User:Zorrothecorrector

Hello, my name is Zorro.

If you make severe mistakes in mathematical articles, you have to answer to me. If you make mistakes, I am liable to correct them. Usually, correction consists of rewriting. If you disagree with my correction, I will gladly provide references to justify them from highly reputable mathematical journals (the Annals of Mathematics is one of my favorites).

If you disagree with my corrections, please do not blame me. I am but a messenger. Instead, you are invited to supply actual references which conflict with my point of view, or to provide an alternative point of view to the references provided. I am not much of a wiki expert, so don't expect a spiffy homepage. Nevertheless, for all of you crackpots out there, be afraid. Wild speculation and non-standard nomenclature have no place in an encyclopedia.

Pet peeves

1. Armchair physicists who think that they can redefine things based on how it is used within their respective fields. For instance a Cartan connection was invented by Elie Cartan. Although the applications to relativity theory (or your favorite theory du jour) may be relevant, they are certainly not part of the basic definition of a Cartan connection: please reference Newman-Penrose formalism if you want to provide an application, or Twistor theory, or your own particular brand of quantum mechanics. A Cartan connection is nothing more or less that what Cartan defined it to be. So armchair physicists begone! Luckily another Wikipedian cleaned up the chaff from the Cartan connection article, more or less.

2. People who don't check their references. It really upsets me when people have no idea what they reference. At least make sure that what you assert in an article is consistent with your internal wikipedia links and external references. There may be more than one way to describe a particular topic, but I will not hesitate to delete a massively misstated article on I topic on which I am an expert, especially if it disagrees significantly with the references provided.

3. Adiminstrators who don't read the articles. I anonymously corrected the article on Chern classes recently. I do not appreciate the fact that my changes were rejected because of the fact that they were too different from the existing ones. Although I had replaced the introductory example, I did keep it in the spirit of Chern's original paper. I later provided a reference to this paper.

4. People who wiki-know-what-they-are-doing. I'm sorry, but wikipedia is no place to prove your mettle. You know what you are doing because of your learning. Learning is proven elsewhere in the world: a university, a pubication in a peer reviewed journal, etc. Wikipedia is not a de facto degree in whatever you think you know about. If you say "I know such-and-such", you had better have some strong credentials besides being a Wikipedia hacker.

5. People who say "I read some books, so I am an expert." Alternatively, people who say "You're wrong because you haven't read such-and-such book." Actually in mathematics, books themselves typically depend on the references they provide. An original reference is preferable to a claim of reading a book, in my opinion. So please don't try to tell me I need to read this or that book, unless it's a classic. Give me some precise references. (You can certainly recommend books, but I ask that you don't use them to prove a particular point unless that point isn't proven elsewhere in the literature.) If you do need to cite a book, please state precisely the relevant edition, volume, chapter, and section (if possible).

6. People who are intrinsically prejudiced against anonymous edits. I am not here to provide a name for myself. I would rather be able to edit through my IP address alone -- or even truly anonymously. So the only reason I have decided to register is so that I can post without this prejudice. But please do not denigrate people simply because they wish to remain anonymous. Weigh their contributions on their own merits. Consider them thoughtfully.

7. The aristocracy of fools. I believe in the idea of Wikipedia, but not in the idea of an aristocracy. Why should a freshman undergraduate such as User:Titoxd get a veto credit of a professor of mathematics? See the history of Chern class for details. I want no part of this. I would prefer it if Wikipedia were truly dedicated to providing the best encyclopedia available, rather than collapsing under a tragedy of the commons -- or perhaps a tragedy of the uncommon. Not every self-proclaimed Wikipedist knows what they are talking about, and most people who are experts actually aren't Wikipedists. If this sort of snooty aristocratic behavior is the norm for Wikipedia, I can see why it hasn't attracted more experts. Nevertheless, I do believe in Wikipedia.

8. Vandalism. There is no excuse. But what is vandalism anyway? Again, we have a tragedy of the commons. If you respond out of gut instinct, please step away. If you actually know what you are talking about, please feel free to edit. In any case, be prepared to defend yourself.

I am Zorro. I have spoken.