186.4.1.34

March 2023

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ottawa Senators. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ravenswing 21:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You misread my edit. I did not introduce information. I removed incorrect information. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious you're not going to stop, until you're blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would I be blocked? You're the one who keeps inserting unsourced information. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ottawa Senators shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Whether your edit is valid or not, you cannot attempt to force it into the article by repeatedly changing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My edits are perfect consistent with Wikipedia policies and the BRD policy. GoodDay can't keep inserting unsourced information in the article after his edit has been reverted. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Then why have you not waited for the discussion to play out? You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. The next step is discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Check the edit history. GoodDay made an edit and I reverted it. He didn't wait for the discussion to play out. 186.4.1.34 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You have now violated the three revert rule. Would you like to self-revert, or would you prefer I enact a block? —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Since there was already a request for page protection, I have semi-protected the article for a month to prevent further edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

---