User talk:Grade X

For earlier discussions see User talk:Grade X/batch1 (for January 2014)
 User talk:Grade X/batch Number 2 (first half of February 2014)
 User talk:Grade X/batch Number 3 (the next heap)
 User talk:Grade X/batch Number 4 (and the next heap)

Vandalism

What do you think you're doing? Admin happy hour is it? Grade X (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have only undone one edit by the IP, removing one piece of vandalism and re-adding another. I was watching recent edits by Huggle, saw that your edit has added profanity to the article, immediately clicked "revert", then noticed what happened and went to revert the vandalism properly. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIGHT!!!!! And if I had rollback none of that would have happened, cause one click would have done the trick. Grade X (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Grade X is on strike because they didn't get rollback. The recent history of their talk page is informative.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, you're welcome to join the demonstration to get Grade X Rollback. Grade X (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just enable twinkle like everyone else does?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this at 22:20 with the edit summary FUCK YOU DAVID MOYES shows why your are unsuitable to be given rollback.Blethering Scot 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks, you're not an admin. Bog off. Grade X (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given your past disruptive edits, the decision not to grant you the rollback privilege seems to be correct. And your complaint that you couldn't have reverted the vandalism in one go is disingenuous; the page history allows you to go to any revision and revert to it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you have to have twinkle to make that option appear. I don't care deeply enough to disable it just to find out, but I think that's the case.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna try Twinkle. As for Henry's wives, I didn't spot the earlier edit because I was working fresh off Recent Changes. All in the past now. Grade X (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. only (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why indef??? 99% if my edits were constructive. There was no ongoing issue except my protest at being denied rollack. Grade X (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain these edit summaries, then: 1, 2, 3. K6ka (talk | contribs) 23:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. only (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Thе Wimbles" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Thе Wimbles should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Thе Wimbles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]