User talk:AllCatsAreGrey

This is AllCatsAreGrey's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

About Base (topology)

FYI, I have reverted your edit to Base (topology). When given a topological space X, it is perfectly understood to talk about a "base for X" if the topology is understood; that is, a base for X is the same as a "base for the topology of X". (This convention is common and mentioned in the Definition section of the article. It is also mentioned in standard topology texts like Willard, etc, and it is very commonly used in the literature). In this particular case, Y was a a subspace of X, that is, Y is a subset of X that is endowed with the corresponding subspace topology. I.e., the topology on Y is understood to be the subspace topology, and one can just talk about "base for Y".

Note however that the first link to "subspace" in that sentence was incorrect (not part of your edit). I have fixed that one.

Feel free to discuss further if desired. Best regards. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. Apologies for not making sure my edit was consistent with the rest of the article. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 14:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Finiteness

Hi, I noticed that you declined Draft:Finiteness. I'm not sure how to proceed. Could you be more specific? I did actually try to address the concerns of previous reviews. I'm not sure why you thought that I did not. Kevincook13 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for reaching out. I appreciate the effort you've put into expanding the draft and trying to address prior feedback. I declined the article because it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for what constitutes encyclopedic content. While I saw that you've added substantial material since the last review, much of it remains uncited and is essay-like, which is discouraged under WP:NOTESSAY.

The topic itself may be promising, and your insights are interesting, but for the draft to move forward, it needs to be written in a neutral, sourced, and encyclopedic tone. You might also want to ask Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Help desk for more specific feedback from other editors. I hope this helps, let me know if there's anything else I can clairfy. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 18:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:WeirdNAnnoyed asked for sources that discuss finiteness as a unitary, overriding concept (beyond just a definition). In response to that review, I cited Boole's essay. The insights I referenced are his, not mine. Kevincook13 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you asked me not to resubmit the article until I made a change addressing the concerns of previous reviews, but since I already had done so I don't see any reason to not resubmit it. Is there some other reason you might want to discuss now, before I resubmit it? Kevincook13 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it still reads much like an essay. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 01:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please revert your April 13th "Declining submission: dict", and comment? Kevincook13 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to do that because no edits have been made to address the concerns raised in the review. The draft has been declined four times for the same issue. I appreciate your eagerness to contribute to Wikipedia, but the draft will need to meet Wikipedia's guidelines before it can be reconsidered. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 17:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this Articles for Creation space is to help authors, especially new ones like me. As the edit history shows, I have been very willing to receive help.

I believe that the draft does indeed meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion in the main space. Your failure to be specific confirms my belief.

This Articles for Creation space provides a nurturing environment for drafts to develop, and eventually be approved. Such approval can be crucial when a topic is intensely unpopular.

I asked you to revert your change because it is misleading. Without reverting the change, it is more difficult for other editors to understand what I have written. On the other hand, reverting makes it easier to see that no substantive reason was found for declining it, and that the opportunity for approving is unobstructed. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I and several other editors have noted, the draft continues to have significant issues that haven't been addressed. While you mention being open to help, it's hard not to notice that each piece of feedback seems to be met with debate rather than revision.

My decision to decline the submission is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and suggesting it's "misleading" is, at best, a misunderstanding of how the review process works. The decline was based on clear and repeated concerns, not a lack of reasons.

It has been a week since your initial message and the article remains unchanged. If even a fraction of the energy spent on my talk page had been directed towards improving the draft, we could be having a very different conversation right now.

I am indeed familiar with the edit history. It shows the draft has been repeatedly declined and you have been given consistent advice from multiple editors. I also noticed a Teahouse thread where you were told many things, including that the article needed WP:TNT. You seemed to ignore it all.

I understand it can be frustrating to see a draft you've put effort into rejected, and I recognize the time you've spent on it. But productive collaboration requires a willingness to actually engage with feedback, not dismiss it. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 19:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is misleading. It implies that the draft does not expand upon the subject, after beginning with a good definition. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the draft, not on me. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I need you to be specific in our discussion of the draft. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article @Kevincook13! Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, dictionary on encyclopedia? thats weird Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I decline my article

Help me! Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the article because you made no changes between submissions. I left a comment after my review. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 01:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added citation on it only one. Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look it seems like the draft is a duplicate of IAU designated constellations. I would recommend working on other things. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 23:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! I didn't know that, ok my article sorted by A-Z. Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not duplicating Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have an eyes that your vision looks the same. Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mary Joy 20 Marcial Sorry? I do not understand what you're saying. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😂😂😂 Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a film, is a TV show ALLCatsAreGrey

fixed that, please? Amounafan2008 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm not sure what you are talking about. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 23:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

listen AllCatsAreGrey

can't you help about editing Amouna al Mazyouna (please i'm agree that please, can't you help with us, some characters, episodes etc, come on fella, please?, i'm proud for good) Amounafan2008 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not have the time nor the knowledge to help with your draft. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 19:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

talk arre you a robot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackermaen14i (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

To keep your mood up when things get ugly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic Church (Huntington, Indiana)

Deprodded this. Historic, it is almost 130 years old. Likely to be a controversial deletion. Go to AfD if necessary. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian I don't mind the deprod, but I do have a question as I'm new to wikipedia deletion discussions. From my understanding something being historic is not claim to notability. I could very easily be mistaken but there was no sign of any, let alone multiple, reliable independent sources about the subject. For this reason I thought PROD was appropriate. Don't care enough to AfD, but just wanted clarification on the deprod. Thanks for your time. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 19:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on past discussions at AfD, historic is a reason to keep a church building. A church that's over 100 years old is probably considered historic and notable. A newer church would not be. Also, if it's a fairly older church parish, it would probably be controversial to delete it without debate. Wikipedia is being scrutinized for supposedly being a socialist propaganda racket. For what it's worth, I'm Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. Everything you've said makes total sense. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 19:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CedarCreek Church

Hello, I see you declined my article. I'm wondering how exactly I went wrong and what I can do to fix it. I didn't copy any direct wording to my knowledge outside of quotes, and I wrote the article myself. Could I get some help with this? I'm quite confused on the matter. SpaceDancer25 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SpaceDancer25, I declined the article for a few reasons, although only tagged it with the AI message. I apologize as I could've been clearer. The main reason for the decline was that the draft's current sources do not demonstrate notability. Notability can be subjective, but on Wikipedia there are certain criteria that have to be met for the site to host an article. You can see the relevant guidelines here: WP:NORG.

Notability can be complex and the information on that page might be slightly overwhelming, I know it was for me when I first started editing here. The relevant parts pertaining to your draft can be found at WP:SIRS and WP:AUD. Briefly, most of the references you provide are either local or not independent of the subject.

As for the AI tag, I noticed while reviewing that this source has a URL ending in "utm_source=chatgpt.com" which implies the source was copied from a ChatGPT output.

I hope this helps and if you have any other questions feel free to ask me or get help from other reviewers at the AFC help desk which can be found here WP:AFCHD – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 00:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying local news outlets are not notable enough? I thought news companies were good notable sources regardless of being local or national. SpaceDancer25 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceDancer25 Local news articles can be used as a reference but they can not be used to establish notability. If this was true then almost every local business could have an article. Taking a look at WP:AUD should help clear things up. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

publishing updates

Hi, I was directed to this page after I was fixing typos and updating credits on my own personal page - Not sure what is in question - it talked about possible misinformation but all updates are legit there was just some missing info that I was filling in - I hope this helps and you are able to honor the updates - Thank You 2600:1700:D280:DA00:8C50:873F:F996:ED58 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide before you try to edit the article again. Editing about yourself or close associates is strongly discouraged, and combined with unsourced additions and a promotional tone it will generally lead to a block from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit because it was not backed by a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy for articles about living people (see here).

Switching gears, if you are the subject of the article, Wikipedia strongly discourages you from editing your own article directly. Please read through the message @ScottishFinnishRadish left on your talk page as it should help clear things up. Here is another helpful link, Wikipedia's FAQ for article subjects: WP:ASFAQ.

If you continue to edit the page there is a chance you will be blocked from editing. Feel free to reach out if I can help in any way! Alternatively, you can ask for help at the Teahouse where you will likely get a faster response. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok!

i get that it (my adventure time pilot edits) wasn't constructive, but being obvious is, well, good (not always good though)

Also, the IP you have said (the 74.103...) thing IS me, just wanted to clear that up

are we good?

Conclusion

yeah, that was me. TheNonEditor (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One on One Football

I made a couple of edits on a short article of One on One Football EliG233 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi AllCatsAreGrey. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

School Hard declination

Hi, I was going to make an article for the Buffy episode School Hard but saw you declined the previous draft. My contention is that there are about 100 articles for Buffy episodes, many of which have far fewer secondary sources. Should those be removed? And School Hard is a much more important and critically acclaimed episode, since it introduces the Spike storyline that will become pivotal to the season/show. Pondofturtles9 (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Pondofturtles9. The draft was declined because it did not pass the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NEPISODE). This does not mean the article can never exist and I encourage you to work on it if you think you can better demonstrate the episode's notability.

Regarding your point about other articles for Buffy episodes, this is addressed here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of one article does not justify the creation of another. While I'm not familiar with this TV show (I admit I don't even know who Spike is), I can say that meeting the notability requirements is necessary for a draft's acceptance. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 01:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I hope I can better demonstrate the episode's notability. Pondofturtles9 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I saw your reply. Mary Joy 20 Marcial (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Island Pacific School

Hi AllCatsAreGrey,

Thank you for reviewing the draft for Island Pacific School. I appreciate your time and the guidance on sourcing and notability.

I understand the draft was declined due to insufficient in-depth, independent, secondary sources. I'm working on strengthening the article and wanted to ask for your insight.

Island Pacific School is a middle school on Bowen Island with a unique educational model rooted in inquiry-based learning, outdoor education, and leadership training. It has been the subject of local media coverage, including feature articles in the Bowen Island Undercurrent and North Shore News, and is listed by ISABC, Good Schools Guide, and others. It also hosts long-running community initiatives like the annual Sleep Out for youth homelessness (now in its 10th year) and regularly contributes to public science fairs.

I understand that these sources may lean more toward local and regional publications, but given the school's role in a small but well-defined community, would these be sufficient if expanded with more context and framed within a stronger neutral tone?

I’ve noticed that several other independent schools (with similar levels of public coverage and curriculum focus) have accepted pages. Could you advise what would concretely tip the scale for notability in a case like this?

I want to approach this properly and would value your perspective.

Thanks again,

MrVanDigital MrVanDigital (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrVanDigital But I'm copying to you Joshua Kharis 2014 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Frazer (educator) has been accepted

William Frazer (educator), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]