User talk:Bog5576

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

Bog5576 continues to add bias information that has been proven malicious in a court of law. Please review his future contributions to this page, which consistently aim to defame the biography.

That court case was overturned by the Texas supreme court. Please don't vandalize.

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. PrimeNotice (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

References

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]

Sylvester Turner

You are both guilty of edit-warring. You should be discussing this. If you don't, you will be blocked, I guarantee it.--ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, one of us is contributing notable cited material to the page. The other is deleting thousands of characters because he/she supports Turner. I doubt we'll be able to find resolution without admin intervention. I strongly urge anyone curious to read what I wrote and then compare it to the articles I cited. Bog5576 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bog5576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I stopped edit warring after first warning. The other edit-waree did not Bog5576 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

While you did go back and forth with other editors for quite a while, I agree you were not given fair warning. You have my apologies for studying the timestamps close enough - I simply misread. This is not to imply you weren't in the wrong, which I do believe you were, so I hope moving forward you will give more thought to engage in discussion. Thank you for your understanding — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:MusikAnimal. I disagree that I was in the wrong, however. Could you point to which of the many contributions I made were untrue or not properly sourced? In the article's current state, it no longer talks about Sylvester Turner's failed attempts to become mayor or the Dolcefino report (which was proven to be libelous by the Texas supreme court).

September 2015

Bog5576 continues to add the same malicious and biased information to this page. I request that another user moderates this user's future contributions because there seems to be blatant vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz08 (talk • contribs)

Adrian Garcia

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Usterday (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We both know you're on Garcia's payroll. You're not an admin, don't threaten to block my edit privileges. Bog5576 (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only discovered the Garcia article because of the Houston Chronicle piece written about your editing of Houston Mayoral candidate pages: here. I have an interest in helping to clean up the mess that the article mentions, but I have no interest in getting dragged into a fight over it. Usterday (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true why didn't you go after the other participants in the edit war? A one person edit war is pretty uneventful.Bog5576 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the community will investigate both sides of any edit war, you're the one I noticed being the most inflammatory in your edit summaries. I also, frankly, am of the opinion that your edits are not in line with WP:BLP. I hope this helps to clarify, as I have no intention of singling anyone out unfairly. Usterday (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bog5576, you are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. Your huge number of reverts at Sylvester Turner suggests you have no fear of any consequences, and no interest in discussion on talk pages to arrive at a neutral version. We sometimes make exceptions for well-intentioned but confused people, but in your case 'well-intentioned' would be a stretch. You choose wording that presents Turner in a bad light, and you're working on a topic where WP:BLP applies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the bottom line. I'm adding unflattering (yet cited and notable) information into some candidates' pages. People that work on their campaigns have repeatedly failed to remove the content because I was following Wikipedia's guidelines. Sometimes you have to revert a user's edits to protect important information. Unfortunately, that happened more than 3 times. The fact of the matter is that as election day approaches, more and more attempts will be made to undo these edits and erase important information.Bog5576 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:

You've been making dozens of reverts at Sylvester Turner. It seems your sole reason for being on Wikipedia is to slant the articles on candidates for mayor of Houston. You don't seem to understand the requirements of our WP:BLP policy. The full report of this case is at this AN3 report (permanent link). To request unblock, see WP:GAB EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bog5576. Your unblock request is malformed, so it won't get the usual attention from administrators. I'll fix the format if you give me permission. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please Bog5576 (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bog5576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Here's the bottom line. I'm adding unflattering (yet cited and notable) information into some candidates' pages. People that work on their campaigns have repeatedly failed to remove the content because I was following Wikipedia's guidelines. Sometimes I have had to revert a user's edits to protect important information. Unfortunately, I did this more than 3 times. The fact of the matter is that as election day approaches, more and more attempts will be made to undo these edits and erase important information. Additionally, no action has been taken against User:Adderz08, who reverted edits as many times as I did. I'm very open to promoting flattering or unflattering information on wikipedia. The only thing I've done is stop its entire removal. While I am guilty of breaking the 3RR, I seriously disagree with the indef punishment given in response. Bog5576 (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've reverted to your preferred version 55 times, and seem to be promising to do so again if unblocked. This is an editorial dispute, like any other, and should be resolved with our normal methods for dispute resolution and discussion. Your edit summaries and messages above make it clear that you will not respect this collaborative arrangement, so the block and its duration are appropriate. Kuru (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sock puppetry Investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bog5576. Thank you. Usterday (talk) 06:59, 17 October 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]