User talk:Clivemasters

Lance Percival

Please stop making changes to the compensation figures in Lance Percival without discussing the issue at Talk:Lance Percival#Damages for car crash. Wikipedia depends on the use of reliable sources and on discussion when disagreements occur. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clivemasters, if you refuse to accept at face value the source material copied onto the Talk page there by Verbcatcher, why don't you try getting access to the source yourself, via ProQuest, which your public library will probably provide free of charge: this looks like the URL you need (although it's probably best if you check with Verbcatcher). Repeated edit warring, just to force your point, which is not supported by reliable sources, is really not the best approach to this situation. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC) p.s. I wonder do you know who YouTube user "hopethisworks1212" might be?[reply]

You have reintroduced disputed text to Lance Percival without contributing to the talk page discussion. You have given no source for "while racing another car". You have not justified your removal of the inflation-adjusted figure, and the phrase "only £35,781 in damages" is editorialising. I will revert these changes. Please do not restore your text without discussing it at Talk:Lance Percival. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have again edited Lance Percival to restore your preferred text without engaging with the discussion at Talk:Lance Percival or responding here. Your text breaks the the Neutral point of view policy, which is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

Your edit summary here indicates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are determined to push your point of view regardless of other opinions.

After seeing a documentary about how wikipaedia represents the establishment, I decided to re-edit this page and will continue to do so unless someone gives me a very good reason, other than that the 'powers that be' say it must be so.

Please do not make contentious edits to without engaging in the talk page discussion, otherwise I will escalate this issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Clivemasters's edits to Lance Percival. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusal to discuss your edits, and repeatedly editing against consensus.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You simply cannot show up every few weeks/months and change the article to the way you want it, in the face of others disagreeing with you. Any admin can lift this block without consulting me, as long as you agree to gain consensus before making further changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]