User talk:SpecialPiggy

Why "singular"

What's with all the edits substituting "singular" where "single" seems to have been the intended and more normal term? Pending a good reason, I have reverted them all, per WP:BRD. We can discuss here or on one of the relevant article talk pages. Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted

Hi, I am willing to discuss. As noted on each edit, the linguistic use, the intended and more normal use is "singular" though this use might not be the common use; Admittedly it is rare to find "singular" in print when not referring to the singularity of the Big Bang. However, the word "singular" is the accurate word as "singular" refers to a thing in space, where "single" is a word in mathematics used to refer to an imaginary number quantity, possibly a set of numbers, plural. I am something of a linguist as I did linguist work for an antiquities organization associated with the museums.

Is this sufficient discussion or farther? SpecialPiggy (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not enough discussion to allow you to continue making these changes. You admit yourself that this is a rare usage of singular. Wikipedia sets great store by clarity. Using a rare word in place of a common one detracts from the clarity of articles. Worse, it will lead to incorrect statements if one of the more common meanings of singular is presumed by the reader. I do not understand your definitions of single and am inclined to think that they are plain wrong. What you mean by imaginary number quantity is hard to fathom. Single does not refer to an imaginary number in mathematics. If you mean the abstract number one then the meanining is one in number, precisely the meaning we need. I have never heard of single meaning set of numbers or plural. Such definitions are not found in Wiktionary or the OED and Wolfram Mathworld turns up nothing also. Spinning Spark 16:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SpinningSpark. This explanation is essentially bogus and uninterpretable. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm :) Well :)

I'm sorry that you 2 feel that way. After all, you differ with me. I am a little concerned at the tone of your reply tho, Spinningspark, as tho you were arresting someone, instead of just talking on a talk page. I really would not want you to twist my words tho by saying that I admitted the use was rare. Actually I said it was a standard linguistic use ----- which it is.

What can be the reason for Wikipedia staff to disallow a standard linguistic use on its pages?

So I am wondering who else on staff I can speak to about the correct and upright use. SpecialPiggy (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your actual words were "Admittedly it is rare to find "singular" in print" in the context under discussion. Please provide some evidence of your claims, such as quotations of usage examples from books and a manual of style or book on English usage which explicitly states that singular is the preferred usage. Wikimedia staff do not get involved in content disputes.

PS, it is not the custom here to start a new heading with every reply. Instead, indent your reply using one more colon (:) than the person you are replying to. Spinning Spark 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for informing me about the 'custom' here at wikipedia culture. What could be more interesting or more relevant to know. As for your reading comprehension I'm afraid there is something wrong with it, seriously. To your request for a reference on a book of style: The MLA handbook v.3 has a section in the back that uses the word "singular" in this correct standard way. You may consult the book yourself if you find it worthy to do so. (How is this a content dispute? No content, only vocabulary - to your odd reply. So I would like to speak to a staff other than you.) SpecialPiggy (talk) 4:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Over a week and still nothing from 'spinningspark' - should I be surprised? This is a topic that deserves a certain notice. SpecialPiggy (talk) 9:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"...quotations..." and "...which explicitly states..." Spinning Spark 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to interpret that fragmented gibberish..? Staff is suppose to be helpful. SpecialPiggy (talk) 7:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably it's not a topic deserving any special notice, but I think SpinningSpark just meant to direct your attention back to specific words in his previous request where he said, "Please provide some evidence of your claims, such as quotations of usage examples from books and a manual of style or book on English usage which explicitly states that singular is the preferred usage." This is a "content dispute" in that it is a difference of opinion about the content (wording) of an article. It may also become a behavior dispute if you say more stuff like "As for your reading comprehension I'm afraid there is something wrong with it, seriously." Focus on content, not editors; see WP:NPA. My comment "This explanation is essentially bogus and uninterpretable" was about what you wrote, not about you. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpecialPiggy, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi SpecialPiggy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits...

...such as [1] and [2] are either borderline competence issues or else you are trolling us (the latter is also edit warring). I am beginning to suspect that it is the latter. In either case it is disruptive to the encyclopaedia so please stop it or else I will stop it for you. Spinning Spark 22:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]