Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 5 December 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 What you reference as my withdrawal of accusations is in fact my insistance that accusations made against me are withdrawn (you got it the wrong way around) and is not part of the resolution because it is not going to happen.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)

Re: Thankyou

No problem. And I'm glad some common ground was found with respect to the stub image. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I just wanted to say, your "And I know that no one really would care if I retired" (on WPM) is not correct. I care. Knowledgeable people like you working on WP are always an asset, even if discussions sometimes get a bit weird/time-consuming/enerving/... I will review your article on Monday or Tuesday. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I was a bit upset at the time.

Topology Expert (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi, you certainly deserve an explanation, and I will give you one by email. It may take a while, though. Currently my 4-year-old daughter insists that I help her with her Lego. (Just let me correct one thing in public: Misplaced Pages has a couple of "famous" mathematics editors, but I am certainly not one of them by any reasonable standard.) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Algebra-stub

This has now gone beyond ridiculous to being disruptive. There is no consensus at WT:WPM#Algebra stub template for your preferred image, despite you apparently several times accepting that and then restarting the discussion. This silly issue is distracting good editors from improving articles and I therefore have to warn you (again) that continuing with this tendentious editing will result in a block. I strongly suggest that you drop this issue now and refocus on the project. As for your edit summary "leave the administrative tasks to the field you know best", I won't even respond to that. –Moondyne 06:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Anyway, other editors (as you can see above) have accepted the discussion to be closed. I contacted User:CBM and he will decide the correct image based on the votes. If someone disagrees with him, start another discussion.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple Topology Expert: stop changing the template image to your own preference. As to whether its blank or like this, I don't really care, but I do know that changes such as this have been discussed and rejected at WPM. My warning stands. –Moondyne 09:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Countable compactness => Lindelof (under what conditions)_Lindelof_(under_what_conditions)">

Noticed this disappearing unanswered at the top of the reference desk, not my cup of tea but have added a note, possibly Novak space? Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008_November_15#Countable_compactness_.3D.3E_Lindelof_.28under_what_conditions.29. Dmcq (talk)

unbelievable WPM

I happened to have glanced over the recent WPM discussion and find myself rubbing my eyes in disbelief. That a group of, presumably, adults would bunch up against a fellow editor is very disappointing. I would simply stay away from such discussions in the future. Best of luck, Katzmik (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mail

WP:AN

No inappropriate admin action has been taken. Your attitude is extremely aggressive and while that might pay dividends in the real world, you'll find that is a poor way to get anything resolved on Misplaced Pages. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd remind you not to make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages, but especially on an administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

TE, I have closed this discussion down. I strongly advise you not to try to reopen it. It is not going anywhere. Martin 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you did not respond to my offer, it is still open. If you want to discuss it, feel free to email me. Whatever you do, I suggest you go away, calm down for a few hours, and come back in a few hours with an unblock request. Martin 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, whilst this is in no way a "cool down block", if you return here and agree to stop making accusations against Moondyne (and Sarah, for that matter), then I have no objections to any admin unblocking you forthwith. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You were advised to drop the subject at WP:AN. Four administrators have told you that there is nothing in your allegations. You have continued to make attacks and troll the noticeboard, most recently by widening the scope of your allegations to include those who disagree with you.

In order to protect Misplaced Pages from disruption, I have blocked you from editing for two days. This wdecision was not taken lightly, but you left me with no clear other option. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will stop making accusations. But just so that you know, I don't believe that you should be an admin (but as I mentioned, I will stop contributing to that discussion; since I am currently involved in an important peer review, can I request an unblock?).

Topology Expert (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will stop contributing to that discussion and will go on with my normal contributing (to maths articles). If I continue my so-called abuse, you may block me again (but I will have you know that you are really stupid to think that blocking me will protect Misplaced Pages since I am always making many constructive contributions. You probably don't understand those contributions and hence the block).

Decline reason:

Do you really think that anyone will agree to unblock you after the rudeness displayed in your unblock request? — Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit-conflict; I, too, would never unblock someone whose unblock request contained a personal attack. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No in fact I didn't and I don't blame you for not unblocking me. I am just upset with the user who blocked me because from his block reason, it is clear that he thinks that I am a vandalizer and have no real value to Misplaced Pages in the sense that my edits are always disruptive. Of course that is his opinion but I request him to see my user page if he really thinks so. If you unblock me, I don't promise to not be angry but I am sure that words such as 'in order to protect disruption of Misplaced Pages' would be insulting to anybody who has created more than 25 articles (most of B class standard) and having over 1500 edits (almost 1700 to be precise). It is only recently (in the last month) that I have been involved in 2-3 conflicts but they were all centered around the same thing. This is unfortunate and maybe I deserve this block but I did not intend any of my edits to be malacious and most users have accepted this (most of these edits (in the beginning) were in fact helpful until it got to the point that admins inappropriately were against me). In this comment, I am certainly not requesting an unblock; it is up to an admin to decide whether an unblock is appropriate. But in my opinion, a block by an admin should be made after he consults another admin who has had experience with the blocked user in question. The admin who has blocked me has not had this experience and hence I would like to request that a math admin be contacted.

Topology Expert (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Msgj for contacting a mathematics administrator. But I don't know whether User:CBM has read through all the discussions.

Topology Expert (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just be patient ;) It might be better to wait for the two days to expire. It seems you are still fuming and I fear what else might happen if you are unblocked now. Martin 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked this user. I find some of the behavior of those who blocked him to be unreasonable and in some respects disrespectful to me and to any others who might be concerned. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)