Here is a short biographical note about me. I have been using Wikipedia to learn mathematics, both by reading and by writing. I have

• Created or made major revisions to 400 articles in mathematics.
• Had daydreams and free associations of mathematical topics, such as the quantum theory of lambda calculus.
• Recategorized several thousand articles, created some templates, and made major contributions to a few dozen non-math articles.
• Written an essay on a means to ensure article quality on Wikipedia.
• Created nearly 50 images for WP math articles.
• An Erdős number of 3

My favorites include:

There's no point in arguing with the empty-product crowd, Jersey Devil. You can point out to them all day long that the sentence "1 can be written as the product of 0 prime numbers" means the same thing as "1 cannot be written as the product of any prime numbers". And they won't listen, or they'll tell you you're wrong. When you ask them to write down 0 numbers and they don't do it, and then claim that they've already done it, and there's "nothing" to it, you can begin to grasp the difference between that kind of formalistic logic and the kind of thinking you and I do. DavidCBryant 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't "mean" the same thing. They are saying different things about the relationship between 1 and prime numbers. Possibly those things are logically equivalent, or not, but they are not the same. Zaslav (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I used to have a number of long essays on this page, about structural problems that Wikipedia has, and a variety of proposals on how to fix them. However, the power elite found these essays "insulting", have censured me, and have deleted my essays. I hope I can state the following without further censure/blocking/deletion: I strongly disagree with the Wikipedia leadership on a wide and broad range of issues. Their abuse of power, failure to lead, and general mis-behaviour is damaging Wikipedia.

The mainstream media has now noted the general affliction. See, for example, 26 Nov 2009 front-page article in the Wall Street Journal: Wikipedia loosing Volunteers. Heh. Take that!

It would be interesting to read your essays which have been deleted as insults. Could you perhaps create an article called "Views that are considered insulting to Wikapedia" or perhaps "Wiki insults" and post them there with a lede advising that similar views are not to be kept on Wikapedia talk pages on pain of censure. — Philogos (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't do that; I've already been beaten up about this, and don't see why I won't blocked or banned again. Take a look at my talk page -- these people are thugs. Here's a hint: take a look at the deletion vote for { {template:proof} }. This template was used by 30-50 different math articles, and anchored a whole category. It was the result of discussions with dozens of math editors over the course of many years. It was summarily deleted in a "drive-by deletion" by some WP admins, of whom exactly zero have ever contributed to any math article whatsoever. People who do this sort of thing should not be admins, they should be punished; instead, they run loose and fuck around whoever they feel like. Watch this spot, you will see your words and mine deleted in just a very short amount of time, as these same people will once again try to hide their crimes.

Or not. The secret seems to be to toil away at obscure topics that few care about; then one is left alone. I am sad to note the large number of people I respected and admired, who have been driven away, if not outright banned, by evil admins. Just today, I saw the ghost of User:Chalst in some articles I was reading/editing.linas (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)