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's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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.

Accept reason:

Unblocking per the standard offer as a WP:LASTCHANCE. Please keep in mind our guidelines on close paraphrasing, verifiability, and citations to reliable sources. Given there has been no response from HJM, I am proceeding with an unblock. If you need anything, I am here to help; let me know on my talk page. Good luck. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, HouseBlaster! Going through the guideline on close paraphrasing helped me to be able to enrich my knowledge on the topic. Gogo g2002 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hello! Is there any update on my unblocking situation? Best, Gogo g2002 (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the nudge. I have lifted you block. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster: I am a little surprised to see a block lifted two months after sockpupettering Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gogo g2002/Archive. Muhandes (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll be honest: I missed that; I was focused on their contributions.

  Reblocking at this point would be punitive, but Gogo g2002, you got away with this one. Don't waste this chance. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you again! I will try not to commit any more violations in the future. Gogo g2002 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, you are right back at it. In this edit you added a PROMUSICAE certification for Ayer with the following text: * PROMUSICAE: Gold<ref>{{cite certification|region=Spain|artist=Anuel AA|title=Ayer}}</ref> which sources it here: "Spanish certifications – Anuel AA – Ayer". El portal de Música. Productores de Música de España. This citation is bogus and never worked. Pinging HouseBlaster as well.
  ETA: Not a singular case. On the same edit you add * PROMUSICAE: Gold<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.elportaldemusica.es/single/brytiago-anuel-aa-kilerito|title=Brytiago / Anuel AA – Kilerito|publisher=[[Productores de Música de España]]|website=el portal de musica|accessdate=November 26, 2024}}</ref>. That URL https://www.elportaldemusica.es/single/brytiago-anuel-aa-kilerito is, again, bogus and never worked. The correct URL for this song is https://www.elportaldemusica.es/single/-928 and it doesn't show a certification.
  ETA2: The following one is not false information, but it shows you don't care about sources. You created La Jeepeta and the source for PROMUSICAE you give is, again, a bogus one. In this case I was able to correct it. Muhandes (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh. I have reblocked and will review their edits later today. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Muhandes, has this user had a crash course in WP:RS already, and do they understand what Secondary sources are? I was looking at that elportalmusica website and I can't even figure out what it is--but I can see that it looks primary, and I have to log in. Not what I would call a proper source for anything. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  They were blocked for adding unsourced content in 2022. I unblocked them a month ago per WP:SO, and they went right back to adding content with citations which do not back up the content. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, @Muhandes and @HouseBlaster! I would like to say that the certifications that I posted as an edit were listed on the EPDM website. I can even provide you with a screenshot as proof. The certification for "Kilerito" was noted in the 43rd week of 2024. Now I checked and suddenly it turns out that there are no certifications reflected. I am ready to provide proof. Gogo g2002 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please do. I apologize in advance in case I was wrongly accusing you, but you have do understand I find it very hard to assume good faith considering you took the standard offer and "forgot" to mention your sockpuppetry. However, if you have proof that www.elportaldemusica.es website remove the certifications on Ayer and Kilerito, let's see it. Mind you, that still doesn't explain the La Jeepeta case in which you didn't bother to make sure your sources work, something we do expect you to do. Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello again, @Muhandes! Regarding the La Jeepeta case, that's why I make my articles as drafts, so that a mistake I make cannot cause harm to the final version. Regarding the screenshot I have with the certification, I don't know if it's appropriate and if in this way I won't violate the copyright of the website www.elportaldemusica.es. I don't want to have any future problems, but I'm ready to provide proof anyway.

  Otherwise, now I understand what you mean about the sources, thanks! Gogo g2002 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mírame (Blessd song) has been accepted

Mírame (Blessd song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: La Jeepeta has been accepted

La Jeepeta, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Reblocked

I have reblocked you for continuing the behavior which got you blocked. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. You know how to appeal, but you should know that I will object to an unblock in the next few years. You blew your chance. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @HouseBlaster! I understand your disspaointment. I explained the misunderstanding about my edit above in answer to you and @Muhandes. I am ready to provide a screenshot I took the day I made the edit. But I am worried about whether I can post it according to copyright. Gogo g2002 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Given I also found issues at Mírame (Blessd and Ovy on the Drums song), so proving you were correct in the one instance is not going to be sufficient. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand. That's why I make articles as drafts. So that a mistake I made in the draft cannot affect the content and the final version of the article. That's why I focused mainly on draft articles after unblocking, so that I don't cause damage and so that any mistakes I made could not harm the final version. Gogo g2002 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)