User talk:Hga

Thanks

Hga,

Thanks for the compliments on my Jeff Cooper edits, I really appreciate them.

Duane

Query

HGA,

hello, I appreciate the work you have done on the Cooper page. I am interested in how to remove the remaining concerns posted on his front page. Would you be willing to let me know what concerns remain as it appears that you have addressed many of them. Maegdlyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maegdlyn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a lot more can be done. Some "concerns" are inherent in biographical page that doesn't tear down a good guy as much as has been popular for decades and decades; I want nothing to do with adding that sort of "balance". The lede does really in some sense need expansion, it's only one sentence, but I'm not sure how to do that other than summarizing many of the items below. E.g. you can't over emphasize his Color Code and "hot range"/real life gun safety rules, and the latter has saved who knows how many lives. You can always use the net to look up citations, or read his books ... or ask me to review his books if something needs a specific citation. The final "may need a complete rewrite" is, well, beyond the scope of what I and I suspect you are thinking, and I'm not sure it's even correct. Hga (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ship photos

Thanks for the virtual high five, i appreciate it. :-) Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cooper article: THEM

I personally don't think "THEM" is purely plural in common usage anymore, but "THAT PERSON" ought to satisfy everybody while maintaining a neutral perspective.--72.130.130.78 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

At the very least "THEM" is most commonly plural; importantly, it loses focus compared to "HIM" or your acceptable replacement "THAT PERSON". The color codes are all about maintaining focus ("CONSTANT VIGILANCE!" as Mad-Eye Moody puts it) and "THEM" takes away from that. Hga (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wish to collaborate

Hey man, saw your discussion on some Nuclear warfare related talk pages and was thinking we should collaborate together on some Civil defense and Duck and Cover (film) related articles.Boundarylayer (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time or interest to do much of the work, but I'll be happy to point you in useful directions, provide some of what I've just picked up over the years, e.g. my mother was a Civil Defense Block Mother back in 1968-9, she, my sister and I participated in a city fallout shelter simulation (with all the tornados that hit the Joplin area we're deadly serious about CD), etc. Hga (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine! well I'll keep you in mind if I ever get stuck for references but have that feeling that I know I've read it somewhere before, as often happens, and I wish to thank you for your rapid response.

God speed!

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. As far as references, I'd start with Nuclear War Survival Skills, then Life After Doomsday by Bruce D. Clayton (get the Dial Press/Doubleday paperback edition, with a big nuclear explosion on the cover, it's got updated notes from the original), and then if your budget allows, his Survival Books 1981 is invaluable. If that's a bit too expensive, ask me to suggest some books from it. For technical details, Glasston and Dolan's The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1977 3rd edition is the bible (even used by the Soviets for their CD manual, we could tell by minor mistakes from the original incorporated in it), and it's a crime Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the book. The first and last references are freely available in digital form on the net. Hga (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Your reinstating unreliable sources in a biography of a recently deceased person have been removed. Private web sites/blogs are considered unreliable see WP:SOURCE and are not to be used. You have worked on the article for years and you have had plenty of time to find better sources. It also appears as link spam WP:SPAM as you have included a link to that web page in several articles. You must find a reliable source if you wish to include it or I will bring this to at least 2 noticeboards. Your reason for reverting was not convincing as it violated good editing practices. If you have an axe to grind or a position to push concerning this person you should altogether avoid editing it as you have a WP:COI. Thanks 172.56.9.232 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be frightened by a Wikilawyer who doesn't have the courage to use an account? I think not.

I'm also pretty sure you're confusing me with someone else WRT to the debatable link spam, all I can recall doing is inserting references to Coopers's Commentaries to backup one or maybe two items. If not, please show me the edits where I inserted them. As for good editing practices, I always thought bringing up a problem like this in the talk page was better than deleting valuable information, in this case the particular issue of Commentaries. You haven't given us any time to find references you find acceptable, and your failure to use an account or use the article's talk page makes it difficult for us to communicate with us what you'd find acceptable. Hga (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)