User talk:PokeHomsar

It's TGIE
Well, I found you, PokeHomsar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A&MFan (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 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)

Schematics
That's a great one. My favorite word is "cadillac." Apartcents (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Watching You
Considering it looks as though you still haven't learned your lesson yet about how to treat others, I'm going to be watching you, closely. Dark Lord Phoenix Wright (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm watching you to, but that's because I'm waiting for Blaxthos to try and report you to ANI, and watch for amusement the ensuing feud between you two. :P Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More concise
Hi. Nice edit here. I like it when someone takes the time to make a sentence easier to read. Please do more of this!

And who am I? I'm a Wikipedia old-timer: been around longer than 99.8% of all contributors (I'm User #188). My main interest is describing both sides of controversies and disputes, although I'm often been stopped by people who don't want a side described as clearly or fully as I'd wish. So now I go along to get along.

See you around the wiki! --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words
I'm not really a "movement conservative" anymore, if I ever was really was one, however I'm not a big fan of the liberal bias I see in any number of Wikipedia articles. Occasionally, though less often, I'll see conservative bias in certain articles. I'd like to think that I do my best to be "fair and balanced" (at least somewhat more so than either Fox News or MSNBC) in my edits. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More words for Everdude
Well, sad to see that BHZ is still like a bunch of pussies when they talk about politics. Also, I'm glad the forum's dead. I knew that after my non-sensical banning (and yet, it was sensical in terms of abuse), the forums would die.

I go to these forums now: http://www.youchewpoop.com/forum/index.php

A member of them already? Or do you dislike YTP?

Right now, I gotta draft a story and add Chris-chan to the Internet celebs list.

A&amp;MFan (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Ummm... *whisper whisper* reply back at User_talk:AerobicFox *whisper whisper*(not sure how to make that reply back template, and too lazy to go find one to copy) AerobicFox (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities
Hi PokeHomsar. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you have a personal attack
From above, in the section titled 'whoa', you seem to have a personal attack and you should report it to WP otherwise he will keep doing it. I would continue the fight with you, but the aforementioned attacker has said that we are taking no regard to what he is saying and that we are taking things way out of context and finding any way to complain and mis-use WP discussion pages. I would help you with the fight but then we might be teaming up against them and that would be just as wrong as the 'personal attacks' they accuse me of (since a general group contains their names) but it is perfectly alright for them to do it above. Take action. And good luck with adding Ray. Underwoodl06 (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

 * Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
 * Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
 * Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you.


 * Background: I took all mention of, and cites to, Media Matters out of the Thomas Sowell article. CartoonDiablo restored them. I took them out again, giving my reasons on the article's talk page. CartoonDiablo requested Arbitration but was told to go to a content noticeboard instead, then opened this discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. For more links/information, see "Talk:Thomas Sowell". Cheers, CWC 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The request for arbitration was turned down by the arbitrators. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

List of YouTubers
The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff June 2018
  June 2018

 FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

 By

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) -  ARBITRATION REPORT

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

 By

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including and the notorious.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include (no action),  (three month topic ban ARBAPDS),  (no action) and  (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)

 IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

 By

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story) -  DISCUSSION REPORT

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

 By

There are several open discussions at the Project:

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)
 * There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
 * Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018
  July 2018

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> ARTICLES REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> RECENT RESEARCH

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Research About AN/I

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by 

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey. The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:


 * 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
 * "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
 * "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)