User talk:NhatMinh1701

Status parameter in Infobox former country

The status parameter is in Template:Infobox country for a reason. It summarizes key political aspects of a country, which being a tributary state is. For tributary/vassal relationships, it provides information on the critical aspects of independence and foreign relations. This is done elsewhere across WP, like at Joseon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say a tributary relationship is more like a diplomatic relationship while a vassal relationship is more of a political relationship. The infobox is about political and historical information, not diplomacy.--NhatMinh1701 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated; The various dynasties have been described as both a tributary state and as a vassal state, with the former being widely accepted and the latter being somewhat widespread. As this academic paper] notes (particularly in reference to post-1427 Lê, Tây Sơn, and Nguyễn dynasties):

In Beijing and toward Beijing, Vietnam was a vassal, but away from Beijing and to itself, Vietnam was China's equal. Vietnam provided a show of deference while closely guarding its own interests and autonomy, and China maintained its attitude of official serenity by accepting deferential ritual as reality and by turning inward to avoid conflict. The tributary system was one of mutual recognition, but not one of sovereign equality.

This academic paper also describes how the Ming were obligated to provide military support to the Lê under the relationship, which fits under the definitions of vassal states and protectorates. It's certainly a significant subordinate relationship that should be described in the IB, at the very least as a tributary state. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Joseon example was removed by the IP (but also seemed to be recently introduced), here are others: Ryukyu Kingdom, Emirate of Granada, Lanfang Republic, Kingdom of Chiang Mai, Kingdom of Larantuka, Duchy of Brittany. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Viet was not an ancient Vietnam's official name

The name "Dai Viet" - Great Yue was limited in regional usage, ancient Vietnamese history books and scholaric books only, actually people had used the dynasty name. http://giaothong24h.vn/DANH-NHAN-HA-TINH-Tien-sy-TRAN-VIET-THU---TE-TUU-QUOC-TU-GIAM-1002-820143112235607202.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:C42C:E57:AFDB:17AC (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of flags of Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (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).

NhatMinh1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a new wikipedia editor and I don't know much about the rules off wikipedia. I did have multiple accounts but I don't use them to vandal. My contributions to wikipedia are mostly about the history and culture and I considered them helpful contexts

Decline reason:

You seem to think your abuse of multiple accounts was okay. It wasn't. See WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2020 (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.

@Yamla: Why?--NhatMinh1701 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCK. This is explained in that policy. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2020 (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).

NhatMinh1701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I used the account MokkuiCochinchina to edit the page Phú Quốc in Cambodian wiki because I saw wrong information (it said "Vietnamese people have lived on the island since 2002", however, the when Pierre Pigneau de Behaine arrived in the island in 1770, he stated that "the people on the island speak Vietnamese, not Khmer", also this was recorded during the period when prince Nguyễn Ánh of Nguyễn clan was hiding on the island to avoid being killed by the Tây Sơn dynasty) I used another account to edit the page Joseon, to add more information (status parameter) to it. I don't think my edits were harmful and violated the rules

Decline reason:

You may not think that you violated the rules, and you're entitled to your opinion, but I count four site administrators, myself included, who disagree. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:31, 22 May 2020 (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.

If you don't think your actions violated WP:SOCK, there's nothing more we can do for you. We should revoke talk page access, as you are a lost cause. --Yamla (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that you may only have one account right? Having other accounts is allowed in only a handful of specific circumstances, and only if you publicly declare them upon creation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: No, I said I'm a new wikipedian and I don't know much about the rules. However, when they left a warning on my talk page, they said "multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reason is not". I personally don't think my acts were illegitimate

In that case, you lack sufficient competence to understand WP:SOCK, which we've repeatedly pointed you at. As such, I am revoking talk page access. We require that our editors are sufficiently able to read and understand our policies; you have clearly indicated you are unable to do so and therefore, this is the end of the line for you. Another admin will be along shortly to review your request. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.