Definition talk:Neighborhood

This is organized all fucked up. This should be arranged into Neighborhood (Topology) and Neighborhood (Graph Theory). All that stuff about analysis falls under topology, I believe. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Still needs lots of work, but at least it's not back-asswards. --Dfeuer (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Modify your language and improve your attitude in future. Your contributions are not as valuable as you think they are. --prime mover (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For quite a few months I volunteered over at Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders, proofreading scanned texts for ultimate publication on Project Gutenberg. I was rather good at it, and attained the level of P3 (the highest level of proofreader). However, I haven't done that in a long time. Why? Because I'm much more interested in doing math in my spare time than checking and correcting OCRed text, or typing in text that couldn't be OCRed at all. If ProofWiki is actually just PGDP lite, I think it could end up down to just one contributor. Is my attitude perfect? No. I'm not the most diplomatic in the world. Am I the only such in this conversation? No. --Dfeuer (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me as awkward that instead of doing mathematics, a considerable portion of your time on this site is spent on discussing presentational matters. It strikes me as even more awkward that PM and you keep on fighting like little children. The material about LOTS you've been working on recently was an excellent piece of work. Just wanted to say that. --Lord_Farin (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In my own defence, many of my contributions to this utter waste of existence consist of a) flagging up where pages need their presentation improved, and b) actually doing those improvements. If Dfeuer wishes to settle down to doing the mathematics instead of complaining about the fact that his own work needs further work to bring it up to standard, then I won't actively stand in the way.

The fact that this site appears not to be what Dfeuer wants it to be is not the fault of this site.

I will continue to add "tidy", "rename" and "missing links" tags onto pages which are not up to standard. I will also continue to revert edits which are detrimental to the quality of the site. If you consider this activity as an insulting personal attack, then I suggest you might like to get help. --prime mover (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact I disagree that the edits by Dfeuer were "detrimental". Topology is manifestly not a subfield of analysis. However, what I do suggest, and have done before, is that any refactoring projects taken on are actually finished, highly preferably in one go, by experienced and cunning editors (although that last part is new). I also want to bring to your attention yet again my plea for rational, argument-driven discussions. As you may have guessed "... because you suck" and similar are not considered arguments. And no flying mud or empty apologetic statements. You're both guilty, and equally so. --Lord_Farin (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)