User talk:Dhawell.hlugalay

February 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Aung San Suu Kyi. 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 your sandbox. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly believe and can prove that all my edits are with valid references from credible sources. I have used the United Nations Protocol; the Myanmar 2008 Constitution; and the State Counsellor Bill plus a few other reliable sources. Please specifically mention which edit has broken which rule; never ever do blanket reverts, which is a total disregard of wikipedia community rules. I have also discovered that your reverts have violated WP:PUBLISHED rule. You are making assumption instead of using reliable sources. International media have only reported "under house arrest". Then, you have made your own conclusion (i.e. a primary source) which is in total disregard of wikipedia Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY rule. I will give you one specific example. For example, if certain insurgents had a control over The White House and detained the President of The United States (POTUS), then could you say he was no longer the President. Definitely not, he is still a POTUS by the US Constitution and his presidency can be taken away only by means of the US Constitution. Please make sure you do have non-primary reliable sources with more validity than my sources when you do the next whatever reverts or edits. Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Aung San Suu Kyi, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few of the many reliable sources covering the coup: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing (repeatedly inserting fabrications).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

unreasonable attempt to suppress civil discussion

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

UTRS 40700

UTRS appeal #40700 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Feb, 2022

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).

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

---

Request reason:

After reviewing through my past history of changes, I did see that I did revert one time each in both articles affected during ongoing discussion with the editor who reverted. My apology for these two reverts during ongoing discussion when no conclusion hasn't reached yet, which I admitted that totally against the protocol. In any case, now the block is already one year old and I understood why I was blocked.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for "ethno-national fabrications" but haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

---

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:: should I add the explanation here or should I open a new unblock request? Please advise and thank you. Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You are free to make a new unblock request. WP:GAB goes into more detail. --Yamla (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)