User talk:Dhruvh

March 2018
Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please use the Edit summary to tell us why you are making edits to the articles. Thanks for participating.'' BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up about red links
I see that you're removing a lot of WP:REDLINKs.

That can be very helpful when you're removing redlinks to pages that are probably never going to have an article, like here.

But if the red link is for a topic we could have an article on someday, like for an actor in a big movie, it's OK to leave the link.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of districts and neighborhoods in Los Angeles, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''Don't make changes without giving the reasons therefor in the Edit summary. That Sherman Village change is an example of the way not to do it.'' BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
Hello, I'm JesseRafe. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Richard D. Wolff. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Also, please use edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's actually quite disruptive as I see you've been doing this for over a year and seemingly without rationale, creating more work for others as shortly after you did this, Cabán had an article, but the link was no longer active and had to be re-added. Please read the linked guidelines above about why we use redlinks here. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Ng, you may be blocked from editing. ''You were explicitly warned this morning about the inappropriateness of removing red links for no reason and even given a concrete example. Please cease this activity as it is not productive.'' JesseRafe (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tony Fadell. ''You've been warned for over a year to both use edit summaries and stop removing redlinks just because. You have not responded on any talk page. This is your last warning.'' JesseRafe (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing quoted material
Please check to make sure you are not changing quoted material:. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not decap proper names
I reverted your edit to Los Angeles because "Southern California" is the name of a region, and "Southern" is properly capitalized. - Donald Albury 11:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Sixth Party System, may be confused with vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Harvard Business School vs Harvard University
What is your deal with changing links to the business school to the university? It's less correct for the reader since it makes articles less specific. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
I noticed you had changed a person's name in a set of recent edits. While any person, especially someone here with a BLP page, may have an official/formal name, (such as what one would find on their birth certificate), that is not necessarily the name the that we would use her on WP. Please see WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NICKNAME & MOS:NICKNAME, and have a look at the Bill Clinton article for an example. While you might be inclined to note the former President as William, (or William Jefferson or William J.), he is commonly known as "Bill" due to our guidelines. As such I corrected your edit to comform to the guidelines. I also saw on my watchlist that you had made several more edits afterward, and the few I looked at were also name changes. Please review those edits, and indeed any edits you've made to people's names to ensure they are in compliance. Thank you - wolf  05:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One last thing; I see that you rarely, if ever, leave an edit summary. There are perhaps roughly a dozen in your last 250 edits... that's less that 5%. I see that this has already been requested of you multiple times. I asking again, please leave a summary, with every edit you make, briefly explaining the changes made or, please post an reply here explaining your refusal to do so.

August 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Picard&#39;s Facepalm (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in San Francisco Bay Area. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Northern California is always capitalized. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at San Francisco and Los Angeles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you continue to engage in further disruptive editing by improperly changing correct capitalization of region names in articles, you will be permanently blocked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at The O.C., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Picard&#39;s Facepalm (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Picards Facepalm, I've just corrected vandalism of another Wiki page by this user. It seems he^s received enough warnings and needs to be blocked PamKayJohnson (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Per standard Wikipedia first line for billionaires"
You have recently made the same change to multiple biographies, with the edit summary "Per standard Wikipedia first line for billionaires". Can I ask where this 'standard line' is laid down? MOS:BLPLEAD for example says nothing on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it is a specific rule laid out anywhere, the word billionaire appears in the first line of many, many, many profiles. I think it is more than okay to transfer that to other profiles too, no? Why would Wikipedia not want to maintain consistency? Dhruvh (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Which 'many, many, profiles' do you base that on? Because you seem to be editing 'many, many' profiles/biographies that it didn't previously apply to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Dhruvh, It's misleading to claim some standard when none exists, and it is UNDUE in many cases relative to the story of the subjects' lives. On some it may be downright offensive, e.g MacKenzie Scott, formerly Bezos. I think you should undo these changes on widely followed and heavily edited pages that have evolved without such emphasis. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding "billionaire" to opening sentences of BLPs
Hello Dhruvh. What is your reason for stating that the these people should be identified as "billionaire" in the opening sentence of their articles? What Wikipedia policy or guideline is your authority for this assertion that it is the standard on Wikipedia? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please hop on a call if you'd like to discuss. I have added billionaire to EXACTLY the same type of people that the word already appears on. It already appears on Vinod Khosla, Michael Dell, and plenty of others who are business entrepreneurs and investors. I applied EXACTLY the same logic and added the word to business entrepreneurs and investors who are billionaires. To claim this is inappropriate is a bit ridiculous. Quite frankly, if this is the approach the Wikipedia editor team is going to take with edits, I have literally no interest in contributing to edits in the future. Feel free to maintain inconsistency if that if that's what you'd prefer and feel free to remove "billionaire" on some entrepreneur/investor pages and keep them on others. Dhruvh (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not apply billionaire to MacKenzie Bezos' profile, nor to any inheritance profiles. Only to similar people - entrepreneurs on investors who directly acquired the billions. Dhruvh (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not 'hop on calls', whatever that is supposed to mean. Discussions regarding Wikipedia content belong on Wikipedia talk pages. And since you have entirely failed to provide evidence that your 'standard' is anything of the sort, I shall be reverting your edits. If you want Wikipedia to change policies or guidelines on this, you are free to propose this in an appropriate place - meanwhile though, I'd advise against using misleading edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopping on a call means discussing something over the phone because it is hard to do via just writing. It's a pretty common phrase in my opinion. Do I really deserve that kind of tone? No problem, please revert them. It's a complete waste of my time, quite frankly, to propose a guideline change to maintaining consistency in exactly the same scenarios (is it really inappropriate to place billionaire in the first sentence of Larry Ellison's page when it is on Michael Dell's?). I don't plan on using edit summaries in the future. I take your point on the inaccurate use of the word "standard", though "misleading" ascribes unfair intent on my part. And since we are in the business of giving people advice, I would also advise you to try to maintain consistency across your pages. That really is not always the case from a avid user of the website. Dhruvh (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dhruvh: Clearly that is the approach that we take around here. But maybe you will have interest in other areas even though you do not have any interest in continuing with these particular edits. But as AndyTheGrump said, it's very important to write accurate edit summaries. That's how we all can avoid spending time on little side-discussions like this one. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your respectful response. Agreed - I will focus on ensuring my edit summaries provide as much specificity and clarity as possible. Dhruvh (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"Business executive"
Hi - you are adding this description to various biographies. This is an imprecise term, and I'm not seeing any sources that confirm these people held a job title at an "executive" level? Reverting until can confirm a valid label for these people. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:17, 16 September 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)