User talk:GoldCar

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 16)

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:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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 User:GoldCar/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! GoldCar, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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) 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johndale Solem

It doesn't matter which title is used, because the redirects work. The problem is that there is an existing article, and the draft in your sandbox is superior to the existing article, but cannot be moved over it. I suggest that you, first, go to the AFD on the existing article, and request that it be either deleted or history-merged, and, second, go to Requested Moves and request a possibly controversial move. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Abiogenisis

I saw your addition to Abiogenisis included something about "condensed reactions". Did you mean "condensation reactions"? Good stuff. Zedshort (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful reading. I left out a few words.GoldCar (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Johndale Solem (March 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Johndale Solem instead.

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:Johndale Solem and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johndale Solem

There are a lot of issues with this article, still. One of them being hagiography - since you know the subject, you have overinflated all of his work to the same level, and that's not accurate. Even if it's Einstein, just because someone writes a paper doesn't mean there's a huge contribution to science as a result, and I think you've skewed material to the point where one thing is no more important than another, and that just doesn't make sense. Also, as WP requires sources, vague statements about classified material are not appropriate, if only for the fact that they are classified and can't be sourced. It also would be much more helpful to inline reference all of those papers - it is not clear what belongs to where given the size of the section overall.

However, transparency in acknowledging your connection is appreciated. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to promote people you know (and about whom you seem biased)? Or are you here to build an encyclopedia? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isambard Kingdom, As a senior theoretical physicist with an extensive career myself, I wish to help develop Wikipedia science and scientist articles in areas of physics with which I have considerable knowledge and experience. By definition, I write about physics areas and the physicists of whose work I am familiar. Their work is extensively documented in scientific journals and books, as well as Google Scholar. Wikipedia articles about scientists are of interest to both the general public and those who read the scientific literature. If you have further discussion on this article, let’s use the talk page. Thank you.GoldCar (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliases?

Are you and UareNumber6, MCCONM, and Alamosfan the same person? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isambard Kingdom,

Thank you for this question.

As everyone can see on Wikipedia,

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:GoldCar is Lowell S. Brown.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:UareNumber6 is Johndale C. Solem

I know that MCCONM is Charles L. Mader; I know this because Charles asked me a few questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, when I click on the photo in this article, I get a photo of him; this is a photo of him, and it says that he is the author of the photo. It appears that Charles chose the Wikipedia moniker MCCONM to parallel his MCCOHI moniker.

I have no idea who Alamosfan is. The only thing I know about this editor is that, when one looks at View history, one sees that on Sept 1, 2015, he created an article that was very inaccurate and incomplete and needed significant work, a task that I took on in March 2015.

I hope this clears up any confusion there may be. Thank you. GoldCar (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does clear up a lot of things. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism

Please stop adding overly promotional language to the Johndale Solem article. If you cannot keep the promotional aspect out of your editing you should make edit requests on the talk page to allow others to proof your work. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]