User talk:Gogo g2002

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I understand I added unsourced or poorly sourced content. I would like to ask what can I do to be unblocked. :) Gogo g2002 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2024 (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).

Gogo g2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello! I understand my mistake. I would like to ask what could I do to be able to edit again. :)

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. Yamla (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2024 (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.

New unblocking request

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).

Gogo g2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello again! I understand that I was blocked for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. I am sorry and in the future I will try to make my edits useful and non-harmful.

Decline reason:

We'll need more than your promise here. Please tell what steps you will take to address the concerns about your editing; it would help to give an example of a properly sourced edit. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2024 (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.

Hello again, 331dot! First of all, I need to check if the information has sources. An editor should be respectful and objective and ask for help when needed. If I decide to create an article, I have to create it as a draft and submit it for approval. Here is an example:

Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match. Gogo g2002 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Please make a new unblock request. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

New unblocking request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gogo g2002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello again, 331dot! First of all, I need to check if the information has sources. An editor should be respectful and objective and ask for help when needed. If I decide to create an article, I have to create it as a draft and submit it for approval. Here is an example:

Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello again, [[User:331dot|331dot]]! First of all, I need to check if the information has sources. An editor should be respectful and objective and ask for help when needed. If I decide to create an article, I have to create it as a draft and submit it for approval. Here is an example: :Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello again, [[User:331dot|331dot]]! First of all, I need to check if the information has sources. An editor should be respectful and objective and ask for help when needed. If I decide to create an article, I have to create it as a draft and submit it for approval. Here is an example: :Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello again, [[User:331dot|331dot]]! First of all, I need to check if the information has sources. An editor should be respectful and objective and ask for help when needed. If I decide to create an article, I have to create it as a draft and submit it for approval. Here is an example: :Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Would you be able to review our guideline on close paraphrasing and explain it to me? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the guideline. Close paraphrasing is the superficial change of information from another source. It is allowed along with citation as long as it is not a danger to the copyright of the source. Otherwise, it may lead to plagiarism. Close paraphrasing is permitted if the material is in the public domain and does not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy.

The proper way of paraphrasing is when the editor extracts the information from reliable sources, structuring the text with his own writing style. It would be helpful to take notes and then review the already written material. Gogo g2002 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"It is allowed along with citation as long as it is not a danger to the copyright of the source" – that is flat-out incorrect. Please re-read the page I linked. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, I made a mistake.

Limited close paraphrasing is acceptable when the material does not breach the copyrights or when the same thing can only be expressed in a few different ways. Gogo g2002 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Good! Would you be able to reevaluate the sentence you submitted with your newfound knowledge about close paraphrasing? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is the edited text regarding my newfound knowledge about close paraphrasing:

Close paraphrasing is the superficial change of information from another source. It is acceptable in limited amounts when the material does not breach the copyrights or when the same thing can only be expressed in a few different ways. Otherwise, it may lead to plagiarism. Close paraphrasing is permitted if the material is in the public domain and does not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy.

The proper way of paraphrasing is when the editor extracts the information from reliable sources, structuring the text with his own writing style. It would be helpful to take notes and then review the already written material. Gogo g2002 (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not talking about the bit about close paraphrasing. I want you to revise the sentence Manchester City suffered a 4-1 defeat against Sporting CP in a Champions League match. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this edited version of the sentence would be better:

Sporting CP achieved a remarkable victory, beating Manchester City 4-1 in a UEFA Champions League match. Gogo g2002 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I am alright to unblock per the standard offer, given that it has been almost two years since they were blocked; do you have any objections? I am not in love with the fact that we needed to go over close paraphrasing, but reblocks are cheap. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References