User talk:Bowei Huang
Red Links and Orphan Pages
Please don't create links to articles we don't have unless you intend to write those new articles post-haste. And when you do create an article, PLEASE create a link TO that article in some other article--even just as a "see-also." Many thanks...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you see a pattern here? Please acknowledge/respond to my repeated requests. Thanks.
- Please read our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide. It will explain the purpose of the wiki and our objectives.
- Please also note that our missions are: 1 Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement. 2 Analyzing and refuting crank ideas. 3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. As a consequence our articles deal with furthering these themes and issues. Articles which do not further these missions may be deleted.--BobNot Jim 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Cut and paste
- Actually he is spamming this there as well. Someone who keeps an active account over there should have a look into it, especially notability and the fact the author does not appear to be neutral to the topic. - π 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you're using multiple wikis to grind your axe.
We've been pretty tolerant of your single-minded use of our community to advance your own agenda, but cleaning up after you is getting tiresome. Moreover, your tendency to not reply to or even acknowledge numerous messages on your talk page makes us feel like you don't really like us somehow. Please show a little respect for us; we don't typically link to other wiki articles on the same subject unless there's a good reason to--and seeing as how you're essentially writing the same article here and on WP, there's no reason to link one to the other, now, is there. We're not here to make SEO easier for you. Either use this resource in the way it was intended, or run along like a good little socially-maladjusted monomaniac loser. Thanks SO much. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, now you're edit-warring. Not cool. Notice how EVERYONE ELSE is a sysop but you? Wonder why? Because it's become obvious to this community that you are a liability and nobody in our sysopping-happy gang of bureaucrats seems to trust you with any amount of powers, or seems to think that your contributions are much of an asset. It's getting tiresome. Please play in the spirit of things or move on. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive had it up to here with you...
and your pushing of Mind Siege, or whatever the fuck that is. PLEASE stop pushing your agenda,which is contrary to our mission. You have already had several users very angry at you, have been vandal binned, and refuse to reply to ANY of our questions on your talk page. Shape up or ship out. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Be nice to Sir Spamalot. - π 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very angry about Mind Siege. I AM VERY ANGRY!
I am very worried and concerned about the book. That's one reason I was writing all that.
But should I be worried or concerned about it? If not, then why not? How much should I be worried or concerned about it?
What should I do?
Bowei Huang (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Grow up is what you should do. You come in here to crap all over our wiki, use our community for your own purposes, ignore us when we try to talk to you, and then get all "boohoohoo" when your pet project meets its inevitable fate? Sorry. You earned it. Go away. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. Sorry! I am very sorry about what I've done. I was so angry, worried, and concerned about the book that I tried to do, write, say, and ask things quickly and excessively without thinking or paying much attention to what others might respond or react disapprovingly or what they might do.
That article is not important. It is not important to me. It is not important to me any more.
The same is for everything else I wrote, said, or asked about humanism and its criticisms. I promise I won't ask or write anything much about, on, or to do with humanism or anything against it any more.
I'm just asking should I be worried or concerned about the book? How worried or concerned should I be? What should I do?
If not the book, then what about criticims of secular humanism in general? Should I be worried or concerned about the book? How worried or concerned should I be? What should I do?
I'm just asking this one thing now.
Bowei Huang (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno. I get the feeling that you are a sock of our good friend Linuxian. Therefore, I still cannot trust you.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Your level of worry and concern are your own issue. You need to decide this. We have no obligation to assist you in this.
- You, however have an obligation to consider our objectives and standards when editing articles and contributing to the site. If you create articles or make edits which do not further these objectives they are unlikely to stand.
- I am sorry if this seems restrictive, but anything in mainspace is more-or-less the agreed opinion of all of us and wacky conspiracy theories are not part of that. If you are unable to contribute to the mainspace articles in such a way that your edits further the objectives of the site then you may wish to contribute to talk pages. If you make calm, sensible rational points people may engage with you - if your points are not calm, sensible and rational is possible that restrictions may even be applied to your talk page editing.--BobNot Jim 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)