User talk:Worzelpete

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Worzelpete! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

¡buenos días! Is that name a reference to Wurzelpeter, by any chance? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Gracias. No que lo sepa. I thought worzel meant root. Worzelpete (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, "wurzel" does. Wurzelpeter is a cheap Jägermeister knock-off, and based on the label, the "root mixture" motif was pursued on purpose. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't even like Jagermeister. But the name was chosen because I am literally root Peter. Worzelpete (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great name for a Linux technician. ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably. Worzelpete (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless; welcome to the site. Please ask if you have any questions, and consider setting up your userpage (redlinks are so dull :C). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Worzelpete (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Atta boy

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Gracias. Worzelpete (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just don't fill up on chili dogs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't. In my town, the hotdogs you get in the street are likely to make you very sick in the stomach. No matter how much chili you put on them. Worzelpete (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Give a reason when you nominate an article for deletion

When you nominate an article for deletion, give a reason why it should be deleted in the AFD template and on the deletion page. Don't just write "Delete". You should try to persuade other users to vote for the page's deletion. Just writing "Delete" isn't going to do that. Spud (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sysop

Damn, I wanted to do the Sysop template, but here you go. Felicitations, you're now a RationalWiki Janitor. Feel free to consult the Sysop guide for any information.

Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! ^{Look! Up there!} 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope not having the template here won't make it invalid. Worzelpete (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So long as you have sysop powers, it doesn't matter.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

eso espero. Worzelpete (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yo también.-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity

This discussion was moved to Talk:Christianity#Talk:Christianity.

Please move the discussion elsewhere

I regret ever having gotten involved in this mess. I would prefer mod-lock and otherwise just want an end to this tedious debate. Sorry. Worzelpete (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done and done. Pardon the intrusion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Worzelpete (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fun:The world as a RW talk page

Thanks for editing it! I hope you keep editing it :) -(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too hard on you

Hey, I admittedly see that binning you was too much after being syoprevoked. Sorry about that, nonetheless here are tips to improve for the future:

1. Have detailed edit summaries when you do something severe to a page. You can also make a post on the talkpage.
2. Be concious of where you are clicking with your privileges
3. Don't post in multiple places about something in a short period of time.
4. Have fun and grab a goat!

—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here...

Hi, I am new here. I see that you have reversed my edit on Laci Green. I have tried maintaining the tone of the entire article. Can you tell me what you didn't like about it? Rational1 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because Laci Green is a feminist doesn't mean that she needs any hate or is a crank. She's one of the most sane feminists out there. We have enough articles that hate on real people, can we have one that doesn't?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In my edit, I have just quoted text from Luci Green and some guy who criticized her. Also, I edited a few snark statements to make it more snark. I didn't make a single statement of my own. If there is a problem, I would appreciate if only the statements you disagree with are removed and not the entire edit by me. Rational1 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think both of you need to combine the points made. The tone doesn't need to be so bashful against her. She's gotten a lot of hate she doesn't deserve. That being said, when she can be clearly cited as saying stupidly over-the-top things, she should be called out on it. Nuance is good. But the tone in Rational1's version is much too close to ED for my taste. I recommend you guys start from Worzelpeter's version and add the sourced stuff that Rational1 brings but with a tone that fits into Worzel's revision. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What is meant by "ED"? Rational1 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry — it's short for Encyclopedia Dramatica. Their tone of writing is to "roast" everybody. We don't do that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I hit rollback because your edits looked remarkably like edits to this article that are ultimately made by anti-feminists in order to make her and other feminists look bad. I don't know the context of her associating white males with gun violence, but if she actually straight up made such a claim, we should report on it fairly. Worzelpete (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

People often make incorrect statements when talking about something they are not an expert on. Same goes for Luci Green and every other person with huge following on twitter, youtube, etc... We have to make a point to list these on their pages here. If you see a problem in this, we can explicitly state, "Most of her invalid statements are not around the topic of feminism" on her page. Rational1 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A lick of that shiny brass ring

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gracias. Worzelpete (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

It's not good to revert someone's edit without any explanation, unless it's an obvious troll or vandal. You recently reverted another user multiple times on many different pages, and I doubt that this is a good thing. If you have a dispute over article content, it's best to try and talk it out with the person rather than blindly reverting their edits. Would you like to do that? Applesauce (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is what happens when you hit the "rollback" button. Said user has rolled me back (similarly without providing any explanation) so I have rolled said reversions back to what I edited. I have even tried to reason on Talk:Vladimir Putin, but I fear to no avail as I have not gotten a response. Please do look at the differences and if need be open a discussion at the talk page before you yourself hit rollback. Worzelpete (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If no one responds to you, that is not a community consensus. As such, removing entire paragraphs from articles and changing important headlines in order to bias the reader against a certain point-of-view is vandalism. You're specifically changing important text on articles such as Zionism without even discussing it with other people. Not getting a talk page response? Try posting at the Saloon Bar or on the talk page of a top editor of the page in question. Don't wholesale revert without at least getting some form of prior approval.

With regards to the actual pages on question, I would be delighted to discuss the edits. In fact I'm heading there right now. Applesauce (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how "Please discuss this!" works. It's not a one-sided "silence is automatically status quo" thing. I've blocked you, applesauce, and worzel, you can unblock yourself. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot unblock myself. And even your unblocking seems to not have worked due to some software bug. However, the original duration of the block has now run out. In the future, please do not block people and write on their talk page at the same time if you do not allow them to edit their own talk page. Worzelpete (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)