User talk:Zanvanila

Zanvanila, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zanvanila! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

lala Zanvanila (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, as to explain what was the real situation to what has happened in the investigation below; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSHMS/Archive

I hope I can get your attention on this post User:Bbb23, User:GAB, User:SlimVirgin and those who involved in the investigation.

I was shocked to be notified that MS1722:2011 page has been deleted. Though, thanks to User:Bbb23 that mentioned me in the investigation, or I wouldn't even know that we have been involved in the investigation. I cannot reply in the discussion since my account has been blocked.

So, here goes.

There is actually a simple explaination why the accounts (OSHMS, Oshmsgempak, Oshmsbest, GPsatu2016, Shkrishk, Zanvanila, Joko ranger) were suspected for sock-puppet, meat-puppet, abusively use and so on. I actually do not know these terms, they were aliens for a Wikipedia newbie like me. Btw, great job for the Checkusers, but I do like if you were to clarify with us first and not jump to conclusions and just blocked our accounts just like that.

Actually, each accounts were owned by the individual itself, no multiple account per person. We are actually completing our class assignment, that requires us to make 3 wiki pages relating to OSH field. So, the 3 titles mentioned (MS1722:2011, Recreation in OHSAS18001&MS1722, and Occupational Safety and Health Management System) are made by the 3 groups respectively.

We actually do not know about the rule, one editor per article thing. We just want to help each other out. Like for my group, our main editor is Shkrishk, whereas me, Zanvanila and Joko ranger just help out in the editting like inserting pictures and so on. So as the other 2 groups.

We are new to Wikipedia, still learning and discovering it :)

All in all, I sincerely ask for the checkusers/admins attention, advise and consideration. We have no intention whatsoever in violating the rules by sockpuppeting. We just want to share our knowledge so that it can benefit others. I hope the three pages can be undeleted, and our accounts unblocked, we will try our best to meet the specifications that Wikipedia wants it. Thank you :) Zanvanila (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Simple Explaination :)

Hi all, as to explain what was the real situation to what has happened in the investigation below; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSHMS/Archive

I hope I can get your attention on this post Bbb23, GAB, SlimVirgin and those who involved in the investigation.

I was shocked to be notified that Wikipedia:MS1722:2011 page has been deleted. Though, thanks to Bbb23 that mentioned me in the investigation, or I wouldn't even know that we have been involved in the investigation. I cannot reply in the discussion since my account has been blocked.

So, here goes.

There is actually a simple explaination why the accounts (OSHMS, Oshmsgempak, Oshmsbest, GPsatu2016, Shkrishk, Zanvanila, Joko ranger) were suspected for sock-puppet, meat-puppet, abusively use and so on. I actually do not know these terms, they were aliens for a Wikipedia newbie like me. Btw, great job for the Checkusers, but I do like if you were to clarify with us first and not jump to conclusions and just blocked our accounts just like that.

Actually, each accounts were owned by the individual itself, no multiple account per person. We are actually completing our class assignment, that requires us to make 3 wiki pages relating to OSH field. So, the 3 titles mentioned (Wikipedia:MS1722:2011, Wikipedia:Recreation in OHSAS18001&MS1722, and Wikipedia:Occupational Safety and Health Management System) are made by the 3 groups respectively.

We actually do not know about the rule, one editor per article thing. We just want to help each other out. Like for my group, our main editor is Shkrishk, whereas me, Zanvanila and Joko ranger just help out in the editting like inserting pictures and so on. So as the other 2 groups.

We are new to Wikipedia, still learning and discovering it :)

All in all, I sincerely ask for the checkusers/admins attention, advise and consideration. We have no intention whatsoever in violating the rules by sockpuppeting. We just want to share our knowledge so that it can benefit others. I hope the three pages can be undeleted, and our accounts unblocked, we will try our best to meet the specifications that Wikipedia wants it. Thank you :) Zanvanila (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat the same explanation. Once is enough. If this was a class assignment, it was poorly managed, both by the teacher, whoever that is, and the students. Some of the blocks were on December 23, but some were days earlier. Yet no one requested an unblock or offered any kind of reason for the abusive editing. Also, many of the articles were deleted over time, meaning a bunch were deleted on May December 13, and then more on May December 17, and then more later. You'd think that the student would realize something is wrong and start talking to other editors at Wikipedia. Instead, everyone continued to create additional articles that don't comply with Wikipedia rules and had to be deleted. It's a little late in the day for you to say, oh, we didn't know we were doing anything wrong. You don't have to be familiar with Wikipedia policy to figure out that something is wrong, even if you need help understanding precisely what it is. Based on the technical characteristics of many of the accounts, I'm not convinced that you are all separate people, but what concerns me most is the disruption to Wikipedia and how this kind of assignment is helpful to you. For example, some students created articles that were simply copied and pasted from other sources and were deleted as copyright infringement. Forget about Wikipedia. Is this something that's okay for you to do? Editors are supposed to improve Wikipedia in some fashion. Otherwise, they don't belong here. I suggest you strongly rethink what you want to use Wikipedia for if you were unblocked. I might also suggest that you wait a period of time, at least three months, before requesting an unblock so administrators here can see that you've really put some thought into the question.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Bbb23,

sorry for the redundancy. ok I admit that we have poorly manage to pull off the assignments. but the articles you mentioned on May 13 and May 17, I do not think that relates to ours. ours started around december. if you are referring to the ip address for the technical characteristics, I think that's because we share the same college wifi and laptops. ok, I know it's late when I just started to bring this up, yes, I have only realized it, no one is taking action among my peers, and I know I have to because this is wikipedia. I do take wikipedia seriously, I am not trying to make additional accounts to cover things up, but I am trying to contact the administrators for help. no offense really. I do appreciate your reply on this matter. I also do not know how to resolve this problem, that's why I am asking for your help. sorry if my request on unblocking and undeleting seems a bit rude. thank you. Zanvanila (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The May business was my error. It was supposed to be December 13 and 17 (I've struck and corrected the two references). Maybe I wanted it to be May so it would be warmer. You're not being rude, but I don't think you've made much of a case for being unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

hmm, I am not really making such a case, I thought that I would be notified first before I was block. so I can like involve in the investigation first but maybe not. nothing much on that. just out of defense maybe.

it's just that, when you said you are concern about the disruption of wikipedia and how the assignment is helpful to us, that really hits me. I know it's not okay for us to make a mess here. so, maybe there's something we can try to undo the mess?

what it is to us? hmm, actually, the assignment mere objective is to produce pages regarding osh field topics, since it is no where yet in wiki about the osh standards that is currently been used in our country. with the pages is up, maybe we can somehow contribute to the society by giving them easy access through wikipedia. since we know that wikipedia is widely used all over the world. on the copyright issues, we will work on that, but we do refer to the real standards to begin with, from what we learn in class.

it just happen to be so messed up, when we get to being editors in wiki part. maybe we take it too easily, not that seriously on making the pages. we haven't put much attention in learning how to be wiki editors, not considering that wikipedia has its own standards. I was just so taken a back, that's all I guess.

thank you. Zanvanila (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)