User talk:HailFire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave a message. I will respond on your page.

Archive

Contents

[edit] Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns

The discussions on Talk:Barack Obama Muslim rumor is about the article and is applicable regardless of the name of the article, so it should be moved with the article. If you want to start the new page with a clean history, then archive the content of the page. Doing a page move just to obfuscate the prior discussions seems a bit... unproductive. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation

By my calculations, at least 87% of your nearly 9000 edits deal with Obama, and you appear to be very protective of him in your edits. Now 9000 edits makes you one of the most prolific of Wikipedia's editors—less than 1% of editors have had that many edits, ever, let alone over a one-year time span. But 7500 edits just on Obama? I mean, if it was an interest in politics, then there would be some other areas you'd surely have edited. Why shouldn't we presume that you are an Obama staffer, or even Michelle Obama?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.5.65 (talk • contribs)

HailFire is an even-handed, conscientious, fair editor who should be thanked for the contributions made, not second-guessed. The above comment is out of line. Tvoz |talk 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
HailFire's contributions show he's been editing here since July 2006, well before the 2008 Presidential election season ever started. What I'm wondering now is the identity of this anonymous accuser; judging by the tone and this accusation's proximity to the Barack Obama Muslim rumor VfD, I have a few guesses. Shem(talk) 02:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that HailFire's edits have been of an excellent quality. I never questioned that. But isn't there any policys on Wikipedia that say you don't edit articles in which you have a vested interest? I remember hearing that the founder of Wikipedia got in trouble for editing his own article. I see that everyone is ignoring my point. Can you name or find one other Wikipedia editor who has 9000 edits with 87% of them on one page? Yeah, I didn't think so. That is why I posed the question -- it just seems suspiciouis to me.
And your comment Shem, was completely out of line. What the fuck are you talking about regarding the "proximity" to the Barrack Muslim rumors? I didn't say a word about that, and you, not I, are engaged in caracter assassination. I posed a queston based upon a factual observation. You came up with this shit from I don't know where.
I actually have a great deal of respect for Obama. What he doesn't need is for one of his opponents to reveal in the weeks before an important election that one of his staffers has been editing his article. So go fuck yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.5.65 (talk • contribs)
I came to this page to ask him if he was anti-Obama. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box Image on Barack Obama presidetial campaign, 2008

HailFire, I appreciate your dedication to helping with Barack Obama's page, however there has been no sort of consensus among the discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections#Campaign_article_infobox_image page. Currently Candidate Photographs are being used in each candidates Info Box. Please refrain from changing the info box photo until that discussion reaches some type of consensus. This is nothing special to Barack Obama, it is applied to every 2008 presidential campaign page. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation! Rtr10 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion - in fact there has been no consensus to change to images across the board, and the logos should not have been changed in the first place without the editors' agreement. So reverting to the logo was appropriate. Tvoz |talk 06:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Interview

Hi HailFire,

I sent you an e-mail a couple of days ago about participating in an interview for my thesis. I'm really interested in your experience with the Barack Obama article, and I'd really love to talk with you about it!

Please let me know either way.

Jkomoros (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama BLP

Hi HailFire, please check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Wishing you well as always. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:AudacityofHope2.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:AudacityofHope2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ilse@ 13:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello,

I saw the your contribution to Senator Obama's wiki page.

I thought I'd say a personal thank you on a job well done.

Thanks,

Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.213.26 (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome

All I can say is: dude, you're awesome.

'08O! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.56.80 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth? Tvoz |talk 08:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama's tempate

Question for you, why did you remove Michelle Obama from Template:Barack Obama. It is pretty standard practice to have relatives included in these templates. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama's father

Hello ...I made a small edit last night to add a link to Obama's father. His father has an article and wasn't previously linked to in Obama's article. You removed the link and I wanted to find out why. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrote (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign template

All the redundant variables were to cover those used by Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Template:Infobox Campaign, which I orphaned. Cutting out the redundant one screws up several templates. You'd have to adjust the parameters first. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You got some of them, but the ones for the title and headquarters still vary from when I switched it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote the article Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Obama pic

Thanks for your message. You may be right about the photo. Like I stated before, I'm poor at detecting subtle differences. I noticed that you removed it from the Barack Obama article. I mentioned that on the related discussion page, since someone brought up that it was again orphaned. You've done a lot to enrich that article so I wasn't going to undo the change even though I wasn't quite clear on your reasoning. Keep up the excellent work! →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack (brandy) move request

Bringing this to your notice in case you have further suggestions about it. Ideally, I'd like to see it gone from the top of the Barack Obama article, reason being that first names are not a typical search term (and it looks silly there sitting at the top of the FA). --HailFire (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually surprisingly common for people to search for the first name, as long as it's a distinctive and well-known first name. cf. Elvis, etc. The only reason not to have a dab page for "Bar(r)ack" would be if "Barack" didn't redirect to Barack Obama, a solution you surely wouldn't desire, although it would be consistent with your claim that first names are not typical search names. If you want to make it more useful, I recommend replacing the link to Barack (brandy) with a more general dab-link to Barrack, which includes links to the brandy as well as to Obama. If you want to make it less "silly"-looking, make it more compact by combining the two separate dab lines (for Obama and for Barack) into one line. -Silence (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Somehow I put a vandalism warning on your page. I did not mean to and have reverted it. I am sorry. Jons63 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

Would you please comment on Talk:Barack Obama about image removal such as this--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnpseudo's edit

I'm not sure Johnpseudo's edit[2] was a continuation of the edit war that is going on over the Wright information, but rather a removal because it is already covered in detail in the presidential campaign section and repeating it below in the personal life section is redundant. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama nominated for WP: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. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for you notification and your kind response on the Barack Obama FAR page. I will be glad to re-read the article after you provided more statements (although I'm not sure the first one and the last one listed are really criticisms :) ). I definitely understand that the editors of the article have worked very hard, and I truly do know how much it takes to get it to an FA article. Reagan's took me at least five noms.

I also want to make clear to you, as it appears that you are one of the main editors of the article, that I am not some sort of crazy, partisan Republican; I am a NPOV editor honestly devoted to maintaing that style across party lines. I can help with anything you guys need, and I will be glad to give my views on topics. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And please see my response here. Thanks a lot, Happyme22 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have a list assembled on some issues. Would you like me to present it on the talk page now? After reading over the talk page, there are multiple discussions going on about POV; perhaps by introducing this list, the focus can be concentrated to a single discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Great! I'll do that right now. Thanks for all your understanding, Happyme22 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I put them on there, and I have good and bad results (mostly bad). The good news is, I was able to trim down the "2004 address" section. The bad news is pretty much everything else; not many of the concerns I brought up are even considered "concerns" by some editors, and they have merely tossed them out. I find it appalling. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will work with you. I too am opposed to full protection, and frankly I think some editors of the Obama page need to put their partisan views aside for the good of saving this as a FA. I am a little tied up today (as I have to go now) but please, wherever I can help, let me know. Thanks for everything, Happyme22 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you have heard: the article has been fully protected again. Oye ve! --Happyme22 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just want to say that despite my favoring of sprot for pages like this, I'm against fprot too - it's damaging. As are the neutrality tags that have been slapped on all over the place. So we'll have to just keep trying - Happy, it's good to have your help. Tvoz |talk 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More recently

Thanks for alerting me to the page. I had become so disliked over there that I just decided to leave my comments and go after a certain point, so I had not been regularly checking them. I just did, however, and found the article to be 100% more neutral. Thanks for listening to most of what I said; I think that you have done a great job with your revisions. Feel free to jump in on McCain whenever. Thanks for your cooperation and help, Happyme22 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - about three other editors responded to Andy's post at the FAR page. Happyme22 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading over your comments left at my list on the talk page, and largely agree with your edits. I have left some more slight comments on a few of the sections and another proposal that I would like to get your opinon on under "Cultural and political image". Thanks for everything, Happyme22 (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I was actually in the middle of doing just that when you messaged me. I was wondering if you could take a look at my last post (and the last post) at the Talk:Barack_Obama#Cultural_and_political_image? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to both points. I agree, this is the beginning of a great friendship :) My best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really honored to have helped out on the page, and I now believe that is it most assuredly a featured article. Thanks for the compliments :) If you don't mind, I'd really prefer to stay away from the Rezko situation, largely because I don't know much about it. But I'm confident that you guys will come up with something. Keep in touch, Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - McCain just made it to GA earlier today, and I'm pretty sure that the main editors are planning an FA bid soon. I know that you are tied up with Obama, but jump in if you'd like to! --Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

Would you happen to be hailfire55 on YouTube? Grsztalk 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim thing

Just to be clear, I would rather not see the word "Muslim" applied in the "Personal life" paragraph at Barack Obama. I suggested the double reference instead of that. Also, I am amazed that you should lump me in with Andy, with whom I disagree on just about everything in the known universe. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] protection

You see? I'm not that bad[3]...  :) Tvoz/talk 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_McCain/archive1. I think we've addressed all of your comments, and please feel free to comment some more if you like. I notice that you've been inactive since May 11, and I hope all is well. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] creating Developing Communities Project article

I'd like to see the DCP mentioned in Obama's early career summary. As of now, its only noted that he was hired as a community organizer, but says nothing about for whom he worked nor his position as its director. I hope the DCP is notable enough, so we can create an article stub to link to? I've not created an article before and when it comes to reading/writing/editing I'm typically frustrated with just about everything anyway and thus slow as a turtle (one of the reasons I try to keep my comments brief). But I'll try to help and I sure others will too. Modocc (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Err... after some precursory research, I can't see how the DCP is notable enough, at least not nationally, so I regrettably withdraw this suggestion. Cheers. Modocc (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)