LH Chicago

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Carl Raschke shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

This guy bloodofox is deleting every single edit I make even when I follw exactly WP rules or answer his own criticisms. Can someone pleasssee stop him. I ask that he be blocked from deleting my edits and let others weigh in which no one does. This is insane.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

LH Chicago, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LH Chicago! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Carl Raschke has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Carl Raschke was changed by LH Chicago (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.906458 on 2016-01-11T23:48:04+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Carl Raschke shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jim1138 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jim1138. Why don't you actually look at the Talk page? And check his edits rather than sending me this stuff? bloodofox has consistently violated WP policy on neutrality and violation of "living person" biography regard sourced quotes. He just doesnt quite like energizer bunny in violating policy and reverts everything I or anyone edits on this entry, not other way around. You have no reason to defend him and spite my complaints or appeals no one cares or intervenes. Nobody stops him which tells me Wikipedia doesnt care about its own policy, which opens you to lawsuits. I have tried to deal with him on Talk Page but he just keeps on. I've reverted him for WPs own policy. Check the edits AND the policy!!!! Dont send me this stuff again until you review what has been said and what edits have been made. If you cant observe Wikipedias own policy, you are just as corrupt as him!!!!! Do you really want to the nazi point of view having the say on WP? I think not. If you take his side you are going to to be complicit. So dont give me this phony righous crap! You can block me but I know theres already stuff coming down and you will have to give account, ok? Your promoting nazism. Nuf said.LH Chicago (talk)LH_Chicago

3RR is 3RR. Take it to WP:BLPN if you are so concerned. Revert again and you will likely be wp:blocked Jim1138 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, threaten me. I have taken my complaints to all the BB and no one gives a damn. WP is protecting nazis. Puleease realize that bloodofox reverted me three times, not the other way around, and you go after me, not him. WP is likeNorh Korea, or the Third Reich. Check the logs, asshole, and if you want to block me, that's fine. Im fed up with the hypocrisy of Wikipedia, which is sexist and racist (which is already out on the internet) and pro-nazi and encourages these people to violate its own stated policies. You will be sued! You will be busted! Heil Wikipedia! I salute! Should I goosestep too?

You appear to have added nothing to BLPN until after my 3RR notice. BTW, there is an ongoing discussion there already WP:BLPN#Carl Raschke. To add a link to a user, use {{u|bloodofox}}, not [[bloodofox]] the the former is for the user page, latter for an article, of which, does not exist. I patched up a link or two on your BLPN entry. Jim1138 (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont speek nerd and have no idea what you are talking about. I repeat, WP is sexist and racist in the way WP is treating me, and the way it kowtoes to bloodofox proves the deck is stacked. You are supporting nazis and you know it. You let all this shit about wiccans and myself be said and you hide behind anonyity. It is a total joke that you claim to be academically respectable when you are just a bunch of posers. (bloodo)fox you. Block me, I dare you. I can take this to the rest of the internet, and you know it. I will expose WP for what it really is, a racist and sexist sewer. I hope you get fired from your job.LH Chicago (talk)LH_Chicago

My apology, BLPN is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where discussion of violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are thrashed to death and then some. Discussion usually revolves around Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass needs to be read by more editors. bloodofox was warned with being blocked as well. Check the page. I can't block you, I am not an wp:administrator.

Please don't edit on Carl Raschke anymore until this is resolved. All of that stuff has probably been there awhile and a little bit longer shouldn't make too much a difference. Editing more will likely make it harder for you to argue your case. I would strongly suggest you go the the page history and "undo" your edit. Jim1138 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)