Leo1pard

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you! For all of your contributions regarding mountains in the Arabian peninsula. I really appreciate your contributions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Leo1pard (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article is simply too lacking as many other Saudi Arabian related articles on Wikipedia compared to the Arabic version as can be seen below:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/مطبخ_سعودي

It would be a welcome thing for Saudi Arabian or Arab editors to improve it to the standard seen on the Arabic version of the article or even better and more extensive than that. Kindly spread the word if you know any Saudi Arabian or Arab editors. Goes for many Saudi Arabian related English article as stated. Thank you.

--Photomenal (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

That would take time, because the Arabic article is over 21 KB long, whereas the English article is less than 5 KB long, perhaps unsurprisingly. Leo1pard (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Compton's stuff is fringe.[1] Also, the source used there is the "Noah's Flood and Cudi Mountain Symposium"[2]. Pretty sure he's also self-published but haven't yet verified that. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing comprising tendentious editing and use of unreliable sources at Mount Judi, as well as wasting everybody's time and bludgeoning the discussion with ridiculous posts at the fringe theories noticeboard. I regard this as a short block considering the amount of damage to the article; if you continue to use and to push for unreliable sources after this block, you are likely to be blocked for longer. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC).Reply

I removed content after I was contacted about it above, and it was others @DougWeller and Levivich: who made ridiculous arguments in that discussion in the first place, not me! If you don't want to believe that any article that was published by a Creationist regarding that topic is reliable, then that's one thing. Leo1pard (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC); edited 17:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

but one day, God will show you people what is right and wrong, I promise! I consider that to be a threat. I suggest that you strike it before you get blocked for a lot longer than two weeks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

But definitely, Wikipedia needs reforms, and I'm not alone in believing this. People may try to rectify problems here, but there's bias here regarding what are or what are not WP:RS or WP:FRINGE theories! Wikipedia even comes in the news because of all these conflicts, some of which could have been avoided, if the moderators would kindly take notice! Leo1pard (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC); edited 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are certainly many people who think that Wikipedia needs reforms. I'm one of them. I seriously doubt though that many of them think that appeals to gods as authority are legitimate grounds to determine content. Those who think that way are of course entirely free to start their own online encyclopaedia, or participate in an existing one. Try Conservapedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leo1pard One link was just a joke and not a criticism, the other one was the French language version, not this one. Not the same demographic of editors, not identical policies and probably very different guidelines. So irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first link was almost certainly to bot-generated content. If Leo1pard is actually interested in serious analytic criticism of Wikipedia, there is plenty of it about, coming from a wide range of perspectives. Some of it is well worth reading, even for those who are convinced that all is right within Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're being watched, that's what I'm saying. Even the English Wiki comes up in the news for the wrong reason. Leo1pard (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being watched is good. Anything getting the prominence that Google gives Wikipedia deserves scrutiny. My edits deserve scrutiny. So do yours. As does your poor choice of examples when linking external criticism. If you want to be taken seriously as a critic of how Wikipedia functions, you'll need to put in a lot more effort. And try not to invoke your god to back your arguments up. It convinces nobody who doesn't already agree with you, and makes you look silly to the rest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And don't bother with Larry Sanger who bought into anti-Covid and the last US election conspiracy theories and has written for The Federalist (website). Of course he hates Wikipedia. It's mainstream. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply