User talk:LeftyLooseypedia

August 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Crab. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * G'day. I hope you actually bothered to read all of the information on my website. By doing these things, I'm simply proving a point.
 * Wikipedia claims to be a free online "encyclopedia". (the encyclopedia is supposed to a trustworthy source)
 * However, Wikipedia is in a wiki format, meaning anyone can edit anything.
 * This means that they treat everyone as a proffesional, making them much less reputable.
 * If everone is a proffesional, then nobody is.
 * Wikipedia needs to learn that people aren't trustworthy.
 * Once they realize the public isn't trustworthy, they will become more trustworthy.
 * Wikipedia knows that people aren't trustworthy, but they barely act upon it. LeftyLooseypedia (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm actually a regular poster on the biggest Wikipedia criticism forum Wikipediocracy https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/, so you acting like your criticisms are somehow insightful as if they're not things people have been saying about the website since back in the days of Wikipedia Review or even back to the founding of the website in 2001 is dumb. Also, it's professional, not "proffesional". You're genuinely an idiot if you think spamming your obscure website into the Crab article is actually going to make anybody care. People are going to continue using Wikipedia whether you like that or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Point one: Good for you for pointing out Wikipedia's flaws. I like that.
 * Point two: Originality of my points is irrelevant.
 * Point three: Grammatical errors do not affect a person's argument.
 * Point four: Name-calling is childlike. But if that's on the table, you talk like a self-entitled reddit user.
 * Point five: It's not just the crab article. It's not just me.
 * Point six: It's not about people not using Wikipedia. It's about Wikipedia's lack of precautions and/or safety nets to ensure Long-Term Abuse doesn't grow longer. LeftyLooseypedia (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk about taking like a a self-entitled reddit user, your conceitedness is insufferable. Why do you think that spamming your obscure website that looks like it has come straight out of 1999, bizarre early 3D animated gifs and all, will accomplish anything? Your support for the cult of the expert is deeply flawed, as some experts have turned out to be LTAs, such as who is the well-known Canadian psychologist James Cantor. Wikipedia tried the cult of the expert, it was called Nupedia. It failed miserably. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nupedia failed because it was obscure. And I didn't say "experts only", I said Wikipedia has a lack of precautions and/or safety nets to prevent spammers such as myself.
 * The reason I spam my website is to make people notice the site, points and all. You have noticed the site,
 * Also the reason my website looks like that is I think that the early internet looked silly, goofy, and a good juxtaposition to the way Wikipedia is laid out. LeftyLooseypedia (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)