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 may be blocked from editing. /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. BJ^Talk 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)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. /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)