User talk:Top5a

Rctgamer3 has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Rctgamer3 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point of sail

I note your reversion[1]. I have put a full explanation of why it is wrong to suggest that studding sails are not dedicated (or, even, primarily) downwind sails on the talk page of the article.

I had thought that my original edit summary was sufficient for anyone who was involved in the subject. I am surprised that the error had been in the article for so long (since 6 March 2022). This rather demonstrates that it is less obvious than I had thought.

I have left the article text unchanged for the meantime. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As we both know, errors do persist on Wikipedia for, most unfortunately, sometimes years. I assumed good faith in your edit (as you can see in my revert comment), but was unable to access the source to see if there was an obvious reason as to why it was removed. I can tag some of the main authors on the page within the discussion you opened on the Talk page. Cheers. Top5a (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Lightoil (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your input. I do most of the time, yet with regard to certain pages and issues wherein Administrators refuse to intervene with page protections and/or heed warnings, I do not bother. Even with UV and Twinkle, it is a Sisyphean task. This also applies to areas in which Administrators protect and enable concerted nefarious activity on this site (obviously not in this case of someone having fun or fat fingering a commit with some light vandalism as was the case here). Areas in which Administrators and other users properly take notice, I do participate. Cheers. Top5a (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy indices

I don't want to continue the discussion over at Talk:Whole-process people's democracy where it's getting rather off-topic, but I agree that the Polity data series was a bad choice for making my point. I hadn't realised that it was that closely linked to the CIA. The V-Dem Democracy Indices seem to be more respected than either Polity or the The Economist indices. If you are aware of peer-reviewed democracy indices developed by political scientists from other parts of the world, e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Senegal, Botswana, Ghana, wherever, then please add them to Democracy indices, with appropriate sources. Boud (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>I don't want to continue the discussion over at Talk:Whole-process people's democracy where it's getting rather off-topic

No problem at all! As far as I am concerned, everything is settled :)

As per your suggestion regarding adding further sources, the treatise on my user page expounds upon why terms such as "peer-reviewed democracy indices" render certain attempts at perspective balancing an exercise in futility on enwiki. The aforementioned having been stated, if you yourself are curious, there are many studies published by Chinese universities and governmental working bodies such as the 中国人大制度理论研究会 regarding democratic processes (be they active, experimental, or inactive/suspended) within the PRC. Cheers -- Top5a (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useless hyphenation

In Pest (organism), you inserted a hyphen in "thornlike", which is found in American and British English dictionaries, whereas "thorn-like" is not. If I see "lawn-mower" in WP I'm going to deep-six the hyphen; wouldn't you? BTW, same goes for "non-constructive", which was in your edit summary. Chris the speller ^yack 15:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>you inserted

I did no such thing, just reverted a non-constructive edit. Hyphenations are equally common, so changing one form of the term to another is non-constructive. Top5a (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I should note that "non-constructive" is a templated option within RW. Once again, a common spelling. Top5a (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]