User talk:Rivselis

A kitten for you!
The true welcome to wikipedia happens after being accused of sockpuppetry. Nice to have you around! Sorry about the unemployment.

&#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 

Yes, I was accused of being a sock when I first created this account because I knew my way around the site and now I'm an admin. People will first be suspicious with newish accounts but good editing work can allay any concerns they might have. Don't let it get you down or become bitter. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I should just add that spending too much of your time at ANI will cause people to be suspicious of you. I weighed in on a lot of cases when I was a new editor and it came back to bite me at my RFA. In general, editors like to see you put in time editing articles, being productive, not getting involved at the "drama boards". So be warned about that. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am undecided if I want to pursue the mop at all, to be honest. Rivselis (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

 * I originally conducted a check on Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. under the CheckUser policy. Particularly Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. and Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. from WP:BADSOCK. I was then contacted by a steward who provided me with technical data that connected the accounts. It is connected technically, and this data is available to any other CheckUser to review if they email me. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm confused. The notice says I was banned for being a sock of banned user Neotarf, while your stated rationale above for the check came from Undisclosed Accounts being used in internal discussions, not block evasion. Rivselis (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Collar Of Shame LolCat.jpg


The file File:Collar Of Shame LolCat.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)