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]

Primary sources

Regarding your edit at Sanae Takaichi, please note that Wikipedia is built on reliable, secondary sources. If you want to add information to the effect that Takaichi's official name uses the hashigo-daka character, you will need to find a secondary source that specifically mentions that this is the case. The source you added is a WP:PRIMARY source that does not actually discuss her name itself, and therefore cannot be used to support the claim that the hashigo-daka is official. I have never seen her name written with the hashigo-daka anywhere else; even her Diet page uses the usual character. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, her Diet page (non-legal) is how she styles her name, which is indicated in the source which I noted was grabbed from, and how it is presented on, jawiki. It does not, however, appear to be her registered name. For example, here is another document listing her apparent registered name. This is why jawiki lists both, as well.

And here is yet another.

Perhaps both should be indicated in the lede, as is done on jawiki (i.e. her preferred styling, as well as her registered name)? Typically, politicians and famous individuals have their common/self-styled name(s) listed, in addition to their legally registered name.

To the second point: with regard to how names in the lede are listed here on enwiki for foreign names, including Japanese, clicking on a few links even in her own sidebar and elsewhere in her article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjir%C5%8D_Koizumi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar%C5%8D_As%C5%8D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiz%C5%8D_Obuchi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shun%27ichi_Suzuki_(politician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshitaka_Shind%C5%8D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadamichi_Kuribayashi

The most common lede format appears to be English form (given + surname), open parens, kanji, comma, italicized romaji (surname + given), semicolon, born/expired, close parens. Top5a (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read what I said. This is not the Japanese Wikipedia. You may not look at government documents, which are primary sources, and interpret the presence of the hashigo-daka character in these documents as indication that that character is part of her legal name; this would be considered original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. If you would like to include this information, you must provide a reliable, secondary source, that specifically says her legal name is '髙市早苗'.

On your second point, what is 'most common' as a format is not relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); we follow MOS:FULLNAME, which tells us to remove clutter from the lead to improve readability. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed capable of reading, thank you very much.

Your original research argument makes no sense with regard to the context of the proper printing of someone's name. Government registered names are of higher import than preferred stylings. Secondary sources list her name both as her preferred styling (such as in the Diet page you linked), as well as her purported registered name, such as this random news article here from Yahoo. I provided several substantiating examples of official documents utilizing what appears to be her registered name, and, furthermore, proffered a dual-listing of them for the article lede.

>If you would like to include this information, you must provide a reliable, secondary source, that specifically says her legal name is '髙市早苗'.

Can you provide one that specifically states that her registered name is 高市 早苗? Your demands are farcical.

----

As for the alleged clutter/readability, I fail to see the rationale in you attempting to defend an aberrant formatting, in contravention of the sweeping majority of other articles about Japanese persons on enwiki.

"Why are you being intentionally obtuse, let alone snarky and combative, on these matters?" would perhaps be a better question for me to ask of you. Strange behavior. Top5a (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot purport to know what her legal name is; I don't have a copy of her koseki on hand. Even if I did have it, I could not use it as a source for any claim on Wikipedia. That a tiny minority of sources may use the hashigo-daka is apparent from the documents provided, though the vast majority use the regular character. However, none of the provided sources give any indication that the hashigo-daka is her 'registered name'. You must acknowledge this, as you wrote above: 'what appears to be her registered name'. Wikipedia does not allow for you to make inferences based on primary sources. Please allow me quote WP:NOR: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. If you want to make the claim the hashigo-daka version is her legal name, you must find a source that states this in its own voice. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>You must acknowledge this

What? Can you seriously not see your employment of circular reasoning herein?

I have provided primary and secondary sources, from government documents and news articles, that substantiate my claims. You have provided secondary sources (and no government documents) that substantiate your claims.

You yourself are making inferences, and ones based upon less quality evidence. Prithee, how would anything on wiki be written to your standards? You are attempting (terribly, I might add) to define inference as any ingestion and regurgitation of any data, whatsoever. By your own definition, you are inferring from your secondary sources. Those secondary sources are inferring from... primary(?) sources. What makes your inference, based upon further distilled secondary data, superior to my inference, based upon higher quality source data (both secondary, as well as primary)? Even if the government documents are excluded, what makes your inferences from secondary sources "better" than my inferences from secondary sources?

Again, highly strange behavior from you. Not sure why you are so emotionally invested in this article that you are attacking me. Instead of citing so many guidelines, perhaps you should think with your brain, remember WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and that users are here to WP:BUILDWP. Top5a (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia's core policies. Please re-read WP:NOR. Those documents do not substantiate your claim because they do not say anything about her 'legal name'. I can easily find government sources that use the regular character; yet I would not use these to posit what her 'legal name' is because they don't specifically discuss the matter. This is not a productive activity. Look for reliable, secondary sources that discuss her name and any divergence between common and legal use. For instance, it is well known and cited in that article that during her first marriage her legal name was 'Yamamoto', even though she was universally referred to as 'Takaichi' in public. Find a source that actually states what you want to say, and then we can include it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now identified a source that specifically mentions that 髙市 is her koseki name, and have thus added the content back into the article. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed my actions earlier, I seem to have been somewhat confused. The source I have added in now is the one you added in originally. It clearly states that the name in brackets is the 'koseki name': （ ）内の氏名は、戸籍名である, so using this source to support this claim is not original research. It still is a primary source, however, and therefore not ideal in these circumstances. Either way, I would like to extend my deepest apologies. In the first place, I was too hasty, in the second place, I was too overblown. I will note, however, that what I said above still applies. The reason why this is a valid source is because it specifically states that 髙市 is her legal name. Any document, primary or secondary, that merely included '髙市' in reference to her would be insufficient, without an additional secondary source that clearly stated that this was her legal name. I hope you can pardon me for having fallen into a spell. I haven't the faintest idea what came over me. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]