User talk:AlphaBetaGamma

This editor's current focus is on:

Edit Semi-protected backlog blitz

ABG may be too distracted and may not respond in talk page quickly. Please give ABG several days to put his thinking together.

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Your draft article, Draft:Splatoon 3: Side Order

Hello, AlphaBetaGamma. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Splatoon 3: Side Order".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Pit?

Hello ABG; I came across an AfC draft, particularly Draft:Vicente Vallés, where you said the following in a declination message: "There definitely was a lot of effort in saving the article from the G13 pit"; could you elaborate on what you mean by this? G13 isn't a pit, and most new-er users utilizing the AfC process aren't familiar with speedy deletion or specific CSD criteria (and even I'm a bit confused by the phrasing lol). The page was deleted in July '23 and undeleted in Sept '24. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the many cases where I malfunction and do something wonky. Rephrased. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senyera

Hello! I would like to know exactly why my edit at Senyera is considered vandalism. Sincerely, 79.152.98.103 (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I immediately reverted your edit when I saw "NUTS 1 NUTS 2", because almost every time someone inserts the word "NUT" in all-caps is a vandal attempt. Seems like this was a rare case. Really sorry for that, you can remove the warning. Also, you might want to retarget some of the disambiguating links and link them to the intended target (just a nitpick) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sufi tawheed ashraf (08:50, 13 September 2024)

Hello sir I want add more topics and information on Wikipedia --Sufi tawheed ashraf (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Have you checked the newcomer homepage which should be on left of the "User page" tab? The page gives some help into editing the encyclopedia. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 09:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TODCO article

Hi AlphaBetaGamma, I wanted to ping you now that it has been a month since you left a message on the TODCO talk page and the request is still unanswered, so I wanted to see if you were still interested. Thank you TODCOAM (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from GrammarAsh (03:34, 14 September 2024)

Hi! It's cool that Wikipedia assigns mentors to new users, I didn't know that was a thing. I'm looking at an article that I think could use some cleaning up: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_equation) In the "Properties" section, the first paragraph is made up of four sentences that all end with footnote numbers, where the sentences don't sound correct when read aloud. It seems like the intention of the original author was to include the names of these external sources and then use the footnote numbers to link them to the References section, but only the footnote numbers were included, and not a name of the journal or paper. I'm also not sure if this paragraph fits with the manual of style, as it seems to just be a way of shortening the article by assuming that readers will follow those external links if they are interested in those topics, rather than simply including the sources in the "Further reading" section. I feel like if an external source has information valuable enough to include in the article itself, then that information should at least be summarized in a way that connects its concepts to the main topic. If I decided to spend my time doing that, however, it would require reading five articles from scientific journals in a field of mathematics that I've never formally studied...it would take longer for me to do it than if the original author were to summarize them. If I don't want to go through all of that, I might use an internal link and name the scientific journals that these papers were published in. I still feel like that would just be perpetuating the issue of "these should just be external links listed at the end of the article". I don't think I'll make my edit just yet, since I feel like what really needs to happen with this article is to take that paragraph out, remove the footnote numbers, and convert their corresponding references into "Further reading" links. That feels like a pretty complex edit for me to be doing as my first. --GrammarAsh (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I was late to respond, I am really lazy on weekends and holidays, which this monday is. I don't get your intention here. Are you asking me to do an edit, or are you asking me how to do an edit? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries! I realize my question was a little bit too flow-of-consciousness for a question, as I was kind of just looking for a way to say hi and also summarize my train of thought on this edit I was doing myself, and maybe asking for advice from you—I ended up deciding what to do, finishing up the formatting of it, and then quickly submitting the edit and going to bed when I realized it was getting late and I had an event to wake up early for the next day. Now that I look back, I think my edit was fine and I don't know why I was agonizing over it, lol. GrammarAsh (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dominique Jackson (model), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasmas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken claim of vandalism

I posted a request on Sean Combs talk page, asking for some vandalism from another user to be removed, but somehow instead my request to have that removed was itself flagged as vandalism.

I was asking to have the text removed from the page which was added by:

01:52, 18 September 2024‎ Savant64 JackStrife17 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your request's title was "Sean Pedo Combs", which is already insulting, and that page doesn't exist. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me with the person (212.67.107.41) who edited the talk page AFTER me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=1246337662

Here is my request on the talk page, asking for someone to REMOVE the offensive wording, because I didn't have access:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=1246292893

And this is the vandalism made by "Savant64" which I was asking to have REMOVED:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=prev&oldid=1246292119

This is the first time I've ever gone out of my way to try and get vandalism REMOVED from a Wikipedia page, and instead I get chastised and falsely blamed for doing the vandalism myself. 🤷‍♂️ JackStrife17 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Uncompleted Line

Hello, AlphaBetaGamma. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Uncompleted Line, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Ah! So sorry to trout you, you are my new mentor. Nice to meet you! NovaNora (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]