Changes

:After IIO complained that I had moved the Vietnamese city of Can Tho to a non-diacritic title, MSGJ blocked me. As I had made this move over nine months earlier, I was unblocked almost immediately by Jenks24. Several unsuccessful proposals to topic ban me followed. After I was blocked for opposing the merger of my article on Sino-Vietnamese characters, there was yet another ANI discussion about me. Although this was just a rehashed of old accusations, I was not allowed to defend myself this time around. So the result was a ban.

:After IIO complained that I had moved the Vietnamese city of Can Tho to a non-diacritic title, MSGJ blocked me. As I had made this move over nine months earlier, I was unblocked almost immediately by Jenks24. Several unsuccessful proposals to topic ban me followed. After I was blocked for opposing the merger of my article on Sino-Vietnamese characters, there was yet another ANI discussion about me. Although this was just a rehashed of old accusations, I was not allowed to defend myself this time around. So the result was a ban.

*'''It was entrapment'''. My article on Sino-Vietnamese characters has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and anything else remotely resembling a hot-button issue. These characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. Several editors involved whad not previously made Vietnam-related edits, but nonetheless developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. I assume this group was assembled by IIO through email. These editors had a curiously vindictive attitude. After an article gets merged, demanding that the author be blocked is not logically the next step. I assume the idea was to tempt me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never exceed the three-revert limit, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions WP:3RRNO], page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction.

*'''It was entrapment'''. My article on Sino-Vietnamese characters has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and anything else remotely resembling a hot-button issue. These characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. Several editors involved whad not previously made Vietnam-related edits, but nonetheless developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. I assume this group was assembled by IIO through email. These editors had a curiously vindictive attitude. After an article gets merged, demanding that the author be blocked is not logically the next step. I assume the idea was to tempt me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never exceed the three-revert limit, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions WP:3RRNO], page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction. The merger has resulted in material I wrote concerning the status of Sino-Vietnamese characters in Unicode being moved to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%E1%BB%AF_n%C3%B4m Nom] article, although most of these characters have nothing to do with Nom.

*'''Diacritics'''. In July and August of 2011, there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29/Diacritics_RfC an RFC on diacritics] with a very large participation. This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of ''Britannica'' and ''National Geographic''. Although these two publications represent the most diacritic-friendly style models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Nor did anyone in the discussion suggest that they should be added. I rewrote the Vietnam naming guideline to reflect the apparent consensus of the RFC. I also made various article moves to comply with this rewritten guideline. The changes I made to the guideline, as well as the article moves I made, were in effect for over two years.

*'''Diacritics'''. In July and August of 2011, there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29/Diacritics_RfC an RFC on diacritics] with a very large participation. This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of ''Britannica'' and ''National Geographic''. Although these two publications represent the most diacritic-friendly style models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Nor did anyone in the discussion suggest that they should be added. I rewrote the Vietnam naming guideline to reflect the apparent consensus of the RFC. I also made various article moves to comply with this rewritten guideline. The changes I made to the guideline, as well as the article moves I made, were in effect for over two years.