Small edits to etale-cohomology.tex
Partial fix of error found by Bhargav Bhatt

The mistake was that the functor v of the first lemma of the commit is
not continuous although it does send coverings to coverings. Thus the
applications of various lemmas from the chapter on sites aren't allowed
and we need another arguement to see that i^{-1} has a left adjoint.

First of all, by abstract nonsense, there is going to be such an adjoint
as soon as i^{-1} commutes with all limits. And, as Bhargav and Peter
point out this is true because we may check this on weakly contractible
objects V over Z where the formula i^{-1}F(V) = F(vV) is correct.

On the other hand, we already have a machine for making such an adjoint
in the abelian categories case, namely

http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0793

which we have used already once, namely in

http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0797

to construct a lower shriek functor. Thus fixing the second lemma is
just a matter of translating this from abelian categories to topoi which
should be no problem. Stay tuned...
Existence of f_!

First result to be used to fix error pointed out in
fff0778d25f26031b9639e8d996e67ec68d722a1
End of the fix of error

For discussion see fff0778d25f26031b9639e8d996e67ec68d722a1
Tags: Added new tags
typo in definition 7.12.1 (2)

(This is about the definition of a surjective morphism of sheaves)
I believe the section ?s? should be from G(U), not F(U).

Thanks to Will Chen
Example of directed limit of qc top spaces which is not qc

Example by Jason Starr
Embedding constructible sheaves into pushforward constant sheaves along
finite morphisms
Fix typo

Thanks to Herman Rohrbach
http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01B1#comment-432
Start explaining Gabber's argument
Coh descent along finite surjective morphisms
The case of H^0 of Gabbers result
Fix forward references
Another result about constructible sheaves
Gabber's result on Henselian pairs

Just marvellous
Tags: Added new tags
Standardize the proof of general Stein factorization

The proof as given before was too tricked. Now we prove it by just
relying on very standard results on limits of schemes, thereby reducing
more directly to the Noetherian case. No tricks!
Finite etale schemes and henselian pairs
Fix a typo

Thanks to Leeroy
http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01HJ#comment-434
Typo

Thanks to Kestutis Cesnavicius
http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0907#comment-435