| Revision as of 04:01, 20 November 2008 editTopology Expert (talk | contribs)2,066 edits Undid revision 252922785 by Moondyne (talk)I have accepted to stop editing Christ Church Grammar School← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:34, 20 November 2008 edit undoRyan Reich (talk | contribs)1,551 edits →Algebra template debate: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| Ha! I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak too. Maybe I'll have to remove my message as well sooner or later. :) ] (]) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | Ha! I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak too. Maybe I'll have to remove my message as well sooner or later. :) ] (]) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Algebra template debate == | |||
| I want to reply to your last response at the Math project talk page, but since it's just between us, I'll put it here. I didn't intend my response to be rude, but I did intend it to be direct, without politely (but circumspectly) avoiding expressing definite opinion. Lack of explicit politeness is certainly ''ruder'', but I wasn't trying to insult you or to gratuitously trash your ideas; I merely did not want to leave any room for argument. Without implying that I was motivated by considerations of moral parity, I think it's important to realize that the manner in which you continued the discussion was itself at least inconsiderate: you set out some standards that no one else accepted (that the icon should be "real math" and by that you meant category theory, that only "real mathematicians" need understand it, that the template actually function as an instructive device) and then refused to meet on any middle ground concerning them, returning time and again to reiterating your original argument without having made any progress in convincing people to fully accept almost any of it. However I took this, it is of course no reason for me to be rude; I tailored my response to address the apparent fact that nothing short of a direct confrontation would actually deter you from continuing the cycle, fruitlessly. | |||
| In my opinion, the continued debate was a waste of all our time, but you should also understand that not everything was a waste of time. Your original goal, which was to replace the tacky square-root icon with a more serious one, was realized in a way not altogether dissimilar to the one you proposed. No, it won't inspire people to greater heights of learning, but it will give a little stir to the complacently stupid people who undervalue mathematics and be a satisfying token for the better-educated of us. I'm sorry that the debate proceeded as it did, and by that I don't mean that I regret resolving it as I did; but it is unfortunate that your idea wasn't received with enthusiasm, because it had merit and people recognized this. But it came with baggage, and that derailed the process. Ultimately, in Misplaced Pages the consensus is followed, and it is not rude or debatable to say that the discussion had become you versus everyone else. I did what I thought had to be done to prevent it from degenerating into a farce (and you could already see that happening, what with the "what has category theory done for us?" questions popping up and the tangential, rhetorical questions about the octonions). ] (]) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:34, 20 November 2008
 Archives |
|
/Archive 1. /Archive 2. /Archive 3. /Archive 4. /Archive 5. /Archive 6. /Archive 7 |
I replied to your reply...
regarding the wikiquette alert.LowKey (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
WQA resolution summary
Can you please remove your summary of the resolution to the issue I raised? It is incorrect. What you reference as my withdrawal of accusations is in fact my insistance that accusations made against me are withdrawn (you got it the wrong way around) and is not part of the resolution because it is not going to happen. My apology was not for raising the issue but for the fact that my raising the issue resulted in all of the other escalation and drama, most of which I must say you contributed. I know you are only trying to be responsible and helpful, but almost everything that you posted was either innapropriate or innacurate (or both). You seemed to get the wrong of the stick every time. The issue is as "resolved" as it is going to be and the tag should stay, but no additional comment to the tag is needed. I do appreciate you effort, though, but I think we should all just move on. LowKey (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. (feel free to delete this thread).LowKey (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...just make sure you never remove things from the WQA page itself - always use "strikethrough". -t BMW c- 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Perfect map clarification
I'm sorry, but the statement as written still seems contradictory to me. Please tell me where my interpretation fails.
First sentence: Notice how, to preserve properties such as local connectedness, second countability, local compactness etc… we require that the map be not only continuous but also open.
My interpretation: (1) Every map that preserves these properties is continuous and open.
Second sentence: A perfect map need not be open (see previous example), but these properties are still preserved under perfect maps.
My interpretation: (2) Not every perfect map is open. (3) Every perfect map preserves these properties.
Statements (1) and (3), together, imply that every perfect map is open. This contradicts statement (2). There must therefore be something blatantly wrong with my interpretation, but I'm somehow not seeing it. 99.231.74.215 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I replied (on your talk page).
Topology Expert (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Christ Church Grammar School
If you have references, please cite them. Your latest edit has introduced multiple inaccuracies - Venture is 10 days, training for it only occurs in last term and is 3hours/week at most. The school does not exclusively want boys to become sportsmen, academic achievement is highly valued as well. "(this in fact illustrates the attitude of the school: ruthlessness and cruelty)" is clearly NPOV. Finally, you misspelled strength as srength. TRS-80 (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
See my response on your talk page.
Topology Expert (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Ha! I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak too. Maybe I'll have to remove my message as well sooner or later. :) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Algebra template debate
I want to reply to your last response at the Math project talk page, but since it's just between us, I'll put it here. I didn't intend my response to be rude, but I did intend it to be direct, without politely (but circumspectly) avoiding expressing definite opinion. Lack of explicit politeness is certainly ruder, but I wasn't trying to insult you or to gratuitously trash your ideas; I merely did not want to leave any room for argument. Without implying that I was motivated by considerations of moral parity, I think it's important to realize that the manner in which you continued the discussion was itself at least inconsiderate: you set out some standards that no one else accepted (that the icon should be "real math" and by that you meant category theory, that only "real mathematicians" need understand it, that the template actually function as an instructive device) and then refused to meet on any middle ground concerning them, returning time and again to reiterating your original argument without having made any progress in convincing people to fully accept almost any of it. However I took this, it is of course no reason for me to be rude; I tailored my response to address the apparent fact that nothing short of a direct confrontation would actually deter you from continuing the cycle, fruitlessly.
In my opinion, the continued debate was a waste of all our time, but you should also understand that not everything was a waste of time. Your original goal, which was to replace the tacky square-root icon with a more serious one, was realized in a way not altogether dissimilar to the one you proposed. No, it won't inspire people to greater heights of learning, but it will give a little stir to the complacently stupid people who undervalue mathematics and be a satisfying token for the better-educated of us. I'm sorry that the debate proceeded as it did, and by that I don't mean that I regret resolving it as I did; but it is unfortunate that your idea wasn't received with enthusiasm, because it had merit and people recognized this. But it came with baggage, and that derailed the process. Ultimately, in Misplaced Pages the consensus is followed, and it is not rude or debatable to say that the discussion had become you versus everyone else. I did what I thought had to be done to prevent it from degenerating into a farce (and you could already see that happening, what with the "what has category theory done for us?" questions popping up and the tangential, rhetorical questions about the octonions). Ryan Reich (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)