User talk:Bog5576: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:30, 11 August 2015

This event occurred, is relevant and was properly cited. That information should not have been removed from the article.

yeah my bad thanks for fixing it ~bog5576

Sylvester Turner

As previously stated, Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings.PrimeNotice (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been section blanking cited material. Please cease vandalizing the page. ~bog5576

No section is blanked. Warranted removal of bias and unstained information is not section blanking.PrimeNotice (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed I cited opinion pieces when I cited over 10 references- none from opinion articles. Why are you being blatantly dishonest? ~bog5576

For Instance: Where in this article do you see that Sylvetser Turner's mayoral campagian paid for 76 memberships, as you claim? ^[1]

Hint: It doesn't say paid for 76 memberships. PrimeNotice (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Bell also knocked Turner for purchasing $3,040 worth of memberships, enough for at least 76 people. Turner won the endorsement by 67 votes"

EXACTLY! So you don't know how many memberships were brought. It doesn't say brought 76 as you claim. You can't tell me all of the 76 memberships (as you claim) actually showed up and participated. Memberships does not equal votes. You've twisted words to make that leap and fit your own narrative. Lets keep it bias free. PrimeNotice (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you're complaining about is coming from Houston's largest newspaper, the Houston Chronicle- not me. It's not biased, it's laying out the facts. Once again, what opinion articles have I cited? Did you make that up?

The article does not say 76 memberships were brought but you did. That's False. I am not disagreeing with the Chronicle. I am disagreeing with your edits to this page which do not match your citation.

Are you sure you read the chronicle article or researched the HGLBT caucus endorsement? If you did you'd agree with me. Turner purchased 76 memberships. Even his campaign admitted it to the Chronicle.

You take an article ^[2] as fact, when it strictly relies on an a man who the author claims is "Anti Turner." A There is a lot of language within that article showing his animosity against "Turner" anything he says is bias and his opinion.

That source backed up a statement describing Dolcefino's report. I didn't quote the anti-turner man in the article, I quoted the texas monthly (a reputable source)

The campaign purchased memberships but they did not say they purchased 76 like you claim in your postings. This war needs to end before they ban us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawksNotice (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it User:HawksNotice and User:PrimeNotice are the same people.

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sylvester Turner. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 20:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING - PLEASE STOP.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Turner-earns-endorsement-from-GLBT-caucus-6432994.php

[2] ttp://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-knows-everything/

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Are you sure you read the chronicle article or researched the HGLBT caucus endorsement? If you did you'd agree with me. Turner purchased 76 memberships. Even his campaign admitted it to the Chronicle.
-You take an article <ref>http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-knows-everything/</ref> as fact, when it strictly relies on an a man who the author claims is "Anti Turner." A There is a lot of language within that article showing his animosity against "Turner" anything he says is bias and his opinion. [[User:PrimeNotice|PrimeNotice]] ([[User talk:PrimeNotice|talk]]) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
+You take an article <ref>http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-man-who-knows-everything/</ref> as fact, when it strictly relies on an a man who the author claims is "Anti Turner." A There is a lot of language within that article showing his animosity against "Turner" anything he says is bias and his opinion.
 * That source backed up a statement describing Dolcefino's report. I didn't quote the anti-turner man in the article, I quoted the texas monthly (a reputable source)