User talk:Phan Ni Mai

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Battle of Cedar Creek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tgeairn (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Battle of Belle Grove ‎ /Battle of Cedar Creek. When the block expires, please discuss your reasons for the changes you wish to make, rather than trying to force your version through by 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article to its previous, stable version, which appears to be supported by reliable sources. I note that neither participant in this move/edit war used the talkpage: it's there for a reason. Should the move war resume, I will pursue escalating sanctions against the warring parties. I also note that both accounts were created at the same time and show remarkably simultaneous development and editing history: can you explain this?  Acroterion   (talk)   02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since it is clear that this account was created only for vandalism, it has been blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)