User talk:Bcudequest

Redirect
Hi, I deleted a redirect that you recently created, "Silencer", because it qualified for WP:R3 speedy deletion. We don't need to create redirects of the form "foo" –> foo because Wikipedia's internal search feature automatically resolves quotation marks to blank spaces. signed,Rosguill talk 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Outdoor–indoor transmission class into Sound transmission class. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI notification
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Waltermontano. Thank you. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! It turns out that you‘re not an alternate account of another editor, and that investigation might not have been necessary. I apologise for any stress that this might have caused, and I hope you‘re not feeling discouraged. Just like I did at your colleague’s talk page, I‘d like to offer a helping hand. If there‘s anything I can help you with, be it about specific content or about editing on Wikipedia in general, please let me know. Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Re. AFD of Edward Joseph Schroeter
As I mentioned in my close of Articles for deletion/Edward Joseph Schroeter, I'll let you finish your work on that article before discussing it at AFD. As a courtesy, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know when you've added everything you're planning on adding.

In that AFD, you mentioned that article subjects can be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources", but that's not what WP:BASIC says. Secondary sources are explicitly required for establishing notability, and primary sources (such as patent filings) do not contribute toward establishing notability. The significance of a patent or invention needs to be supported by reliable sources. If a certain invention or patent is extensively covered in appropriate secondary sources, I'd suggest you create an article on that patent or invention instead of Schroeter himself; notability is not WP:INHERITED.

Again, if there's anything I can do to help you or clarify these guidelines or the AFD process, please do let me know. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Your work on Edward Joseph Schroeter
Hi! Hope you're well. Have you finished your work on this article? It still currently fails to establish the notability of its subject, in my opinion. You can read about notability at WP:N and WP:BASIC. Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, after better understanding the notability requirements I am inclined to agree. We have not been able to find significant secondary sources of information on him. What's the easiest way to save our work so that we can keep what we've done even if it does not stay on Wikipedia. Thanks for your patience, we are amateurs editors and this is the first time I've dealt with the notability issue. Bcudequest (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame for you to lose this work, I know you've put in a lot of effort. I carried out a search for sources myself, although I'm sure you have access to some material I don't through your profession.
 * If you'd like, the article can be discussed at AfD, but I doubt more sources would be found. A good alternative for this situation would be WP:DRAFTIFY; I can move this article to draftspace for you, which means you'll be able to access and edit it freely. A lack of notability is not grounds for deletion from draftspace, but drafts should still be edited with the eventual goal of publication (i.e. of becoming an article one day). If you have no intention of publishing the draft as an article, this would be inappropriate; Wikipedia should not be used as a webhost. It's up to you, but I think draftification is a good idea for now. Thanks again for all your work! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that draftification is the right call now. We hope to continue to find sources and eventually publish this article. Thank you for helping us through this. Bcudequest (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Any time. I apologize again if our initial interactions felt hostile, that was never my intention. I've draftified the article, there's an automated message about that below this discussion now. If there's anything I can do to be helpful to you, please let me know. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Edward Joseph Schroeter moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Edward Joseph Schroeter. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)