User talk:HailFire - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Italiavivi (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 23 January 2007 (→Obama quote.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:13, 23 January 2007 by Italiavivi (talk | contribs) (→Obama quote.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, HailFire, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hey HailFire. I've had Obama's article on my watchlist for a long time now (though my work on the article has been limited to reverting vandalism and fighting POV on talk), and I've noticed the large amount of work you have put into the article over the last several days. Your work is definitely improving the article, and I merely wanted to commend you for it. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 13:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jersyko! I've created a sandbox and talk page for collecting references and developing drafts. I'm still learning the ropes and any suggestions offered by more experienced editors will be most appreciated. --HailFire 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also noted the fine job done, as someone moved the article off of the Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems list. In terms of citations currently required for Featured articles, I've tagged a few more sections or statements that still need inline citations. If you're able to work on that, so that the article will fully comply with current FA requirements, it would be helpful. I've also left a message on the article talk page, in case others there have the needed sources. Thanks, Sandy 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hailfire, glad to chalk that one off the list, and glad someone is tending the article; far too many FAs fall into decay. Regards, Sandy 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with some edit friction from an unexpected source. Let me know what you think. --HailFire 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your message explains your motivation well, and I imagine this will be resolved soon. I believe you're correct, of course. Let's see what Jasper23 has to say about it; I've found him to be reasonable enough, so some slight rewording could be the worst result of a discussion on it. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Note that "Africans" come in different colors, as do "Americans", so without some kind of qualifier the reader does not have this information. A compromise would be "black African father" and "white American mother"...This version works for me. Quoting someone out of context (and yes it is out of context) drives me crazy. Can we just go with black african father and white american mother? Jasper23 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. But you know where I think a good qualifier should go. Shakam 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's awesome man, hopefully it can stay this way for a pretty good while, seeing as you have a good influence on the article. Good job, and thanks. Shakam

Yeah, it is good. Thanks for taking the time. Jasper23 04:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not have the time to put towards it at the moment. Sorry. Wizzy…☎ 07:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I do understand. I'll likely make a cleanup attempt soon, as I think some condensing is necessary to improve the article's flow and balance. Just wanted to ask you first before I take the plunge. Keep watching, OK? --HailFire 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! --HailFire 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks anyway, but it seems (as I have already stated) if it isn't someone this week, then it's someone the next. Barack Obama Thank you anyway for trying to fix this part of the article but it seems to be refuted quite often. Just keep up the work with the article as a whole. People have been misguided for centuries, anyway. Shakam 17:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote in the Barack Obama discussion board and get back with me, and we'll see what we can do. Shakam 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (sorry I don't know how to send messages)

Wikiholiday

Don't let them get you down at Talk:Barack Obama. I'm being completely honest when I say that your work there is really improving the article. Take a Wikibreak if you like, but seriously, don't let them get you down ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're awesome. But I'm sure you already know that. *e-thumbs up* Shakam 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Politician

I say you were working on the Politician page and were looking for help, send me a message with what you think needs doing, and I'll try to lend a hand. Gronkmeister | _Contrib 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Barack Obama

Thanks! You've done an awesome job with this article, especially maintaining balance in the text between all the diverse views out there. Keep up the good work! Gzkn 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd echo Gzkn's sentiment. And thank you for your kind comments. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry. There is absolutely no reason that will be a permanent protection. I'm against them, the majotiy of Wikipedians are against them and the policy is against them. It will probably be longer than last time - given that an 8 day protection hasn't stopped vandalism, perhaps a two-three week period will. It may be that this becomes one of those articles that has to take a 'one month-on, one month-off' approach to proection, but hopefully we can nip it in teh bud now! --Robdurbar 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Hail - and I look forward to 2-3 weeks of not having to deal with some of the worst of the vandals. As I've said, I try to remain optimistic (but it's not really in my nature), so maybe things will remain quiet. I didn't mean to imply that you were editing under IPs - in fact the quality of the IP edits are quite clearly far below yours, and push a POV that seems quite distinct from anything you've posted - but in re-reading what I wrote I see that it could have been interpreted that way, so I'm sorry for that. I think you've done an awesome job in improving the piece and I enjoy working with you - in fact I have rarely disagreed with your edits. So, peace for sure, and hope you'll be back soon. Happy new year Tvoz | talk 00:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama

So basically, you want me to unprotect the article? Khoikhoi 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is what HailFire was saying - he was asking that the tag be changed to sprot2 which I did, and that the semiprot not be permanent, which it is not. His last note on my talk page asked that we follow Robdurbar's suggestion, which was for a 2-3 week semiprot to see if things calm down, as the recent 8-day block wasn't enough. Although my sense is that we may need longer than that, I am happy to agree to this timeframe, and we'll take it from there afterward. So please do not unprotect at this time. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Iran

Don't know if you've seen the back-and-forth on this in the article and on the Talk page - wondering what your opinion is. Tvoz | talk 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right - I'm leaving it for now, But the comment seems to me somewhat offhand and pretty much devoid of the deep meaning being assigned to it. The issue is important, of course - presumably more quotable material will emerge that will better illustrate his opinions. Tvoz | talk 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

well...

Listen, I think all three things have gotten much more attention than they're worth - and it is totally clear to me that the insistence on including them is not coming out of good faith concerns about having a fair article, which is all I want here. I did think that just laying it all out in the text might shut them up - or at least not give them any excuse to cry foul - but if your solution flies I'll be happier because the article is less defaced your way, but still comprehensive. All I can tell you is I'm also hanging around HRC and they have their share of assholes too - mostly also unfairly trying to add garbage to the article, including little tricks like reducing the size of a picture to minuscule size so all you can really see is the caption that screams out "felon". It's essentially the same brush trying to smear both of them, and it pisses me off. And they are still semi-protected. I haven't changed my view of all of that - I honestly see nothing good coming out of allowing IP addresses to hit and run, but we'll see what happens. I notice the guy who was carrying on in a really offensive way about sprot (see BO history of talk if you missed some of his choicer comments that were removed) and pledged to "help out" with vandals has mysteriously disappeared. Or, he's reappeared as an IP address. Well, let's see what happens. I took a little time off and was watching "Rome" (great show) and haven't looked yet to see if your edits held - I'll make a little bet with myself.... Glad you liked "Books authored" - I think that works well. CheersTvoz | talk 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Obama FAR

I wouldn't worry over it too much...User:Marskell should be along shortly to archive the FAR. I see no reason that it would move to FARC. Gzkn 08:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama quote.

I would appreciate it if you would get on Talk, instead of repeatedly reverting to your "quote is in the reference" version with copy-paste edit summaries. Italiavivi 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also appreciate your abiding by WP:Civility and WP:AGF when you find someone disagreeing with your preferred format. Italiavivi 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

's alright HailFire. We'll get it right. As a side note, I continue to be amazed by your capacity to find "compromise" solutions in the article that actually end up being optimal editorial decisions in most instances. If you don't want to answer this, I completely understand, but I'm curious as to what your work or education background is. Your decision-making is superb. If you prefer, feel free to e-mail or to not answer at all :) · j e r s y k o talk · 16:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)