This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silly rabbit (talk | contribs) at 16:08, 19 November 2008 (→Wikibreak: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:08, 19 November 2008 by Silly rabbit (talk | contribs) (→Wikibreak: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 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 What you reference as my withdrawal of accusations is in fact my insistance that accusations made against me are withdrawn (you got it the wrong way around) and is not part of the resolution because it is not going to happen.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)