familiar with her new equipment in operations with 7th Fleet and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. John W. Thomason returned to San Diego on 3 December 1963.

Vietnam War
Most of 1964 was spent in ASW exercises in the Eastern Pacific. On 23 October, she sailed with Destroyer Division 213 for redeployment exercises in Hawaii. Exactly a month later, with four other destroyers, she got under way for the western Pacific screening USS Yorktown (CVS-10) and arrived at Yokosuka, Japan on 4 December, joining the 7th Fleet. In the spring she earned her first battle star for operating in the troubled waters off the coast of Indochina from 21 March to 28 April 1965. After returning to the West Coast, she departed San Diego for the Far East 22 March 1966 and reached Da Nang 19 April and the same day took station a few miles south of Chu Lai. At the end of April she supported Operation Osage, and landed north of Da Nang. On 13 May she sailed for Sasebo and upkeep. Back in the war zone 6 June, she provided gunfire support and supported Operation Deckhouse 1 from 17 to 23 June. That day she retired toward Hong Kong. The destroyer returned to gunfire support duties off South Vietnam 16 August. From 18 to 23 August she supported the amphibious Ready Group and Special Landing Force in Operation "Deckhouse III." After visiting Guam and Japan, John W. Thomason headed home on 9 September, reached San Diego on 24 August and operated off the West Coast into 1967.

John W. Thomason's 1969 deployment was preceded by a most strenuous overhaul, refresher training, and a multitude of inspections. No sooner had the destroyer and her task group joined the 7th Fleet than the first of more than fifteen schedule changes was received. The ship was diverted to Subic Bay before sailing to the Tonkin Gulf for planeguard duties with USS Oriskany (CV-34). The first major inport period was in Kaohsiung, Taiwan after which John W. Thomason returned to Yankee Station. Three weeks of uneventful plane guarding were followed by a week in Bangkok. Subic Bay followed and another upkeep period. This one was cut short by a call for gunfire support in UV Corps near Vung Tau. After several days along the coast, the destroyer navigated the Nha Be River to participate in gunfire support in the Rung Sat Special Zone. Completing a week’s duty as part of the naval gunfire support team, the ship returned to her plane guard duties in the Tonkin Gulf, this time for USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31). During this period of duty, the destroyer rescued the crew from a crashed helicopter from Bon Homme Richard.

Six days of leave in Hong Kong and an upkeep period in Sasebo, Japan, followed. John W. Thomason then returned to Yankee Station and provided plane guard services for USS Hancock (CV-19). John W. Thomason escorted Hancock to Subic Bay and back to Yankee Station before rejoining Bon Homme Richard in this last line period. On the return home, stops were made in Subic Bay and Yokosuka. The weather demonstrated its capabilities at an inopportune time and delayed the destroyer's return to San Diego until 29 October 1969.

John W. Thomason received seven battle stars for Korean service and three for Vietnam service.

Service in the Republic of China Navy
Transferred on 6 May 1974 and renamed ROCS Nan Yang (DD-917), taking over the name and pennant number from the ex-USS Plunkett. The ship underwent repair and was commissioned on 23 June 1975.

Her number was changed to DD-954 in the 1970s.

In 1982, she was again reclassified to DDG-917 after completing Wu-Chin I modernization program.

In 1984, a sailor named Huang Guozhang went overboard and was presumed dead, the investigation have not been disclosed.

On 15 August 1991, This ship completed the Wu-Chin II modernization program.

She served in the Republic of China Navy until 16 January 2000, when she was struck from the Navy list and on 3 August 2006, she was towed out to sea to be used as a target ship off Yilan Suao Port during Exercise Han Kwang 22.

title: USS John W. Thomason