Hi DisneyGuy744, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rewrite the entire introduction of the articles Hirohito, Plaek Phibunsongkhram, and Hideki Tojo better, as you did a great job in editing the introduction of the article Adolf Hitler. LEEBIRDJ888 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with them? What needs to be changed? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three paragraphs should be revised, as the information is not good enough to be an encyclopedia, is out of date, and has too little summary information. Please correct it. LEEBIRDJ888 (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite all three paragraphs in this talk page and I'll make the edit so I know exactly how you would prefer it. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it concise, to the point, and emphasize the important parts, just as you would rewrite an article about Adolf Hitler. LEEBIRDJ888 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: LEEBIRDJ888 account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Further, as you may not understand, articles such as Adolf Hitler are GA rated articles. They have had reworked, well vetted and must go through a detailed and time consuming process; including grammar. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ugandans: thank you for your contribution, but the current state of generative AI is not yet sufficient for creation of good-quality encyclopedic articles. For issues (and workarounds) you might want to consult WP:AI and WP:LLM. Викидим (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't AI but whatever DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this user edited their sandbox numerous times to get their edit count higher, presumably so that they could edit controversial articles. This is frowned upon on Wikipedia.

[1]

A signficant percentage of their edits have been reverted, and their engagement with other users has been generally pretty unpleasant. I'm pretty skeptical of their activity on the site in general.

I made tons of sandbox edits, even after 500 edits. i didn't do it to make my edit count higher. i just like playing around in sand box. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also isn't the point of talk page discussions to argue and debate? of course, engagement with other users is going to be pretty unpleasant, that's what the talk page is for, to resolve conflicts. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe it. Timing is too convenient; you stopped after you reached a threshold and a ton of the edits on your sandbox were made within seconds of each and are arbitrary; breaking code.

No, the point is not to argue with vitriol, it's to have discussions that are as reasonable and calm as possible. Vitriol is a bad thing on the site; if it happens it's a negative.

Continually skeptical. If you keep this up you may not last much longer on the site. seefooddiet (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped messing with the sandbox when I had like 523 edits. I was just playing around with it because I was bored DisneyGuy744 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XC seefooddiet (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I stopped playing around with sandbox at 523 edits I went back to play with the sandbox again. I didn't even know you had to have 500 edits to edit other pages. I thought the pages that were locked were only for administrators. So I was shocked when I stopped seeing the locked button on controversial pages like the one about Adolf Hitler. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhuh. seefooddiet (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhhuh DisneyGuy744 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You request for template editor, this, was declined as you

Fails minimum criteria and malformed.

Next time you request these rights, please read this. It states

The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user who has been editing for at least 1 year.
The editor should have made at least 1,000 overall edits.
The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces.
The editor should have no behavioural blocks (including partial blocks) or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.

You need to meet at least these guidelines and demonstrate a need for the right before requesting the rights again. Happy editing, — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 13:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of the kind you made to the lead of Martin Luther King Jr. are egregious. Ask first next time, thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 07:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if I do ask you are you gonna ignore me in the talk page like you did @HumansRightsIsCool? And can you please tell me why my edits are bad to you. Seems like most of the time you don't have a reason for reverting you just do, or you don't give a good reason. Where did MLK mention Asians, Hispanics, Mixed, Pacific Islander, Native Americans in any of his speeches. He advocated for the rights of African Americans only. He did say in a speech anti-Semitism is wrong and Israel has a right to exist, but there were no laws discriminating against Jews because the US government has been pro-Jewish forever. Tell me why we should keep "people of color". That term doesn't even make sense isn't white a color? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your Trump talk page thread as settled issue. It would have been inappropriate to counter your arguments there, but one point is just too glaring to ignore.

if I had no idea who trump was, I wouldn't be able to tell from the first paragraph if he's the current president or if he served as the 47th president and he's done.

No. "is the 47th president of the United States" is in present tense. If he served as the 47th president and he's done, it would read "was the 47th president of the United States". This is natural, everyday English, and there's nothing unclear or ambiguous about it. The problem is not with the transmitter but with the receiver.

Anyway, I'm sorry you didn't participate in the formation of consensus 70. It might make it easier to live with the result (which would have been the same with your participation). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

historians looking back back at Joe Biden's presidency, or George Washington, not all would say "Joe Biden WAS the 46th president" or "George Washington WAS the first president", some might say "George Washington IS the first president" or "Joe Biden IS the 46th president". Make up a conversation in your head. Here I'll do it. "hey class we're gonna be learning about Joe Biden, who is the 46th president of the United States". If I didn't visit any other president's articles to see past president articles say "who served as the ____ president from ____ to _____" I wouldn't know if Trump is still serving or previously served. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fun discussion, but it's moot per my closure. In the consensus 70 discussion, the first round of voting was between ten different proposals for sentences 1 & 2. Had you been around, you probably could have increased that to eleven or twelve. I said it multiple times during the discussion: Perfect is the enemy of good. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. You said "the editors just discussed a bunch of stuff, but in the foreseeable future we may revisit this topic." How far into the future. I propose the first paragraph read "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who has served as the 47th President of the United States since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th President from 2017 to 2021." Hopefully not too long, maybe in a few months or less, since most of the the time editors weren't discussing how the first paragraph should be but other paragraphs too, while briefly mentioning the first paragraph, so they didn't waste to much of their time on it. The Biden page said a while ago "Joe Biden is the 46th and current President since 2021." With Trump's article you have to read the paragraphs that come after the first or the infobox to see when his second presidency began or if it's still going on because the first paragraph doesn't tell you anything. The old version of the page had the words "current" and "since 2025" but the editors removed it for no reason. I know Trump is a controversial figure to people, especially people on this website because they tend to prefer the Democratic party more, but making intentionally terrible edits or just not accepting reality that trump is the current president violates the "not here to build an encyclopedia" rule. If Kamala had won, I'm sure her article would say "Kamala Harris has served as the 47th President of the United States since 2025", probably would use the word "current" as well. So when can I bring this back up on the talk page? I know he's controversial but dang, ruining the first paragraph when no other world leader's page is like this and would be seen as unacceptable immediately, that's a new low. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. You aren't raising any new issues here. What do you think those 20 editors were doing for a month? A useful practice is to avoid revisiting a consensus unless (1) the external (to Wikipedia) situation has changed significantly, or (2) significant new arguments are presented. You don't meet either criterion, don't pass either test. You had a month-long chance to participate and you weren't around; that's just how it often goes. At the same time, per policy, we can't say a consensus is set in stone, never to be changed. So we allow revisitation when a long time has passed since the consensus was established. How long? There is no firm rule or even a rule of thumb. But not now, and not for quite a while. I can't give you a date to mark on your calendar. I suggest moving on to other issues. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

most of the the time editors weren't discussing how the first paragraph should be but other paragraphs too, while briefly mentioning the first paragraph, so they didn't waste to much of their time on it. I don't know what you're talking about, but the consensus 70 discussion was about sentences 1 & 2 and nothing else. I gather you have not looked at it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you wanna keep the old image actually have a discussion and stop abandoning the talk page discussion If you think this is actually how it works or how it should work, you're flatly wrong. (WP:ONUS)

Moreover, I will not argue from a position of weakness with someone whose impetus was that the longstanding consensus depiction "looks ugly" and plugging a later one in instead, deliberately against what we do for these articles. Have some respect for what your fellow editors have built for once (and frankly for the articles themselves), and think for even a second that things might be the way they are for good reasons. I'm unwilling to do that for you in every single instance. Building consensus generally goes on the article talk page, so get over yourself if you think the above thread is a good excuse for this behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 04:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person who said "that image looks ugly" was @HumansRightsIsCool on the page Jesus. Why do you think we're the same person? It makes no sense for me to have another account. And what do you mean "I'm unwilling to do that for you in every single instance", you do that in no instance, meaning each and every time you revert my edit for no reason, you tell me to "discuss my edits", then stop replying. I bet you have tens of thousands of edits just for reverting haha. If your gonna ignore me please at least give a legitimate reason. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what other editor you're using to deflect here—you repeated their reasoning verbatim, taking responsibility for it, so why am I not supposed to treat it like yours as well? Remsense ‥ 论 04:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyGuy744 and @Remsense. I've now reverted it. @DisneyGuy744, this needs to be discussed on the article talk page so that you can gain consensus from the community. Two editors (myself and Remsense) have reverted you. This is part of WP:BRD. You have broken the 3rr rule. I suggest you take this to the article talk page. Knitsey (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(They haven't violated 3RR; consecutive edits count as one revert.) Remsense ‥ 论 04:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mary, mother of Jesus 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Knitsey (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an edit war meant 3 reverts or more, I was sent this message previously also when I didn't make 3 reverts or more. So weird. However if I was actually in an edit war, it's because@Remsense has a history of reverting my edits without a strong reason, tells me I need to "discuss", then stops replying after I wait for an answer. If you want proof just go to the "MLK" section of my page. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anyways I'm going to sleep. I know I'm gonna get ignored again so what's the point DisneyGuy744 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DisneyGuy744, and if I may join in for a brief comment in hopes that you will not get further discouraged nor indeffed. Did you know that Madonna del Rosario, the image of Mary that you disagree with, is possibly the oldest known painting of Mary, notable in that it is so aged and that it likely portrays her real-life appearance closer than most known representations? And -- hold on to your bootstraps -- may have been painted by Luke himself! Probably not painted by him but who knows, that's what posterity claims. In any case, the image represents Mary and the tradition of honoring Mary in artworks well, and, importantly, was chosen in a long process by your fellow Wikipedians. Your concern is in good faith, yet so was the choice. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Skillsville, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:2603:8080:600:1487:B534:C797:753:9443 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DisneyGuy744! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Skillsville and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 16:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]