Green red tan

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theresa Greenfield (September 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Theresa Greenfield, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Green red tan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing?

Hello Green red tan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Green red tan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Green red tan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong! I totally see how you may have that impression, as I am editing a political page. I am not a paid for this work. I work as a data scientist and am just trying to make a candidate known to the public. Please let me know if there is any info you need! Green red tan (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for making a candidate known to the public, I should try social media. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please Help!

My edits to the R programming language got deleted and flagged as vandalism and I don't know why. Any help would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green red tan (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by a bot, so it's not always easy to give a firm explanation. I can't say the bot is capable of discerning when you are providing excessive detail or citing to primary sources, but if it were a human editor who reverted you I could imagine those as possible reasons. You could try again with different references and see if you have better luck. If not, it would be time to open a talk page section and see if other editors involved with the page agree with your changes and can help you make them stick. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by above, ClueBot is a bot to combat vandalism, and in most cases it's very good at what it does. However, ClueBot assumes that everything is written with proper English grammar and syntax; therefore, when you put in something like stringsAsFactors = FALSE and data.frame() ([1]), it doesn't see it as lines of code, but rather an all-caps word commonly found in vandalism and parenthesis that don't make sense. I've also reported the false positive. Next time, it's good practice to encapsulate the lines of code in <code>, which puts the code in a different font to distinguish it from regular text. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield § Discussion on whether cited material should be included or excluded

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield § Discussion on whether cited material should be included or excluded. Peaceray (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)