User talk:Riceissa

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice start! Vipul (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Form 1099-MISC page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	eeeeee Vipul (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be editing on behalf of your employer, which is effectively what you were doing by reverting my edit to

Can you point to the specific IRS policy that says "dispensing tax advice without a disclaimer is not legal"? I was paid to write the article not to revert your redirection, which I did on my own; can you please explain to me how this would violate Wikipedia's CoI policy? Can you substantiate your claim that I am "team-edit[ing]"? Your actual objection to the article seems to be about specific content within the article not whether the topic is notable. Can you please justify your redirection? Riceissa (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's called Circular 230. Go look it up. It's a COI because you have a relationship with the user who requested the article, as well as anyone who works for that editor. Thus you are team-editing on his behalf. It's being redirected because

Wikipedia is not a how-to, and as long as the article is going to describe what goes in what field, what the filing statuses are, and so forth, it is a how-to on how to do taxes.MSJapan (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Form 1040 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MSJapan (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the

Hello, Riceissa. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank you for bringing that back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momomo952 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi issaa Ethanbas (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

meoww

meoww

meow

meow

meow

meow

meow

meow

meow

meow

meowwww

hii

(n choose 0) - (n choose 1) + (n choose 2) - ... +- (n choose n) = 0 :O how could it be???? nandat/ee

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Tymon.r just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you! Your page is alright and has been marked as reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Tymon.r's talk page.

Learn more about

Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good work! :) If your are knowledgable in the license domain, the license compatibility article would require more love.... ;) cheers Shaddim (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) PS: your page https://issarice.com/wikipedia is quite interesting. Seems we are philosophical on the same page. :) Shaddim (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

New thread Corporation timelines opened about SEO link insertion. - Bri (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Timeline of digital preservation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Due to synthesis and original research, article is not salvageable into something suitable for Wikipedia.

WP:COIN

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bri.public (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a thread on the paid editing enterprise at ANI for community consideration.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

The article Timeline of global health you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Timeline of global health for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of nonprofit evaluation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of nonprofit evaluation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion, your editing privileges have been revoked for abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. See

@MER-C: You may also want to block the alternative account that this user owns to refrain sock puppetry (if anything happens) SportsLair (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your indef! Ethanbas (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Riceissa (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got indef'd, Lol. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I am currently indefinitely blocked, so what does "Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal health program" mean? Riceissa (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amanda Glassman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Glassman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BEHAVE! STOP ADDING PRIMARY SOURCED DONATION DATA Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AND DON'T INDEX YOUR DARN USER PAGES Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Riceissa, but pending that discussion I have reblocked the account. If there's anything you wish to ad there, feel free to ping Softlavender or me and we'll be happy to spread the word. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I would like to express my support for unbanning Riceissa. Riceissa has been working on https://timelines.issarice.com/wiki/Main_Page. You can take a look at the timelines there and see that he does good work, and has never aimed for any sort of SEO or done any malicious work on Wikipedia. Why was he blocked and not I? It's ridiculous. He's 10 times more productive than I am. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants by focus area has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Professional consensus of economics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional consensus of economics (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Magit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#Magit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tea2min (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My understanding is that I was blocked for some combination of paid editing, SEO spamming, and use of index tags on userspace pages (see the ANI thread). My responses are:

• Paid editing: I understand that this is very controversial on Wikipedia, which is something I did not appreciate/anticipate back in 2017. (My understanding is that it doesn't go against any hard rules but a lot of editors on the site really dislike it.) I will not edit for payment if I am unblocked. Additionally the person who was paying for my work, User:Vipul, no longer pays people to make edits.
• SEO spamming: I never engaged in "SEO spamming". I created informational articles about a variety of topics, and none of my material was promotional (a lot of my work was about global health and government forms). I believe the editors who wanted to block me have a deletionist bent and did not want to see articles written about topics they considered not notable enough. Even some of the articles mentioned as promotional in the ANI thread, such as Slate Star Codex, have since been re-created by others because the topics did end up being considered notable enough.
• Index tags on userspace pages: I understand that this looks suspicious, even though as far as I know there was no rule at the time against their usage. If I am unblocked I will not use index tags on my userspace pages. Riceissa (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only—as this is up for community discussion, there is no need for an open unblock request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This will need a community discussion, is this the statement that you would like transferred to a noticeboard? I will note that paid editing is permitted if disclosed, see

Ok sure, and yes, it's fine to use the above as my statement. The paid editing was disclosed from the start. Riceissa (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request of Riceissa. If you have any responses, you may place them here. 331dot (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you. There's some questions of why I decided to use index tags on my userspace pages back in 2017, so I'd like to respond to that. My thinking at the time, though it's been a long time and seems pretty naive now, was that I wanted to start writing a draft of an article and then have others help improve it, so that eventually the article would be ready to be published to mainspace. I know there's a special draftspace for this sort of thing, and I'm not quite sure why I didn't use it (User:Vipul liked using userspace for drafts back then and I learned how to edit Wikipedia from him, so perhaps I was just copying his behavior without fully understanding why). But anyway, in the context of all of this, the index tags were a way to make it easier for potential editors to find the page (I know experienced Wikipedians have no trouble finding article drafts like this, but I believed at that time that there was a long tail of knowledgeable people who could contribute but who wouldn't be searching on Wikipedia itself, who might find my drafts via internet search). Anyway, I believe that was my reasoning at the time. Since then I've become a lot more pessimistic about people helping me write articles like this so I wouldn't bother putting index tags to make it easier for people to find my drafts. Riceissa (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I forgot to use the template to notify you of my reply. Not sure if you're checking this talk page for replies. Riceissa (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will transfer it. 331dot (talk)

@331dot and Seraphimblade: What happens now? It seems like the thread has now moved to the archives without much discussion. Riceissa (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade and Drmies: I would interpret that as the community not objecting to removing the block, but I'm not sure if we need an affirmative statement to do so or if that is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in the case of a community ban, an actual affirmative "Yes, they're unbanned" consensus and close is required, but if it's just an indef and no one is really objecting to an unblock, I don't see it as unreasonable to go forward after the chance to object has been provided. To my knowledge, this is just an indef, not a ban, so I should think the second would apply. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would like to hear from Drmies, though. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblad, 331dot, how odd that this just disappeared into the archives. I agree with you, Seraphimblade, in principle, but I also didn't see anyone supporting an unblock. I really don't have much of a problem with it, though, so if you two are thinking an unblock is OK, go for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Seraphimblade, and Drmies: I am following up on this, as I am still blocked. Riceissa (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there didn't seem to be a major community objection(and it's not a formal community ban), I will go ahead and remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]