User talk:Riceissa

A barnstar for you!

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

Reference errors on 21 January

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 false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Timeline of senescence research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain View (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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]

As a paid editor...

You should not be editing on behalf of your employer, which is effectively what you were doing by reverting my edit to Form 1040. As Vipul, your employer, also requested that article, you have a COI if you're going to team-edit on articles he has requested. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and dispensing tax advice without a disclaimer is not legal per the IRS' guidelines. That article is heading too much in that direction by discussing who can and cannot use which form, and what income classifications are on it. If you wish to dispute the policy, by all means bring it up over there. MSJapan (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

3RR warning

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 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Thanks for your edits on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation article, in particular adding the table with funding. I saw your reply on the talk page; I hope to look into it further in the coming days/weeks (am currently bogged down with other stuff); I think this is very useful information. Thanks a lot! EvMsmile (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Thank you for bringing back the "Donald Trump "compromised" claims" article

Just want to thank you for bringing that back.