Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.


    I remember reading some discussions about "is this proof in that book correct" questions on meta. This is a similar case with a minor twist:

    The OP wanted clarification on a result in Waterhouse's book that seemed wrong to him (and seems wrong to me, but I haven't read the proof - most likely it is really just bad notation). At the same time he probably didn't want to spoil the google hits for the author's name. So he only mentioned the name of the book, but not the author. Commenters were confused and I decided to edit the author's name in (I am 99.9% sure it is the right one, the section number matches). He removed it again. Is this a case of etiquette versus readability?

    • CommentAuthorEmil J
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2011

    You seem to have created a self-referential URL.


    Of course the author should be there! If you're sure about the author, just rollback to your edit.

    The question asks for a clarification, which is the right way to formulate these questions. If, after careful analysis, it turns out to be an error then an answer should point that out. If there is some way to fix the error, then that should be explained too. The only special etiquette rule for errata is to never make unfounded claims.

    • CommentAuthorAngelo
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2011
    The phrasing of the statement in the book was mildly ambiguous. There were two possible interpretations, but the OP was pointing out that one of them was wrong. No one raised any questions about the proof.

    @Emil: oops, yes. Hey, at least it wasn't a rickroll!

    @Francois: The OP himself mentioned Waterhouse as an answer... in the comments. I don't feel like rolling back my edit right now as it seems that my notions of etiquette and its importance aren't exactly the common opinion here, but if more people confirm that naming the author is completely unproblematic, I'll do so.

    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2011

    The question is pretty meaningless without precisely identifying the book, as it is essentially asks for interpretation of something which is written in it. Giving the title but not the author is rather silly, as a means of preserving the author anyways!

    • CommentAuthorFaisal
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2011 edited

    Given that (1) the OP objected to your initial edit and (2) it's abundantly clear form the comments who the author is, I see no point in editing the post again.

    If you're really troubled by this you should just ask the OP why they hadn't included the author's name from the start. This is probably a more diplomatic approach than editing someone else's post.