User talk:Tonefreqhz1

hello and welcome

New Editors. More on our aims and objectives. If you click on the thumbnail that is the screen you will get if you click history in the Top right of the window under the Main Page Title being edited. Options appear for undoing edits or comparing current to previous edits. When sourcing information from Wikipedia articles there is a host of further information to be gleaned quite apart from the consensus page on the Main page article. Part of what this WikiBallot initiative is about is to uncover what is censored from "[the News Fit to Print]" The Web 3 instance is planned to disintermediate the server choke point in any legacy web or Cloud-based server system but we also aim to subvert the Google and Chrome censorship monopoly exercised through its private policing of all the news fit to click. Using an alternative Browser such as Tor or Duckago go is a great first step for personal news feeds uncorrupted by the Corporate Narrative machine, meanwhile spoofing those levers of censorship is also important to share the tactical voting tools and sovereign Personal Destiny Control Direct democratic ethos all the way to restoring our Liberties. -

Workspace 1 646.jpg

March 2021
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Please refrain from abusing edit-war templates towards an individual who is not involved in an edit-war. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MrEarlGray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution This process is what is advised and as the consensus process has not been set in appropriate neutral pages for adjudication by neutral editors your accusations are somewhat spurious. I have been making it clear I wish to follow wikipedia protocols If when the proper channels are exhausted the Lede is voted to remain in its current state I would of course comply, we are far from that point the process as set out in the now served edit warring notice makes that quite clear, see page.

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

the various banners and templates are confusing and I am sorry I seem to have pinged Earl Gray I thought it automatically defaulted to the editor issuing the block? RogerGLewis (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 UTRS decline I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (Guide to appealing blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here " . Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see

  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

.

Note for reviewing Admin. Nowhere in all this has it been noted that Roger, having driven a Coach and Horses through talk page ettiquette, has also removed at least two entries to the discussion that I had made, messed with my signature at least once, and still has not even disturbed a pixel at WP:TPG. Hence my WP:CIR suggestion. Can we ensure that he stops banjaxing about with his stupid templates, that he still believes he is was placing according to guidelines. Get him to demonstrate some basic understanding of using Talk pages properly in terms of indentation, signing, templates, deleting peoples posts and in making the point economically. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interjection Roxy the dog,It is quite clear that my own interjections clash somewhat with your own style. I have made some clumsy mistakes it is true, they have not been intentional. Your own tone I am sure you will agree might be misinterpreted your own talk page has a section on Sarcastic edit summaries, sarcasm and personal attacks can be mistaken for each other? Perhaps we could both try to engage in the process of making the Lead in the article in question better and follow the resolution processes recommended  RogerGLewis (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding use of talk pages I have read the page, I have also seen it referred to on another editors talk page Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg
 * Keep your arguments in the top 3 tiers. I don't know you, but from what I've seen so far you seem to spend a lot of time in the bottom 2. ~Awilley (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , curious that you two have not thought to confront PacMechEng for their advocacy of climate change denial talking points. Why is that? jps (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is advocating any climate change denial talking points in that conversation. Levivich, I think the point is well covered with this exchange on that talk page. I also read this RogerGLewis (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Coolabahapple (talk) makes some still relevant comments in his vote to keep the article, found towards the end of the deletion discussion here RogerGLewis (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * talk (talk)