User talk:PokeHomsar
February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Welcome, PokeHomsar. It's always nice to see somebody new around, and I'm hoping that you decide to stick around. I would like to ask, though, that you be a little more gentle than you were here in how you phrase your comments. It's okay to be assertive, of course, but rudeness is just counter-productive. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories
NPA warning removed. 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did not attack him, I was rephrasing what he said. I didn't say he was an idiot for believing it, I said "one" would have to be an idiot to believe it. There's a difference between the two, a significant difference. He never said he believed it, so I couldn't say he believed it, but I was commenting on his comment. Grammar is my specialty, so don't claim I attacked him.PokeHomsar (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You actually do have a point. I have removed the NPA warning; though throwing around "idiot" so casually on a talk page is a little provocative (on the other user's part, not yours) given that it may offend certain groups, it wasn't a personal attack. My apologies. SMC (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your apology is accepted. Thank you for time in this matter.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's TGIE
Well, I found you, PokeHomsar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A&MFan (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Talk:Sicko have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- [personal attack removed]. What Michael Moore said in his movie was libellous.
With regard to your comments on User_talk:PokeHomsar: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this the guy's talk page? Can't he do what he wants? How does using facts then being considered libellous be considered something that deters editors. He used facts. I checked it out. He's absolutely right. No one in their right mind believes what Michael Moore says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.96.105.23 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks on other editors and on living individuals are prohibited on Wikipedia, in articles, on talk pages, and on user pages. I have removed the attacks you have added to your user page. Do not restore them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, he attacks people, I should be able to discuss his attacks on the talk page. He's wrong, and anybody who doesn't believe him is intelligent. For all we know, he makes his movies just to see how many people actually believe him. He might not believe what he says for all we know. I mean, he called the American people the stupidest people in the world, and in some cases, he's right. PokeHomsar (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The talk pages are not a forum for debating the subject. This has been explained to PokeHomsar before and is why PokeHomsar's opinions were removed. The talk pages are for discussing improving the article. Also, I note that the above was added by 209.96.105.23, someone who has commented on this page and others as a third party, but then signed by PokeHomsar. I would draw your attention to Wikipedia policy regarding editing under multiple accounts and sockpuppets. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
sXephil discussion
Hi, I saw your comment on the sXephil discussion and I totally agree. I added him, and included a reference but someone deleted it :( If you have any ideas on how we can add him and not get deleted (i.e. better reference or something else) please leave me a message or write back on the sXephil discussion part of the list of youtube celebrities article. I appreciate your trying to help :D --FallingDarkness (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying back, I would add sXephil, but I'm worried someone will just delete it again. Some guy who wasn't even an administrator deleted it. Maybe we need to go through an administrator, maybe that Netsnipe guy.. I think he manages the article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FallingDarkness (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I added sXephil with the two references. Is there any chance you can make the citation better by making the stories into hyperlinks and adding the authors? I can't seem to get the coding right for it. Thanks --FallingDarkness (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heads up... I've initiated an ANI report regarding you here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The Book of Biff
I've never heard of it, but if you want I'll try to help you put an article together. What's the URL, for starters? Where's some significant coverage of it, to establish notability? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions
Reviewing your contributions, it's apparent that you think Wikipedia is the newest battleground for the war between Liberals and Conservatives. This isn't the case, and I suggest you reel in your conservative POV pushing. Your recent contributions to the Fox News Channel talk page are based on nothing but personal opinion, are not backed up by sources, and are not based on policy/guideline. Additionally, the vast majority of your userpage is in violation of our userpage guideline, specifically points 4 and 8 under the section "What may I not have on my user page?". Please tone down your rhetoric, both on your userpage and on Wikipedia talk pages. - auburnpilot talk 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Not just personal opinion. Read all four of Bernard Goldberg's books and get back to me.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a battle ground. BJTalk 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- You don't actually have to say it's a battleground for you to treat it as such. With every edit, you seem to be pushing your own POV and accusing everyone else of having the opposite. Please be civil. Dayewalker (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded to your comment on my page, but I just thought I'd drop you a line in regards to your discussions with other editors. Simply telling them you're not biased, and instructing them to read four books to see proof of that doesn't help your cause. If anything, it makes you seem more of a "POV warrior," since those books advance a certain point of view. Refusing to discuss things with anyone who hasn't read them won't endear you to editors who are trying to help you understand (and keep you from being blocked). Dayewalker (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I love the way he encourages you to read some propaganda in order to approve of his user page! Danpatterson89 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Final warning
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I wondered if you might consider taking a look at the Obama 08 article and voicing an opinion? thanksDie4Dixie (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
WQA on you
As you are aware, there is a WQA on you. Labelling other editors with names or categories like "liberals" as you did here is not helpful and considered incivil. If you can refrain from labelling other editors in this manner, then I am marking this as resolved. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:iPod for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Final warning
Do not continue to use talk pages as a forum for general discussion of the topic, as you have continued to do on Talk:Jon Stewart and Talk:The Colbert Report. Continued defiance of our policies and guidelines is disruptive behavior, and will result in you being blocked from editing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
|
Re: Note on my talk page/welcome note
Hi PokeHomsar, I'm glad you appreciate the note, however, my intentions wasn't to direct you to the WikiProject, but to some of the key policies on Wikipedia. To be honest with you, some of your recent comments, to a degree, violated some policies/guidelines such as Assuming good faith, Civility, No personal attacks. Calling editors "liberal" (or any other term that is meant to attack another) is generally unacceptable and could result in a temporary block if you're being persistent in labelling them with some "negative" term (i.e. liberal). Anyways, I hope that you can refrain from that type of commenting in the future. Regards, nat.utoronto 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Some people find it offensive, and because this is a site based on collaboration and cooperation, you have to try to accommodate that. And really, the term "liberal" that describes a "left-leaning person" is mainly an American term that doesn't quite work with some wikipedians as many of us are from outside the United States. For instance, a liberal in British Colombia or Australia is actually a Conservative, a liberal in Quebec means that you are a federalist/supporter of a Quebec within an united Canada and could be from any point in the political spectrum, In Canadian Federal politics, a liberal is simply a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and could be a person of the centre-right, centre-left, or just the centre. nat.utoronto 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your Userpage
Hi PokeHomesar, I would just like to point you to WP:SOAPBOX in regards to your userpage. Although the policy has only mentioned articles, it does covers all namespaces on wikipedia, which includes userpages. I understand why you want to have all that text on your userpage, however, it violates WP:SOAPBOX #2 which states:
Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
So I would like to give you the chance to trim down/remove your political view/opinion pieces from your user page, or it will be removed by through a deletion process. Regards, nat.utoronto 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. you can have your political views on your userpage, but it shouldn't be the focal point or the main portion of the userpage.
Re: Re: Your Userpage
Well, most of it. Wikipedia is not the place to be stating who you hate or what your positions are on each issue that concerns the average voter/American/etc. It belongs on a blog (i.e. Wordpress.com or Blogger.com). Take me for example, I'm an avid supporter of the Ontario PC Party and the Conservative Party of Canada, and a staunch opponent of the Ontario Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, yet I leave my views "at the door" when I edit wikipedia; and only describe my political affiliations in small detail, not the entire page. And when I want views to be heard or to talk about certain political issues that are bugging me, I would go to my blog and type it all out to my heart's content.
Another thing is that if you disagree with the content of an article, be a little more subtle and civil when you are discussing how to improve the article. Anyways, I hope you will continue to contribution constructively on Wikipedia. Regards, nat.utoronto 05:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Schematics
That's a great one. My favorite word is "cadillac." Apartcents (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bernard Goldberg and other issues
PokeHomsar, you seem to be a conservative, so I'll explain something to you. I don't know if you know this, but EVERY interviewer on television can edit their interviews to suit their point of view. So, how is Stewart any different? I admit freely that he's made certain conservatives out to be asses when in fact they're good people. But come on - how can you defend Bernard Goldberg, a man who claims to be an authority on media bias? He deliberately focuses on only one part of the problem. I'm a liberal, yes, but I still want to hear the unbiased truth on the news, even if it's an unpleasant truth. Goldberg would be a lot more successful if he went after CONSERVATIVE media bias as well. He totally ignores the biggest producer of conservative media bias, Fox News.
He left off his ilk purposely? Thanks for proving my point that he's a hypocrite. Of course he did - because he thinks the way they do and he wants the liberal bias out of the way to make room for his conservative bias. Anyone like Goldberg who would trade one media bias for another media bias is no truth meister.
While I think Moore did a good job in Sicko, I have a huge problem with Fahrenheit 9/11. My problem was that Moore politicized it by not interviewing Democrats who are for the war (Joe Lieberman) and Republicans who are against the war like John Duncan, Ron Paul, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, etc. etc. If he had done that, he would have made it clear to everyone that true conservatives don't like starting needless wars without a plan to win the peace. Michael Moore does use facts in the film (the studio carrying the film wouldn't let him make a film without facts in it), but he sprinkles emotion on them so the viewer is left with the impression that all Democrats are against the Iraq War (which is a fallacy) and all Republicans are for the war (another fallacy). So on Fahrenheit 9/11, I totally agree with you that Moore did a terrible job.
P.S. - I also agree with you that ELF and PETA are eco-terrorist groups and that the U.S.-Mexico border needs to be secured. See? Not all liberals are PC, granola-eating, pot-smoking, kool-aid drinking, anti-establishment hippies. Ericster08 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama on his worst day is better than McBush on his best day
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama is not only drawing support from Democrats, but Republicans as well; Republicans who are tired of seeing the Neoconservatives destroy their party. True Republicans stand for low spending, limited government, and limited intervention in foreign policy. On those three issues, the current administration has been ANYTHING but Republican. They've bankrupted the country with their reckless spending (spending more than even a drunken Liberal ever would), expanded the powers of the Executive Branch and ignored the Constitution while suspending habeas corpus, and they've exercised an absolutely bellicose and jingoistic foreign policy that is doing America way more harm than good. Obama, unlike McBush, will actually get the job done in Iraq because he'll consult the Iraq experts, not the Neocon shitheads who didn't believe the truth at least 300,000 troops would be required to secure the country. Obama will be a successful President because he'll talk even to the people (like you) who despise him, not just the people who support him. He'll also make the Iraqi people take responsibility for their own country-over 4,000 brave American men and women have given their lives to give the Iraqis a chance to live in freedom. The American troops have done their part, and God bless them. Now it's time for the Iraqis to step up and take the new country that we've given them. In addition, Obama will be the President of EVERYONE, unlike Bush, who only gives a damn about the people who voted for him. The Neocons have had their eight years, and they've fucked things up almost beyond repair. The 2008 Election will decide the future of America. If voters get it wrong for the third time in a row, we're truly fucked. However, if they finally come to their senses this time and elect a smart, tough, hard-working, reasonable President, we can begin to repair the damage and bring the country back together. Sure, you hate Obama now, but four years from now when there's a huge federal budget surplus, American troops are home from a secure Iraq, and people are waving American flags across the world instead of burning them, you'll smarten up and thank your lucky stars America didn't pick McBush. Ericster08 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: I don't want to start an argument...
Fine with me, I don't either. Nor do I think Obama is perfect. However, for all his flaws, I still think he's the better candidate. You are of course fully entitled to disagree with me.
Obama's policies will bankrupt America? What about Bush? He's added 3.8 trillion dollars to the debt in 7.5 years. The economy is shaky at best, the value of the dollar is decreasing, and the housing market is doing very poorly. Is Bush completely to blame for all these woes? Of course not. However, his economic policies do have something to do with the situation. The only way Obama will bankrupt America is if he raises middle-class taxes. If he rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthy, he won't have to raise middle class taxes.
I'm not here to convert you - I'm just saying to look at the other side of things. One of the many great things about America is that we don't have to agree on everything - that's what democracy's all about. If you support McCain, go ahead and vote for him. I may disagree with most of McCain's policies, but I like him personally and I honor his service in Vietnam. Ericster08 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: Good.
You're quite welcome.
Thank you for your time and peace be with you. Ericster08 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality Tag
Hello,
I have added a tag to the Barack Obama article requesting that it be checked for neutrality. I thought you might be interesting in coming in as a neutral editor and checking the article out. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)