User talk:Wth

Good morning and welcome to the internet's most cherished. 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you, then, insinuating you are actually Ramanand Jhingade? 17:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.-Wth (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what's specific your beef with our article, then (minus, obviously, that it is critical of you)? Nevermind, let's keep this at talk:Ramanand Jhingade. 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Does your name stand for "what the hell", Avril's new song? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just typed it randomly.-Wth (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BORING! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir/Madam
Your frivolous debate amuses me.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Knock it off!
Edits like this to an article critical of yourself are not tolerated. You can "debate" all you want on the talkpage. But the article itself will stand. And it will stand critical of you. No exceptions, exchanges, or refunds. 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Y the block, U cud have just warned me? If I'm right, I haven't broken any rules here (not even a single revert).-Wth (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can U restore my other edits, like the diacritic marks on my name etc.?-Wth (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll unblock you, then. But anymore fuckery on your part, and I'll add you to the Vandal Bin. 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I C some guidelines/rules of RW? Is there any guideline about, 'Biographies of Living People'?-Wth (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The template above links to our guidelines etc. I do not believe we have one about living people.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the mob has consistently ruled that conflict of interest editing is in poor form and against the de facto rules of the Wiki. Don't like it? Take your case here. 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the article, "Ramanand Jhingade"
Hello,

We could argue all day about conflicts of interest or people being civil, we could argue about the nature of your work or the nature of your website. But it won't get anyway. Maybe that's because we're too damned stubborn, or maybe because we're very determined to stick with the mission of this site. But the rules and regulations, rights and wrongs aren't particularly important, because it's not going to change anything.

Here are the facts: This website, from its editorial standpoint, the beliefs of almost every editor, and from tradition does not believe in what you are selling. In fact, it's our purpose to discredit it. Naturopathy, Hypnosis, Past life regression therapy, Telepathy, ESP... we have a true disdain for these things, and we're not going to change that for you. If, indeed, you offer people unproven cures for cancer, instead of having them consult a proper medical professional, then you are peddling false hope which could actually cause somebody to lose their life.

'''If you wish for people to believe your 'science,' then prove it and publish it in a medical journal. Be hailed as a great scientist who will save many lives. That is the proper forum for new scientific theories. Do not presume to go to a website dedicated to debunking quacks exactly like yourself and ask us to be nice to you. You can cry and whine about anything you like, but we REFUSE as a matter of principle and stubbornness to dilute the content of your article. Your time would be spent better elsewhere.'''

Other editors are invited to sign this statement. 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ++ -- Nx  / talk 21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that post, but can I copyedit the illiterate parts, since it speaks for "us"? 06:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest making a template to drop on future user pages.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)--BobSpring is sprung! 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response
I'm not a quack, I'm qualified and licensed. I'm not raising false hopes - a lot of other people are also saying the same things as me. You rogues are ignorant skeptics, criticising things you don't actually know anything about.-Wth (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

proof of identity
Can we settle the impostor argument now by just having you acknowledge your identity on CZ? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trent, I'm not impersonating anyone, but can I have your snail mail address please?-Wth (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you want my snail mail address? The best way to contact me is e-mail the chances of me even seeing a snail mail letter with in the next few months are slim. Now if you are wanting to contact the owner of RW in some sort of official capacity that is not me. The site is owned by the RationalWiki Foundation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Awful abbreviations
Can you please stop using "U", "R" etc. as words? They aren't words, and they not only make you look stupid (you have a doctorate yet can't spell "are"?) but unreadable. 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)