User Talk: CalCoWSpiBudSu

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

thumb|alt=A plate of chocolate chip cookies.|Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''' ↗ ↗
Hello, CalCoWSpiBudSu, and '''''welcome to Wikipedia ↗'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the '''Wikipedia Teahouse ↗'''.

Introduction ↗

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

How to edit a page ↗

How to write a great article ↗

Simplified Manual of Style ↗

Your first article ↗

Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community ↗

Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox ↗

and check out the Task Center ↗, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign your name ↗ on talk pages ↗ using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our '''help pages''' ↗, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Linguistical (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Re Michael Greger ↗ article

I have reverted some of the deletions. It looks to me like User:Hipal is a bit of a stickler for the rules; it may be that their deletions are justified, although, myself, being a good deal more of a "if it improves the article, put it in" sort of person, I may not agree. So, we will see how strongly they feel about things. If they press the matter I suspect they will get what they want, since they are probably a lot better at rulesmongering than I am, despite the fact that I've been around Wikipedia for a pretty long time. I don't tend to mess with contentious issues much these days; the Greger article has been on my watchlist for a long time.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your response. Since I’m new to Wikipedia, I feel that speaking up probably wouldn’t make much of a difference. This user hasn’t contributed to improving the article or assisting other editors, they only focused on deleting content without discussion. At the very least, this guy could have sent a message to discuss the issue or offered some guidance, but don't, nothing. That said, I’m actually satisfied because the article on Dr. Michael Greger has improved compared to before. If they decide to remove it, I’ll just take it as an unfortunate outcome and move on. Your support means a lot to me, and I truly appreciate it, for me it's enough. Thank you very much! ^0^ CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that the article has improved. Thank you both for the excellent work.
::I've discussed the issues I see at length. If you'd like assistance, you might find this helpful:
::As Brianyoumans mentions, Wikipedia has what are called contentious topics ↗. These are topic areas known to be especially problematic to edit and have special rules to address those problems. Biographies of living persons ↗ have such rules.
::My general rule of thumb when encountering a contentious topic that I'm not familiar with is to move on to something else to avoid having to spend time reviewing the current rules to follow and the past problems to avoid. I recommend that inexperienced editors simply move on while they are still learning the basics of working with others here on Wikipedia.
::To find the current rules and past problems relevant to a specific contentious topic: WP:CTOP ↗ gives an overview of the general rules. Template:Contentious_topics/table ↗ is a table of the topics, identifying the area, decision, and subpage for each topic. For BLPs the area is WP:BLP ↗, the decision is WP:ARBBLP ↗, where you can find a history of the problems and enforcement, and the subpage is WP:CT/BLP ↗, where you can find a brief summary of current enforcement options. As an editor, WP:BLP is most relevant, with some additional emphasis at WP:ARBBLP#Final_decision ↗. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::This ↗ doesn't help the situation at all. --Hipal (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

"Fake" sources and "fake" information

Please stop labeling sources and information as "fake" unless they are literally fake. Outdated sources are not fake. Information from non-independent sources is not fake. Using that label when it's not accurate is misleading for both readers and other editors.

And please don't remove information solely because it's from a source that isn't independent of the subject. Independent sources are often preferred but it's not a blanket rule and many non-independent sources are perfectly fine. (And "non-independent" is not the same as "primary.") ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, here's what I found when I edited this article:
:1. Many statements in the article are unverifiable.
:While reviewing the article, I found several claims that appear to be inaccurate or entirely unsupported. I attempted to locate alternative sources but could not find reliable, independent confirmations for many of them.
:2. The article relies heavily on primary sources.
:Although Wikipedia does not prohibit primary sources, the majority of the references here come directly from the University of Michigan itself. This raises concerns about neutrality and verifiability.
:3. Clarification on the term “fake source.”
:You're absolutely right that the term "fake" was misused. Instead of "fake," I’ll refer to unsupported content as “not supported by source,” “unsourced,” “misrepresented,” or “synthesized.”
:4. Concerns about good-faith editing and next steps.
:Given the scope of the issues, it now appears the article may have been shaped in a way that reflects institutional interests more than neutral reporting, the error is more serious than I thought, I’ll try to improve the article over time, and please help me review the content for accuracy and balance. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::@ElKevbo In your revert (1301408798 ↗), could you please point me to the sentence in the body that actually says: “The university currently fields varsity teams across 29 NCAA-sanctioned sports”?
::I’ve carefully reviewed the article and found only this sentence in the “Athletics” section:
::“The university currently boasts 29 varsity intercollegiate sports, including 14 men's teams and 15 women's teams.” [370]
::This sentence is not equivalent in meaning to the one in the lead, and even the cited source (370 ↗) only supports 27 sports, not 29, nor does it mention “NCAA-sanctioned sports.” Therefore, the claim in the lead is unsourced and not verified in the body.
::Additionally, I noticed that this sentence also lacks a source:
::“Notable alumni from the university include 8 domestic and foreign heads of state or heads of government, 48 U.S. senators, 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 42 U.S. Cabinet secretaries, and 41 U.S. governors.”
::As far as I can tell, no citation is attached to this line, despite the highly specific numbers. This violates Wikipedia’s verifiability guidelines and could mislead readers.
::I said from the beginning that this article is a mess of information and many sources are falsely attributed. My intention here is not to nitpick, but to ensure accuracy and proper sourcing in the article. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

:::If your objection is to a small part of a sentence (e.g., "NCAA-sanctioned") then remove that phrase. If your objection is that part of sentence is that it's outdated or has a typo, correct it. Outright removing important information from an article simply because the current sentence has some minor, easily corrected flaws is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::::You're missing the point. This isn’t about nitpicking — it’s about basic verifiability, which is not optional under WP:V ↗ and WP:NOR ↗. I’ve pointed this out multiple times: the article contains numerous claims that are either unsourced or misrepresented.
::::If you can provide reliable, independent sources to support them, that’s great — please do. But continuing to defend unverified or inaccurate content isn’t constructive.
::::Take the lead, for example:
::::It claims “29 NCAA-sanctioned sports,” but the cited source only confirms 27 and doesn’t mention NCAA sanctioning. That’s not a minor wording issue — it’s factually incorrect and fails WP:V ↗ and WP:RS ↗.
::::Similarly, the alumni section states “48 U.S. senators” without any citation. You can’t include precise figures like that without strong sourcing.
::::Again: if a claim can't be verified, it must be corrected or removed. Let’s focus on fixing the sourcing. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I can only say that I don’t even know where to start with this article, it’s a mess. It relies heavily on primary sources and dead links. There are over 500 references, for heaven’s sake — and I’m all alone. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

:vi:Bản mẫu:Reference column heading ↗

Ct. viết tắt của Chú thích thì hợp lý hơn là viết tắt của Nguồn tham khảo. Nếu là Nguồn tham khảo thì viết tắt là Ntk. Could you please fix it back before Băng Toả’s mistaken revert ↗. Thank you very much.
42.116.137.243 ↗ (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
:Please log in to your account, select the correct language version, and submit your message. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Vietnamese version - or you can edit it directly from your account. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for your guide, but my IP falls into an IP block range in viwiki. Moreover, Băng Toả could revert it again so the help from an experienced user is the most ideal.42.116.137.243 ↗ (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tick}} done CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you very much.42.116.137.243 ↗ (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Show Preview is your friend

Hi CalCoWSpiBudSu. Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your consutructive edit(s) to Wikipedia; specifically those on ''Cyberpunk 2077 ↗'' which caught my attention. Whilst the content of your edits appears to be purely constructive, in an effort to limit your unnecessary inflation of the article's History Log ↗ I would encourage you to make liberal use of the '''Show preview ↗''' button going forward. '''Show preview''' is helpful to allow users to easily identify specific changes within the revision history and, as mentioned before, stops unneccessary log inflation. For more iformation on the benefits of Show preview, you can read this article ↗. Thanks. -- '''Jasca'''Ducato <small>(talk | contributions ↗)</small> 15:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:I understand what you're saying. I’m the one who’s been revising this entire citation system since 2025, and the article was subsequently upgraded to B-class ↗. However, it is still facing issues with poorly cited sources. I recently discovered the WP:VG/S ↗ guidelines, and since the article contains 374 sources, I have to revise them individually, manually assigning archive links and replacing the archive link according to WP:ATODAY ↗. I can't check everything at once because the references are too messy and extensive. My area experiences constant connection drops due to bandwidth throttling by my ISP, and I'm afraid I'll lose my edits. I hope you understand. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Merging nominations

Thanks for the correction on Woodkid ↗, was wondering if you knew of a policy page I could scribble down somewhere to remind myself? Not contesting the revert, I just prefer having policy on hand as opposed to "reference this article". <span class="nowrap"><small>''ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸ''</small><span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>💬<small>(they/she ↗)</small> ''In solidarity ↗''</span> 15:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, merging the "Result" column directly conflicts with MOS:TABLES ↗ regarding table sorting and accessibility. You can check the official layout template for awards at Multi-column mixed sortable unsortable ↗ (the Academy Awards model table explicitly keeps consecutive "Nominated" and "Won" cells separate without any rowspan).
:Also, per MOS:DTAB ↗, using rowspan here breaks row-by-row context for screen readers. That's why Featured Lists like Gaga ↗ or DiCaprio ↗ avoid merging results. Best. ^0^ CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
::Much appreciated! And thanks for all the work you're putting in on Woodkid! <span class="nowrap"><small>''ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸ''</small><span style="color:#a30d8f">Taffer</span>💬<small>(they/she ↗)</small> ''In solidarity ↗''</span> 16:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you, have a nice day! ^-^ CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)