Regarding Wikipedia, Yes I do often use wikipedia as a source as it is handy and centralized, and I am, on occasion proven wrong. If you have a dissenting definition from a more reputable source, I am more than willing to reevaluate my stance. Regardless, if you'd like a different source we can use "The newer sense of "ad hominem," which suggests an attack on an opponent's character instead of his or her argument, appeared only in the last century, but it is the sense more often heard today." from Merriam Webster. It is clear that invoking the name of one's mother has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Additionally there is the issue of calling people seemingly derogatory names.
As for why i have not made mention of Gopher's fallacies is you were simply the most recent to post, and your fallacies more flagrant. Gopher is using what are probably "appeal to hypocrisy" arguments. For example, comments regarding HRC, while likely referencing the only other available option as of november, are not actually related to Trump's behavior (to paraphrase: "just because she is terrible doesn't mean he can be"). The comments about the left "vilifying and degrading entire religions" are similar logical fallacies, as are his references to your posting habits.
As for my opinion on any matter here: I haven't given it yet. Like i said, I am practicing spotting Fallacies.