I asked five question and two of them are being put on hold by viewer. Seriously, there are really no right to judge other people's question as no question is stupid. If you have no interest in my question or opinion conflict with mine, just go away please? I have no idea why ppl like bad fire work so much.
Questions are put on hold when the community deems that they do not adhere to the site's rules and format. It gives time for you and other people to improve them, if possible, into a more fact-based answerable question. If not, they will be deleted in the future. In fact, one of your questions “on hold” was edited, improved and people then voted to reopen it. Which shows that the process works, even if it can be a bit frustrating sometimes!
“there are really no right to judge other people's question as no question is stupid” — This site has a limited scope and format, and not all sensical questions are suitable here. The community decided on the scope, and how best to manage it. As the “owner and manager” of this site, it has every right to judge whether a question is appropriate here. But if it judges a question is not, it doesn't mean it's stupid.
Finally, regarding “just go away please”: I'm not sure coming to an established community, and say “if you don't like the way I do things, please go away” makes a lot of sense :)
Questions can be good questions and still not be appropriate for Stack Exchange.
The guidelines of Stack Exchange sites state that questions should not be "opinion based"; they should also ask a clear question. One of the questions you are referring to fell into each category, respectively.
I will note that the questions have gotten many negative votes, as well as close votes. That means the general consensus of the community is that they are not good fits for the site. However, close votes and downvotes are not "abuse." They are how the site expresses itself—and this is a community-driven site.
I only see one of your questions put on hold and that appears to have supporters who want it re-opened. While I did not vote to close it I am not sure I can vote to re-open because of the structure of your question.
The problem, as I see it, with your question is that it has an unsupported premise that large egos or perhaps arrogance is a better term is overwhelmingly present in academia. The lack of support for the negative premise comes off as a rant. I think this is what is "turning people off."
If you could structure your question in a more constructive way, I suspect you could get some very useful answers from the community here. I know I have.
The community decides what are low-quality contributions, and have various means of dealing with it. As you've found on most of your contributions to date, that includes a combination of editing, downvoting, closing and deleting.
That's exactly how and why this site is so successful: the experienced posters can and do assess the quality of contributions, and use the moderation tools available to them to maintain the site's well-defined scope, and its quality.
You have walked into someone else's house, started throwing things around, and shouting.
You've been told that this is not acceptable behaviour.
And now you're asking the other tenants to move out?
Most of your posts have been about your dysfunctional relationship with your supervisor (and maybe with others). And now you've written about it inappropriately here, creating dysfunctional patterns with other posters here.