User talk:Cheeser1/ArchiveCurricula

This is an archive of a long an drawn out argument in which I was determined to be correct on the administrator's noticeboard (do not edit this article - it's an archive). I reverted[1] an unnecessary and incorrect edit,[2] and people got on my case about it. Of course, not only did admins' resolution not resolve things, things got worse. The personal attacks, lack of good faith, and general frustration led me to give up, going so far as to unwatch the entire calculus article out of sheer disgust. All of this argument is listed in more-or-less chronological order, except the first section, which is from the admin noticeboard. There you will see how contrived the whole issue was - my edit was correct, civil, and there wasn't a good reason to change the wording from how it was (how I was trying to keep it). If only the editors in Calculus had the sense that the admins on the ANI have.

Disruptive (and rude) user (from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

Hello, the user Cheeser1 has engaged in rather rude and somewhat disruptive behavior, which started with a loaded revert summary of Calculus and continued in the same vein, see [3]. I have left a message on his talk page to explain the reasons for my preceding edit (I had been the original author of the phrase that he wanted changed, so I was trying to explain the meaning to him). However, rather than respond to the substance of the comment, he accused me of a personal attack and made a number of vague threats. I would have considered this to be a rather tangential issue, since a highly respected editor, User:Silly rabbit has independently restored the article, but apparently, Cheeser1 believes he knows best and behaves as if he were above WP:Civil. Note that he keeps ignoring the substance of my comments, communicating mostly in edit summaries, and even went so far as to remove, [4], the discussion in his talk page with this wonderful summary:

archive BS and delete whine-fest

Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated! Arcfrk 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the summaries in question, you need to take it easy. Not only is he correct, but his edit summaries are not particularly incivil. --Haemo 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying not only is he correct seems to reveal a bias, does it not? Surely, the proper procedure for resolving contentious points is to discuss them at the article talk page first, not to start with highly charged edit summaries, continue with a revert war, and at the same time, take it into the personal sphere? Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] strikes me as a far more bizzare edit summary. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since when is WP:CIVIL used as justification for reverting someone in the mainspace?--Flamgirlant 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The disruptive part has been dealt with, as he finally condescended to explain his point of view on the article talk page. The civility, on the other hand... I keep reading about how the standards of civility have been steadily eroding, especially, among the younger people, and here we are. It is amazing what passes for civility these days. Arcfrk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! (from User talk:Cheeser1)

The summary of your edit/revert in Calculus is the rudest comment I've received on Wikipedia in at least a month. I am afraid that the state of your knowledge cannot quite keep up with the pace of your editing Wikipedia. There is most certainly an idiom involved:

Idiom. 3. a. A form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase, etc., peculiar to a language; a peculiarity of phraseology approved by the usage of a language, and often having a signification other than its grammatical or logical one. (Oxford English Dictionary)

The issue here is not single university (sing) versus a variety of universities (pl), but the fact that there is a commonly adapted scheme of mathematical instruction at present time, that is referred to as 'modern university curriculum', just like in Middle Ages there was a common such scheme, referred to as 'quadrivium'. Arcfrk 02:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your triteness belies your lack of wit. How many schools are there? Among them, how many different courses of study are there? There are more than one. That's why you pluralize it. Why don't you take your attacks back to where you got them? I wasn't attacking you or inviting you to return any such favor. I was pointing out that curriculum is just a word and that "university curriculum" is not an idiom. It is not a strange or peculiar phrase. It has absolutely no special grammatical or linguistic significance. It's a a set of different curricula at the university level. That's exactly what the two words mean when they are put together - the opposite of an idiom. All I did was tell you to check a dictionary because I assumed, in good faith, that you either didn't know what curriculum meant, or didn't know what an idiom was. I see that both are true. Not all universities have the same curriculum. In fact, most have several curricula running at once - they're called MAJORS. I was trying to help the article, and I suggested that you be more careful, and you attack me even though you are 110% wrong? I don't think so. One more personal attack comment out of you and I'll report you, and if you violate the 3RR on Calculus to be stubborn about it, I'll report you there too. End of discussion. --Cheeser1 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Curriculum (from User talk:Silly rabbit)

I am wondering why you reverted my edits, on the basis of WP:CIVIL. Not only did I not make such edits as an act of incivility, I justified my version while the other version went (rightly) unjustified. Please explain yourself, and please have the courtesy to accuse me of violations of WP:CIVIL to my face. I made a justified, explained, and civil change, and restated my justification when it was reverted without good cause (while being personally berated by the original reverter). I hardly consider my actions out of line, and would like to know why you reverted my edits and why you accused me of policy violations. Thank you. --Cheeser1 05:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think Arcfrk was berating you. He merely said that university curriculum is a standard idiom, or so he thought. Your edit summary replied that he should check a dictionary! That, to me, is uncivil. Anyway, I have replied in more detail on your talk page. Silly rabbit 05:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An excerpt from his berating me: "I dare say, you've expressed your personal opinion (based on misunderstanding of the subject) and wrapped it into an insult. If you cannot see that, you've got some serious personality issues...Being defensive about your opinion is usually a sign of insecurity." If that's not berating, I don't know what is. Just if you know, you thought that I was being the mean one or whatever. --Cheeser1 06:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Curricula (from User talk:Cheeser1)

I find your edit comments to be uncivil. You have in two edit comments made graduitous pejorative insinuations:

1. check the dictionary next time.
2. can't people deal with latin plurals or what?

And now

3. You want to accuse me of violating WP:CIVIL, please do it to my face.

Now, the term "the University curriculum" is widely used to refer, in a general case, to the course of study one undertakes at a university. I suspect that you are thinking of curriculum in the sense of a particular list of courses meant to attain a given degree. However, there are two different meanings of the term: one specific, and one more general. I don't see any reason why the phrase "the modern university curriculum" should cause you such queasiness. Check out the google hits on "the university curriculum", "the modern university curriculum", "the standard university curriculum", and so forth. As Arcfrk correctly pointed out, this is a standard idiom. Silly rabbit 05:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not an idiom. It's as much an idiom as the phrase "the average person" is an idiom. It isn't. It's just a common phrase. It's describing some standard, which is not how we talk in an encyclopedia when such a standard does not actually exist - curricula vary from program to program and from institution to institution. Do we write in an article about the flu that "a person with the flu will die"? No, we write that some people with the flu will die. We don't write "a university curriculum will cover calculus," we write that some or even many university curricula will cover calculus.

In case you still want to argue idiom vs. common phrase, take my example. "The average person" simply describes the average person (and presumes that such an average can be determined and that this "average" is relevant - assumptions one might avoid in encyclopedia writing). The phrase "the average Joe" is an idiom, because it technically means the average of all people named Joe, when what it really means is the same as "the average person." Its meaning is not the sum of the literal meanings of its components. That is an idiom.

And of course, like I pointed out, uncivility is not grounds for reverting my edits. Explaining yourself is. You've explained yourself and I find your reversion of an improvement of the article highly confusing. The WP:CIVIL issue may be something for you to bring up here, but it is not something to accuse me of in Calculus, let alone in an edit summary. I consider that uncivil - maybe I should revert you for it? No. I shouldn't.

It is far more appropriate to speak of universities in general than to speak of some imaginary "general university." That's how I contribute to Wikipedia. And when people don't seem to know what an idiom is, I direct them to the dictionary. Sorry if I'm terse in edit summaries, but I only get so much room in there. The fact that you don't like my tone is not the same as a violation of WP:CIVIL. I even explained to the other reverter what I meant by check the dictionary, and asked him why he couldn't have simply assumed good faith (which you haven't done either). He responded with what I consdier a personal attack, which I've removed. Regardless, I'll thank you to weigh my edits by their merit, not by the tone of their edit summaries. I'll also direct you to my explanation of why we should avoid assuming the existence of a "standard university curriculum" when it is not justified and not necessary. There's no reason to. --Cheeser1 05:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave an edit summary, explaining my reversion (with the additional word clearly making the statement singular). You reverted with an implication that Arcfrk and I don't understand the Latin plural. I reverted your revert: I had already given an edit summary, and yours was an insult. What gives? Regarding your criticism of my (and Arcfrk's) use of the word idiom, I think you are splitting hairs. Among several available dictionary definitions, many refer to a common mode of speech. My usage of the word was intended to communicate the fact that "the modern curriculum" is a common expression (not what we would deem an idiomatic expression, but yes, an idiom). Anyway, fine. Have it your way. I don't want to fight. Silly rabbit 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying on my talk page. I now understand that Arcfrk blew this way out of proportion, so I don't want to stir up the hornets nest any more. *handshake* All is good... Silly rabbit 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted was to remove an unnecessary, biased assumption based by removing the unnecessary phrase that implicitly suggests this assumption. In fact, someone else had already fixed it when someone else changed it back, citing an irrelevant point about the grammar of idioms. The fact that I might know better about idioms is irrelevant, maybe I shouldn't have bothered rebutting that line of reasoning. The fact is, the use of terms like "the modern curriculum" or "the average person" or "a modern civilization" is not encyclopedic. I'd say those qualify as weasel words unless properly justified (and in cases like "modern civilization," they becomes offensive, pejorative, and biased). A little piece of minor clean up to fix it, accompanied by a terse direction to the dictionary definition of idiom, and I feel like I get two people jumping down my throat about how I'm uncivil and how I need to check the dictionary. I don't want a fight either, but I'd like to be able to edit calculus without people framing it as though I picked the that fight. I appreciate you working to talk this over instead of letting it get further out of hand. --Cheeser1 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you to ANI, [6]. Enjoy! Arcfrk 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And in this talk page and User talk:Silly rabbit I have thoroughly explained my actions. Your inability to assume good faith, refusal to listen to my explaination, and accusations of things like taking away your time from more important Wikipedia articles notwithstanding, it is clear that my actions were based on a justifiable concern about the particulars of the language used in the article. I find it especially ridiculous that you accused me of inappropriately talking about reporting your personal attacks (e.g. accusing me of having "personality issues"), and rather than work to resolution like Silly Rabbit and I did, you have reported me to the administrators (not even requesting an intermediate form of moderation). These actions are, in my opinion, highly inappropriate, and I will not participate in any resolution process unless compelled to do so or unless I am afforded the good faith assumption I was due - an assumption I should have received before before I wound up giving an undue explanation of my actions that clearly delineated their intention and meaning. --Cheeser1 07:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I will add that you profess that "[you] have no inclination to engage in this silliness," but when I cut the conversation short to end the "silliness" I am branded in your complaint to the administrators as someone who is apparently uncivil? I explained my actions and indicated to you that I would not discuss them further if you would not be civil - you proceeded to accuse me of being insecure and having personality issues! I will admit that my edit summaries were terse, but I expected an assumption of good faith and a discussion of the content of my edits. I got no such assumption and my good-faith, constructive edits were reverted on the basis of WP:CIVIL. I am not the only one in the wrong here, and I've demonstrated with Silly Rabbit a willingness to discuss the content of my edits and resolve the issue. To any administrator reviewing this "complaint" - the above comments are my defense. Read those first, and if you have more specific questions or comments, feel free to ask them. However, I believe it should be blatantly obvious that my actions are not the kind that merit a complaint when this[7] sort of thing seems to be what the admin noticeboard is meant to resolve. Like it says, it's "not the Wikipedia complaints department." --Cheeser1 07:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist, I will engage in this silliness. Your assertion is not true: you cut the conversation short with

End of discussion. --Cheeser1 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

in order not to engage in debate; but now we are going to analyze 'who said what', instead of spending this time on improving Wikipedia, which to me is

silliness 1. The quality of being silly; foolishness, senselessness. b. An instance of this; a silly thing, act, etc. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Here are the summaries of my first edit and your revert (note, by the way, that I had written the original sentence, and your revert changed its meaning).

02:08, June 21, 2007 Cheeser1 (Talk | contribs) (30,993 bytes) (no, curriculum is singular. curricula is plural. it's a word. there is no idiom involved. "university curricula" means "the courses of study at universities." check the dictionary next time.)

(cur) (last) 02:00, June 21, 2007 Arcfrk (Talk | contribs) m (30,983 bytes) (I believe the idiom is university curriculum)

I stand by my assessment, apparently shared by Silly rabbit that your reaction is provocative, whether you realize it or not. I have expressed the reason for my phrasing in your talk page, in a contribution

02:34, June 21, 2007 Arcfrk (Talk | contribs) (2,548 bytes) (Congratulations!)

that you later erased with the edit summary

05:23, June 21, 2007 Cheeser1 (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (archive BS and delete whine-fest.)

You have further claimed that

05:33, June 21, 2007 Cheeser1 (Talk | contribs) (30,993 bytes) (I have justified my use of the word curricula, due to the plurality of curricula. No one has justified the singular. You want to accuse me of violating WP:CIVIL, please do it to my face.)

despite the fact that I had already explained the use of singular. You are free to disagree with me, but it is disingenuous to claim that you have justified your edit, and no one justified the opposite point of view. The fact that you have erased the evidence of discussion serves as a further indication of your disinclination to have a reasoned discourse. Incidentally, a reasoned discourse centers around the issue, and not whether someone is '110% wrong' or, as you have put it,

All I did was tell you to check a dictionary because I assumed, in good faith, that you either didn't know what curriculum meant, or didn't know what an idiom was. I see that both are true.

Telling someone

check the dictionary next time

or

can't people deal with latin plurals or what?

is not a telling sign of a good faith assumption, it is a sign of arrogance. At first, you claimed that the issue is purely grammatical, by attacking my use of the word 'idiom'. Later, you seemed to reverse yourself and claim that you object to the idea of the modern university curriculum as opposed to various courses of study. This can certainly be discussed, but starting by dismissing your interlocutors as ignorant of grammar is not conductive to a fruitful discussion. Incidentally, you have conducted yourself in a similar fashion on at least one previous occasion, as can be inferred from the following edit summaries at Calculus:

09:41, June 10, 2007 Cheeser1 (Talk | contribs) (30,860 bytes) (stop removing this unnecessarily. there is NO reason to exclude this: this kind of a sum is, by definition, a Riemann sum. that's what it's called. not calling it that does the reader a disservice.)

04:31, June 10, 2007 01001 (Talk | contribs) (30,824 bytes) (→Integrals - 1.)One might not know a Rieman sum adding to complexity. 2.)Courant does not mention them 3.)Spivak only in appendix 4.)Cant the approximating polygon lie entirely below or above?)

07:08, June 9, 2007 Cheeser1 (Talk | contribs) (30,854 bytes) (why? because that's what those sums are called. it's no more or less complicated to call them by their proper name.)

05:35, June 9, 2007 01001 (Talk | contribs) (30,824 bytes) (→Integrals - Why make this discussion more difficult with Riemann sums?

However, where I do completely agree with you is that ANI is

"not the Wikipedia complaints department."

The reason I have posted there is that I could not find a better place to report your disruptive behaviour. Can you think of a more appropriate place? Arcfrk 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so what is this, a witch hunt? You don't like my edit summaries, you take it up with me. I've admitted that my tone may not always be interpreted correctly, and that one who is not generous with good-faith assumptions may find them "provocative." You feel free to hammer that point home all you want, I've already admitted it. The fact that you don't like my tone is not equivalent to violations of policy. Accusing me of having a dysfunctional personality because I don't write the edit summaries the way you like them certainly seems just as dubious as the summaries themselves, and yet you continue to insist that I am apparently wreaking havok on Wikipedia by terrorizing people with my minor, contributive efforts to the Calculus article. You can talk about how Silly rabit agreed with my edit summaries being possibly misconstrued as provocative or inflammatory - I've admitted that this could be the case. However, Silly rabbit and I have also come to the same conclusion - that you are blowing this out of proportion. Get off your high horse, (OMG I sure do hope I don't get banned from Wikipedia for the horrible tone!!! of that remark!!!) The fact is, you have a problem with me. This is not about me terrorizing the Calculus article. I do my best to make sure the language in the article is precise and appropriate and when people like you don't know what an idiom is or don't know what a Riemann sum is, I fix it. That's how editing works. You don't like the tone I used in my edit summary? That's hardly the same as me running amok, vandalizing articles, using sockpuppets, or anything else that ANI deals with (for your information, ANI links to several different, less formal places to deal with content or interpersonal disputes). Now, I don't need a narrative of how evil I am every time I defend myself, so please discontinue writing one at every turn. We get your point. You don't like the tone of my edit summaries. That doesn't change the fact that my edits were constructive and that you did not assume good faith (it's not up to you to decide not to when you don't like my tone). I will also state that the editing and maintainance of my userpage and talkpage(s) is none of your business. Thank you, and good day. --Cheeser1 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I will point you to the discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard, where otherwise uninvolved administrators have commented not only that I was not being civil (if one assumes good-faith, of course), but that my revisions were well justified (and correct). I'm glad you think I "condescended" to state my opinion on Talk:Calculus, but I'll remind you that when I reverted your edit, you did not take it up there, nor did you make an issue about the content of my edits. You immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was incivil and then attacked me for that here on my user page. --Cheeser1 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Compute (from User talk:Pmanderson)

I just wanted to direct you to the dictionary definition of "compute," which is "to determine by calculation; reckon; calculate." So when you say "not calculate, please," and replace the word with "compute," what exactly do you mean (since the words are exactly synonymous)? --Cheeser1 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (originally in User talk: Pmanderson 2

The only English words that are exactly synonymous are furze and gorse.

Not only do I like the implicit etymology in calculate, compute implies, in this twenty-first century, far more sophisticated processes than the Egyptians were doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. It only implies that to people who don't understand that computation does not require a PC. --Cheeser1 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say "logical implication"? Write to be understood; Wikipedia is not an IBM manual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, that is a hair I need not split. However, the other one I just left on your talkpage is (archive note: see section below). Read up there, since I find your after-the-fact reversion of a resolved problem to be highly inappropriate. --Cheeser1 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, you refuse to edit cooperatively; you insist on language which makes fine points which the reader, however educated, will never notice, you decline to listen to anybody else, and you vow to revert-war to get your way. You're lucky I'm not an admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? That is terribly inappropriate. Furthermore, if the reader will never notice, then I WAS CORRECT in reverting to the original word, which was curricula. You want to threaten me and insult me? Honestly, go chew on your own ass for all I care. If you want to muck up Calculus with imprecise language, be my guest. Have it your way. I'll be sure to cower in fear of the almost-admin. It's not worth the trouble any more, thanks to people like who, who fail to realize that I was trying to leave everything the way it was, because it was correct and there was never a need to change it. And I will note that you violated WP:GF. All I meant was that I will revert it because the issue was resolved and my version was determined to be appropriate, not because I intended to start a revert war. God, I'm sick of you and your type, jumping down my throat for absolutely no reason. --Cheeser1 00:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

what's the deal? (from User talk:Pmanderson)

Okay, explain something to me. Someone in an article changes the word "curricula" to "curriculum." I fix it, and when people unnecessarily revert it and argue with me, I am the only one who provides an actual reason why the choice of the word curriculum is correct. This is confirmed by an administrator who is asked to intervene and resolve this issue. And now you step in and decide I'm pedantic? All I wanted was for the article to KEEP the CORRECT word, and I don't appreciate you re-instituting changes that were determined to be incorrect and unnecessary. Call me disruptive, but I'm the one who's trying to NOT change the article and the one whose position was determined by a third-party administrator to be correct. I expect you to revert it yourself. You've been nominated for adminship, and I would hope that you'd take the time to make more careful edits. And if you don't revert your edit, I'm going to fix it again myself in a few hours. --Cheeser1 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Calculus (from User talk:Rick Norwood and User talk:Cheeser1)

I am confused as to how you think I am acting "unilaterally" [8]. First of all, I changed two words in the article, based on the resolution of the excessively long debate about whether it should be "curriculum" or "curricula." I was just reverting the change to "curriculum" back to "curricula" because the singular is in no way justified. If that qualifies as "unilateral," so be it, but I've made my case, no one else has. As for the rest of that, I didn't write that, and I'd appreciate it if you paid more attention instead of falsely accusing me of messing up the article. The only thing I did to that paragraph was fix a link from "algebra" to "elementary algebra." --Cheeser1 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took my comment personally. It was not addressed to you in particular, but was a general remark intended for everyone taking part in the current revert war. We are, after all, intelligent mathematicians. We ought to be able to find an acceptable compromise on the talk page instead of reverting the article back and forth several times a day. Rick Norwood 15:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Threatened revert war (from Talk:Calculus)

Cheeser1 has, cheesily, threatened to revert war if he does not get his way on curricula. Does anybody else support his crusade, or should we simply recast the first sentence as well, to get rid of the bone of contention? I honestly thought education was far enough; guess not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blatantly violating WP:GF. All I meant was that I will revert it because the issue was resolved and my version was determined to be appropriate, [9] not because I intended to start a revert war. You know, if you trump it up in your imagination as if I'm crusading to destroy your article by reverting the change from "curricula" to "curriculum" (and subsequently, to "education"), it's going to start to seem that way. Works the same way as WP:CABAL. You people want to dumb down the article with imprecise language, feel free. I'm done with this worthless argument. Don't expect a response, regardless of what you say here. --Cheeser1 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, then: One editor preferred curricula to curriculum. So what? Both are off topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I intentionally archived the entire discussion to get that kind of silliness of this talk page. I think that we are all on the same page on 1. avoiding the word or 2. reaching a consensus without an editwar, so I plan on archiving this rather soon as well. Any further discussion of commonly used idioms vs. latin plural should take place on the talk pages of the concerned editor. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Curricula (from User talk:Cheeser1)

For those of you looking for that discussion, it has been archived. I am no longer participating, because no one has given me a single iota of a good faith assumption, and because despite the issue having been resolved by an admin to keep the article as it was (with the word "curricula"), people continue to reinstate the changes to "curriculum" and "education." Continued commentary on this page from involved parties (I'm not going to call it "discussion" or even "argument" at this point) will be deleted without prejudice. --Cheeser1 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

unilateral (from User talk:Cheeser1)

I'm sorry you took my comment personally. It was not addressed to you in particular, but was a general remark intended for everyone taking part in the current revert war. We are, after all, intelligent mathematicians. We ought to be able to find an acceptable compromise on the talk page instead of reverting the article back and forth several times a day. Rick Norwood 15:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rick - it seemed to be addressed at me, but I appreciate you clearing that up. I agree that we ought to; indeed, an administrator on the ANI noted that my version was correct and that my edits were not out of line. That didn't seem to stop anybody from continuing to revert my correction, and I've given up on fixing it. --Cheeser1 23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)