Jump to content

User talk:Bowei Huang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bowei Huang 2 (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 12 April 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, and to this, your talk page!

You might want to read the pages Help:Contents/Getting started and Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia for some basic information about how the site works. (And there's a bunch more information linked to from the top-level Help:Contents. Enjoy! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Christian genre

You reverted my reversion faster than I could put the explanation on the talk page. Please read the talk page and reply to it before reverting the reversion again. This series is clearly not in the genre of Christian novels according to standard usage of the term, as I have documented.Sanddune777 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


60.242.166.182 (talk) and Bowei Huang (talk)

In general, my experience says that it is a good idea to avoid subjects where the "questions" asked on the Ref Desk are transparent invitations to debate or challenge religious beliefs. It is also a good idea to log in and use your User Name at all times, as there is a tendency for others to assume that the use of an IP, expecially when you have a User name, is a way of avoiding accountability. Bielle (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please avoid asking potentially inflammatory questions of opinion, as well as reposting very similar questions on multiple desks. There are, however, many web forums where the questions would probably be welcome. (I realize I'm mainly just repeating what was said above - the main point of this edit was to restore two comments to your talk page that had been deleted by a vandal earlier. :) ) -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk question

You have already been warned about reposting the same or similar questions on the reference desk. It is considered spamming. Your question has been removed again; future repostings shall be as well. If your intentions are actually to discuss this issue, not to spam links to a website, please find an online discussion forum - christianforums.com might be appropriate - to talk about it. The reference desk is not a discussion board; it is for questions of fact. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of World Union of Deists

A tag has been placed on World Union of Deists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of World Union of Deists

A tag has been placed on World Union of Deists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mifter (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of World Union of Deists

A tag has been placed on World Union of Deists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victao lopes (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, World Union of Deists, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Victao lopes (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of New Age apologetics

A tag has been placed on New Age apologetics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PoinDexta1 07:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with New Age apologetics. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Atheistic existentialism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Atheistic existentialism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Epistemological nihilism

A tag has been placed on Epistemological nihilism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Collectonian (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of New Age apologetics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article New Age apologetics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Epistemological nihilism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Epistemological nihilism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Epistemological nihilism

I have nominated Epistemological nihilism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemological nihilism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Collectonian (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism articles

Please do not copy and paste articles into other articles, like you did at Zoroastrian theology and Zoroastrian philosophy. Such copying of content violates the GFDL, which states that the original author of the text must be attributable to the content in question. Luckily, Wikipedia has a redirect feature that can be used to allow multiple titles to link to a single article, which I have utilized at the above titles. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. --Kinu t/c 07:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America/American

Please do not redirect established pages without consensus. Also, even if there is a consensus, do not move a page to a new title by copying the text and pasting it into a different article, as you did by copying text from America into America (disambiguation) and from American into American (disambiguation). This is called a "cut-and-paste move" and it is not accepted practice on Wikipedia because it splits the page history into two pieces and is not consistent with copyright requirements. All of these changes have been reverted. Please discuss your proposals before making any major changes to either of these disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Australia. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Please also note the edit summary that I provided. Your formula's result is not supported by the official population clock. AussieLegend (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I second this. And it seems you're still not using edit summaries despite that last notice. Please use edit summaries, it's more important than you may realize, plus it's just common courtesy. -- Ϫ 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia article

Australia is not a member of NATO, please do not add this again. Also, the OECD spells 'organisation' with a 's', not a 'z'. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning concerning latest round of undiscussed, unsummarized, disruptive edits

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to United States, you will be blocked from editing. —DCGeist (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Australia. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Also it would be best to discuss the changes you would like to make on the talk page rather then just changing the whole article since it is a featured article and also the content has been within that format for sometime which would require a consensus for a new format and layout. Bidgee (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Australia. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Your last edit changed the agreed upon presentation of some information, as well as re-incorporating previous changes that you have made that have already been rejected by other editors. Such changes, without appropriate edit summaries makes your edits look rather suspicious. You need to use accurate edit summaries as well as discussing any potentially contentious edits on the article talk page. AussieLegend (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary automation

Please stop trying to automate everything. It isn't necessary in many cases and is causing a lot of work for other editors who have to correct your errors. The edits that you made here left the article with an obvious error that you should have fixed, but left in the article. Even without the error, automating that particular figure is pointless. Australia currently adds approximately 1 person to its population every 71 seconds. It takes, at the current rate, over 821 days to add 1 million, meaning your automation is only useful once every 2 years and 3 months. Unfortunately, the rate of increase is not constant and therefore the formula will need updating at least twice, and possibly four times, in that period to compensate, meaning that your automation requires more effort than manually updating the population figure.

As indicated in this reversion of your edits, you should test formulae in a sandbox before trying them in an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of environmental skeptics

The article List of environmental skeptics has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian population calculation

I've just removed this from the infobox in the Australia article as it still isn't showing the correct figures. It states that Australia's population estimate was 22,099,000 while the ABS stated that it was 22,100,000; a discrepancy of 1,000 people. Please do not re-add this until you can demonstrate that it consistently produces the exact same figure as the ABS website. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Please stop changing "Australia is a developed country, with a prosperous multicultural society" to "Australia has a prosperous multicultural society", as you have done several times now,[1][2][3][4] including today.[5] It has been rejected each time you've changed it by several editors. Please discuss this on the talk page if you think the change should be made. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As what has been said in that case, please don't use multiple accounts like that again, or you may end up being blocked in the future. Thank you, –MuZemike 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

The original operator of this account had a name change granted and was renamed User:A1DF67. This is either impersonation or sockpuppetry, the above investigation can decide which, and has been blocked indefinitely. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bowei Huang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry. I am very sorry. What if I only use this account and never use and promise to never use that account with the new username ever again? Can you let me use this account if I never use that account ever again or promise to never use that account ever again? Can you please let me use this account but not let me use that account ever again? Can you please unblock this account and delete, remove, get rid of, or permanently block that account? Would you do that now that I have moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto the user talk page of that account before the username change back into this account?

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to re-visit your case. DrKiernan (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brickfield

You are User:Brickfield right? If so, may I suggest you voluntarily disclose this as a sign of good faith on your part? If there are any other accounts you have ever operated, it would be helpful if you disclose this as well. Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine.

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that User:Brickfield is yours. I hope you also take my advice on discussing matters before editing or when there is controversy Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Also if I may offer some words of advice I've been meaning to give for a while...

Wikipedians are generally fairly willing to forgive poor behaviour in a users past. If you try to hide that history, people are going to be far less willing and quite suspicious of what you're trying to hide, however it's not necessary to hide it, you just need to be willing and able to change your behaviour and in a few months or years times, few would care about what you may have done in the past. You should be aware that we're not stupid, we're willing to forgive, but we're not going to ignore continually poor behaviour without any sign of improvement from the user. Note that when I say user here, I mean from a person since as has been explained to you, you can't use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiniy or being blocked.

In particular, it is imperative that you take on board criticism that you have received. You need to learn to discuss changes and collaborate more. Many of your changes have been controversial, but you've taken part in very little discussion and even when people have asked you to discuss the changes, you've often simply continued to make the edits, without even a note in the edit history (ideally you should leave an explaination in your edit history at all times). A reversion of your edits usually means you should initiate a discussion, if your fellow editors have not already, before making your changes again.

Indeed while wikipedia encourages editors to WP:be bold in your case given that many of your edits have been unsuitable (based on their reversions by other editors) and you don't appear to appreciate that, I would strongly suggest you discuss any major change to any article before making them (i.e. to the talk page of the article). Particularly if they involve religion, politics or automation or related things like descriptions of a country since these appear to be problematic areas for you. Also anything which involves the removal of content you disagree with. If there is consensus your changes are inappropriate, then you should not make them.

I would note that a look at the edit history of either of your accounts shows very few edits to the talk page of articles which is a concerning thing for any editor who has many of their edits reverted and often makes those edits again.

As for the RD as you've been told before when people are unable to answer your question or that it's unsuitable, there's no point asking it 10 times. And it is important you actually read the answers you've been given, including any links (since the reference desk is intended to provide references). As an answerer, one of the most frustrating things is when you give an answer but the person who asked the question doesn't seem to have bothered to read it and asks things you already answered. As you must be well aware, the RD is primarily for factual question, so any question dealing primarily in opinions is usually unsuitable. And any question which starts off with a premise or idea that you are unwilling to accept may be wrong, is similarly unsuitable.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Do not edit legitimate comments made by other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)[6] AussieLegend (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again.

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked this account to give you another chance. Please try to keep out of trouble! DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reblocking this account and unblocking your other account A1DF67 (talk · contribs) as it has much more history and per discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bowei Huang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to tell you the truth about why I changed my username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. But there is a problem. The problem is that if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. I mean, I don't think you would believe it. Nobody would believe it. I don't think anybody would believe it. If I told you it, you would probably think that I was making it up. I think that that is what you would think if I told you it. That is the problem. That is the reason why I didn't tell you the truth about why I did it before. That is the reason why I lied about it. Sorry. I should have told you the truth before. I should told you that before. It is very hard and difficult for me to explain it. I don't know how to explain it. I am afraid that if I told you it, you wouldn't believe it and nobody would believe it.

Decline reason:

I haven't even heard it and I don't believe it! Decline. Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why you changed your name is less important than why you keep using multiple accounts. You officially changed names, you then needed to stick by it. Now it's merely hiding things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the response you gave to what I said, User:Syrthiss! I don't mean declining it but the way you replied. I wish you gave me a better response. Can you please give me a better response? I wish someone gave me a better response. Can someone please give me a better response?

No it is not! I do not use multiple accounts. When I create a new account, I make myself unable to get back into the old account by changing the password of the old account into one I don't know. I created new accounts because I don't think anybody would believe the truth about why I changed username if I told them. The reason why I created new accounts was the same reason why I changed username. Why I changed my name is important because other people said I should be blocked indefinitely because the reason why I changed my name was because I wanted to hide some bad edits that I had made in the past.

Can you please promise that you would believe me if I tell you the truth?

Can someone please promise that he or she will believe me if I him or her the truth?

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bowei Huang (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the reason why I changed username. I hope you would believe it. I wish you would believe it. The reason why I changed username is that I wanted to remove the records of my edit of the article Christian Democratic Party (Australia) and my edit of the question about Christian democratic parties in the reference desk in my Special:Contributions. I wanted to remove them because I don't want to know or remember that Christian democratic parties exist and I want to forget that they exist. Those edits and that question were a mistake for me. I shouldn't have made those edits. I shouldn't have asked that question. I shouldn't have made that mistake. I didn't want to know that Christian democratic parties exist for the time being. If you have any questions about this, then please don't say you don't believe me or refuse or decline this request straight away but instead ask those questions to me first. If you don't believe me, then you should look at my edits before those two edits. You should look at my edits in several pages before that page in my Special:Contributions. See what many or most of those edits are about.

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is the reason why I changed username. I hope you would believe it. I wish you would believe it. The reason why I changed username is that I wanted to remove the records of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=325126770 my edit of the article Christian Democratic Party (Australia)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=324729186 my edit of the question about Christian democratic parties in the reference desk] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091110231512&target=A1DF67 my Special:Contributions]. I wanted to remove them because I don't want to know or remember that Christian democratic parties exist and I want to forget that they exist. Those edits and that question were a mistake for me. I shouldn't have made those edits. I shouldn't have asked that question. I shouldn't have made that mistake. I didn't want to know that Christian democratic parties exist for the time being. If you have any questions about this, then please don't say you don't believe me or refuse or decline this request straight away but instead ask those questions to me first. If you don't believe me, then you should look at my edits before those two edits. You should look at my edits in several pages before that page in my Special:Contributions. See what many or most of those edits are about. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is the reason why I changed username. I hope you would believe it. I wish you would believe it. The reason why I changed username is that I wanted to remove the records of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=325126770 my edit of the article Christian Democratic Party (Australia)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=324729186 my edit of the question about Christian democratic parties in the reference desk] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091110231512&target=A1DF67 my Special:Contributions]. I wanted to remove them because I don't want to know or remember that Christian democratic parties exist and I want to forget that they exist. Those edits and that question were a mistake for me. I shouldn't have made those edits. I shouldn't have asked that question. I shouldn't have made that mistake. I didn't want to know that Christian democratic parties exist for the time being. If you have any questions about this, then please don't say you don't believe me or refuse or decline this request straight away but instead ask those questions to me first. If you don't believe me, then you should look at my edits before those two edits. You should look at my edits in several pages before that page in my Special:Contributions. See what many or most of those edits are about. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is the reason why I changed username. I hope you would believe it. I wish you would believe it. The reason why I changed username is that I wanted to remove the records of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Democratic_Party_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=325126770 my edit of the article Christian Democratic Party (Australia)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=prev&oldid=324729186 my edit of the question about Christian democratic parties in the reference desk] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091110231512&target=A1DF67 my Special:Contributions]. I wanted to remove them because I don't want to know or remember that Christian democratic parties exist and I want to forget that they exist. Those edits and that question were a mistake for me. I shouldn't have made those edits. I shouldn't have asked that question. I shouldn't have made that mistake. I didn't want to know that Christian democratic parties exist for the time being. If you have any questions about this, then please don't say you don't believe me or refuse or decline this request straight away but instead ask those questions to me first. If you don't believe me, then you should look at my edits before those two edits. You should look at my edits in several pages before that page in my Special:Contributions. See what many or most of those edits are about. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

A1DF67 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bowei_Huang&oldid=355500588"