User talk:Drevolt

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629928287 your edit] to Most Known Unknown may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * }
 * | note16          = Remix    featuring Slim Thug, Trick Daddy &amp; Project Pat

UCSF mascot
Hi! Noticed your removal of the UCSF mascot. Just wanted to say that it does have one, which can be seen here. it's just a bear    While your edit is somewhat wrong, I won't undo it cause yeah, it's a dumb mascot, and it's used seldom since there's no sports team. But there is one. Eccekevin (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classical element, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaximenes ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Classical_element check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Classical_element?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

June 2020
Having had to spend too much of time removing amaturish or factionion changes to these articles its a real please to see an editor just getting on with improving them.

Rutgers University
You reverted my edit here with the edit summary "take it to the talk page", though there already was a discussion occurring at Talk:Rutgers University. Your input is welcomed! Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Experientialism short description
hi Drevolt 👋 – a question for you about short descriptions in the context of this recent edit you made: Would it be accurate for me to understand the "Please add to body of article with cited source before including as short description" as meaning something like, "Because the content of this short description does not explicitly exist in the body of the article, please add that content to the article – with sources – before adding it to the short description? I ask because I'm relatively new to adding short descriptions and I'm wanting to make sure I'm understanding the guidance you shared correctly! Stussll (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry for the delay in responding! Yes, that's roughly what I meant. The short description should basically just be a shortened summary of the main topic of the article, so it shouldn't include any content that isn't already reflected by the article. And since you can't cite sources in a short description (whereas you can cite sources in the article itself), anything that requires a source should be established in the article before including it in the short description. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions about this! --Drevolt (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * short description should basically just be a shortened summary of the main topic of the article, so it shouldn't include any content that isn't already reflected by the article. This makes total sense - thank you for explaining it. Stussll (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

UC Berkeley lead
Hi, I pinged you earlier about your involvement in edit warring on the UC Berkeley page. See the Talk page discussion I started: Despite my request, you inserted "30" into the text again, in this this edit:. Please discuss it on the talk page instead of continuing an edit war about the wording re: rankings. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I have been away from my computer for the past week and was editing from the mobile app, so I didn't see the notification(s) until now. Generally speaking, if my edits have an "iOS" tag on them, I'm not editing from my computer and won't be able to see any notifications. I've responded to your comment in the talk page discussion, sorry about the delay in responding. --Drevolt (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Washington and Lee University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caribbean Studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Hi! I wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of pending-changes edits you accepted on Civil Rights Act of 1964. The IP editor inserted a handful of unsourced POV language in the first one and, in the second, capitalized some words that broke a working link. I hate to complain, but please try to be more careful when you go through the pending-changes backlog. Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sorry about that. For some reason I only saw their second edit, which looked like it was just an innocuous change (the page linked there doesn’t exist either way). The first edit, which I’m not sure how I missed, was definitely unsourced POV. Thanks for catching that! —Drevolt (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's no big deal—the pending-changes process isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing! Cheers! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Locke Lectures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent Columbia University removal
Hey there, I saw your recent removal on the page for Columbia University about the prestige of the school and I was wondering if you could clarify it. You say that it's unsupported and refer to sources on other similar articles, but there are sources like this one and this on the Harvard page and this on the MIT, all of which mention Columbia University on their lists. I'm not sure if you're referring to a level of prestige that I'm not aware of, but I'd love it if ou could better explain the change. Thanks in advance. Lonely-crab (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi The consensus among WikiProject:Higher Education editors is that the bar is extremely high for including statements about prestige in the lead of university articles. You'll notice, for instance, that the MIT article makes no mention of this kind at all in its article. There is a mention of prestige in the lead of the Harvard article, but it's extremely well-sourced and is a pretty good example of the support needed for a claim of this kind. In general, WP:PRESTIGE is pretty representative of the consensus on this topic, although very rare exceptions are made in cases where there are very strong sources and there's been extensive discussion on the topic. The sentence in the Harvard lead has been the subject of literally dozens of talk page discussions over the past decade, and while I don't entirely agree with its inclusion (largely due to WP:NPOV reasons), I also recognize that there has been a great deal of discussion and that the current consensus is that Harvard merits an exception. No such discussion has taken place for Columbia, nor are the sources anywhere near the quality that would be needed to support such a claim based on the current consensus. --Drevolt (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano
A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jack Kevorkian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr. Death.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Drevolt

Thank you for creating Omar Alexander Cardenas.

User:Inexpiable, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Inexpiable (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring – September 2022
Your recent editing history at list of longest-reigning monarchs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aréat (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Topic has already been started on the talk page. Feel free to participate there. Drevolt (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East India Company (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West India Company.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edits on Pramipexole article
A news source describing a single anecdote/case study with a sensationalist slant isn't sufficient to condemn its use for depression in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (multiple RCTs confirming its efficacy in TRD); desist from injecting your convictions into this article, thanks. 2601:181:300:9840:D0BD:8D3B:A822:70BA (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits regarding rankings on Cornell and Brown pages
Hi Drevolt,

Your recent edits on the pages for Cornell and Brown claim that they cannot include "among the top universities in the U.S. or world" in the lead as this distinction is reserved only for those in the "top 10 on major institutional ranking" based on "Wikipedia consensus." However, the pages for several highly ranked peer institutions e.g. University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern, etc. make this claim of being "among the top in the world" in their leads despite not ranking in the top 10 of any of the major publications. Furthermore, many institutions ranked similarly to or lower than Brown and Cornell in major global ranking publications also make this claim in their leads e.g. UT Austin, Australia National University, UCSD, etc. Moreover, pages for institutions such as Georgetown, Boston College, etc. also write that they are "among the top universities in the U.S." despite not ranking in the top 10 on most domestic rankings and ranking below both Brown and Cornell. There does not seem to be any consensus at all regarding this topic, and it does not make sense to selectively single out these 2 institutions which are peers to many of the above mentioned ones. Username8765432 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Username8765432! Thanks for the suggestions. I looked at all of the pages you listed, and several didn't have the claims in the lead that you mentioned. I've fixed the pages for Georgetown and Australia National University (although I think that the page for ANU is governed by higher education consensus for Australian universities, which isn't necessarily the same as American universities). The University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern are the only ones you mentioned which meet the consensus criteria for this claim in the lead, since for each of these, at least three of the five major ranking publications place the university in the top 10. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any further questions --Drevolt (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Drevolt,
 * Thank you for the response; it seems another Wikipedia user edited many of those pages right after my post. Could you let me know where the consensus that universities must rank in the top 10 of "at least three of the five major ranking publications" to include the lead statement is documented? Also, is there any documented consensus about which five rankings constitute the "major" ones? I was not able to find either on WikiProject: Higher Education. There are universities that rank in the top 10 of one or two, but not three or more, "major" rankings; furthermore, there are still university pages with "top in the U.S./ world" in their leads that do not meet these strict criteria e.g. UCLA, Duke (at the time of writing). I would like to know for sure before further editing any university pages, thanks again. Username8765432 (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Username8765432!
 * The current prevailing consensus that emerged from past RfCs is roughly represented by WP:BOOSTER, which I would take a look at first. For instance, it points out that statements like "…is one of the best universities in the world…" plain violate WP:ASF (and therefore WP:NPOV). Here's the part to focus on: "Editors should not be trying to "sell", "spin", or otherwise convince readers of the quality of the school. "One of the" and "widely recognized" are canonical weasel words: how many are among the best, what specific recognition, best on what criteria, how recent in the recognition, etc. If the statement can't stand without weasel words it lacks a neutral point of view. If a college or university was ranked 4th internationally in the most recent Academic Ranking of World Universities, state exactly that rather than contorting it into non-neutral and non-verifiable statements like those above" (those above being "is one of the best universities in the world", "is widely recognized as a leader in", and "is one of the premier institutions on the West coast"). However, there has been a de facto consensus for a while now to make exceptions in cases where the world rankings are agreed in placing a university in the top 10 globally. I would in fact be fine with removing this kind of wording from universities in the top 10 as well, but that's something you'd have to take up on those pages (which I would welcome). The bottom line is that if a university doesn't have that level of agreement among the four major global rankings, then you can either state their exact ranking in the four major global publications in the lead, or you can just leave rankings out of the lead. Does that make sense? --Drevolt (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your talk page history...
...please see this block. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, I didn’t even notice the ban! Thank you for taking care of that, really glad to see disruptive editors being handled appropriately. — Drevolt (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "claim"
I noticed that you made changes inserting the words "claims" and "is claimed" to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Please see WP:CLAIM: we can say that someone "said", "wrote", or "believed" something as these are neutral terms. The use of "claim" however, is considered non-neutral and is to be avoided except in quotations or when referring to legal claims. I've reverted your changes. Please maintain a neutral point of view when you make changes. Skyerise (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I’ve reinstated the edits using “states” and “says”. Note that MOS changes are supposed to involve adjusting what’s been added instead of reverting. Reverting for MOS reasons is not a productive editing practice. Drevolt (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, not an MOS issue. Skyerise (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, but MOS:CLAIM is not. The fact that something in the MOS is motivated by NPOV concerns doesn’t mean that you should revert something that could be very easily edited to comply with the MOS. Drevolt (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)