Veracitycounts

National Westminster Bank (1)

Be careful who you (or your sock Ratifybeforeundoing) accuse of vandalism; assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free content

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.

With respect to your addition to National Westminster Bank, I'm afraid that we cannot import content from previously published sources unless these are either (1) verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed with Wikipedia or (2) handled in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. Under the allowances of the latter, you may utilize brief excerpts of non-free text if there is good reason to do so (some of which are set out at that guideline) and if these brief excerpts are clearly marked as quotations, either through quotation marks or block quote. This is the only way we can use verbatim excerpts of non-free content in order to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. And even when content is verifiably free, verbatim extracts should be marked as verbatim to comply with our plagiarism guideline.

The sentence in the source says:

Mr Wanless was ousted as chief executive of NatWest bank in October 1999, after the once-mighty bank fell prey to a number of hostile takeover attempts from much smaller firms.

I'm afraid that the content you are adding to the article differs by only a few words:

Derek Wanless was ousted as chief executive of NatWest bank in October 1999, after this once-mighty bank fell prey to hostile takeover attempts from much smaller firms.

If you wish to add this information, you will either need to rewrite it completely in your own language or format it as an attributed quotation. Certainly, this is a brief excerpt of that source and should be usable, if it is not in some other way problematic under the policies and guidelines, but it would need to be marked.

If you have questions about Wikipedia's copyright policy or our non-free content policy and guideline, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Veracitycounts. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

National Westminster Bank (2)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Westminster Bank. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that:

The move received a poor reception in the London financial markets, and NatWest's share price fell substantially. BBC News Channel - "Derek Wanless was ousted as chief executive of NatWest bank in October 1999, after the once-mighty bank fell prey to a number of hostile takeover attempts from much smaller firms" Also in 1999, in response to the weakened NatWest share value, the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland began a hostile takeover bid for the bank, an audacious move for the much smaller Scottish bank.

is better prose than:

The move received a poor reception in the London financial markets, and NatWest's share price fell substantially. Also in 1999, in response to the weakened NatWest share value, the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland began a hostile takeover bid for the bank, an audacious move for the much smaller Scottish bank.

Why are you so determined to insert this statement? I note it is the only contribution you have made to the encyclopedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Veracitycounts. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veracitycounts

Please do not use multiple accounts to edit war (or recruit others to edit war on your behalf), as you did with Ratifybeforeundoing (talk · contribs), since it is a breach of our sockpuppetry policy. You may be blocked next time you are discovered abusing multiple accounts. T. Canens (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Veracitycounts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Sir or Madam

May I respectfully request your consideration to lifting the edit block on my account 'Veracitycounts'. Some background to assist you.

I am retired, and in my seventh decade. The family computer is shared by 3 generations within the family household. I am an infrequent visitor to Wikepedia, and an even less frequent editor. As such I am not at all familiar with your many protocols, such as 'sockpuppet' and 'edit warring', which offer little by way of self explanation. In the real World I am a respectable man of probity, who conducts himself with decorum. That said, when my hackles are raised I will fight my corner with gritty tenacity and determination. Surely a positive trait ?

This situation arose when I came across the page for National Westminster Bank. I am not without knowledge in this area, and I considered the ousting of NatWest's CEO in 1999 absolutely central and critical to the bank's subsequent takeover by RBS. Woefully, this relevant information was omitted from the Wikipedia page. I edited a succinct quote from the BBC News site to correct this omission, and referenced it accordingly.

At this juncture, a chap by the name of 'Chrisieboy' appeared from the ether, and continually deleted my edit. The chap gave no rational explanation for this action, which he annoyingly repeated, thus raising my ire. Simply, by way of a 'headline grabber' I logged on as 'Donotdelettewithoutratifying' or words to that effect. I could not throw off this 'Chriseboy' chap who again deleted my edit, and I was threatened with 'warring' and 'sockpuppeteering' - meaningless terms to me. My perception was that 'Chrisieboy', not myself, was the one abusing the public's editorial prerogative.

A relative read this litany of exchanges, and added his two penn'orth to the discussion page in support of my factual and responsible editing. The next thing, I find I am blocked from editing Wikepedia ! I feel a sense of unfair chastisement over this, and I ask for your sympathetic consideration of the facts, and to re-instate my account please. I undertake not to use a new log-in name as a ' headline grabber ' in future, and I now understand that you call this sockpuppeting. I apologise for the inconvenience my actions have caused. If only this 'Chrisieboy' chap had been a little more conciliatory, and not abused my edit this would not have occurred. It was a clash of the Titans I am afraid. I suspect that 'Chrisieboy' is now enjoying the Schadenfreude of seeing this clumsy old novice editor being blocked.

As for my edit to NatWest regarding the CEO's ousting in 1999, I trust that this responsible factual edit will remain on the page. I don't give up that easily !

Best regards, in anticipation of your favourable consideration. Veracitycounts. (Veracitycounts (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)) (Veracitycounts (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Decline reason:

Will unblock based on the next request already on the page -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As you can appreciate as a community we have some self imposed rules, which are necessary so that we can build an encyclopaedia. We work on consensus so we can not tolerate editors using multiple user accounts to edit the same pages as it is too easy for that to give the appearance of a false consensus.

I will unblock you account:

• You list all sock puppets accounts that you have used.
• if you agree not to use any other account than this one. If as you say there are others in you house that share a computer it is very important that you do not edit the same pages as they do, or it is likely that you will end up with all family accounts blocked.
• For a one month cooling off period you do not edit the National Westminster Bank page or talk:National Westminster Bank. The restriction will last until the start of September. Please give you response below. -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for such a timely response.

Over time I have used various log-in names, essentially because I forgot either, or indeed both, my user name and password. I have only ever made small edits in the past, and certainly never encountered any hoo-ha (apologies for my terminology) in respect of my prior good faith edits.

My 3 sons and my wife all use Wikipedia. However, like me, it is very much on the novice level. I will have left Wikipedia logged-on from time to time, although I wouldn't have thought anything of it. If I was asked for the user name I would have freely given it, although I will cease doing so.

To retain a perspective, even our combined family use would be absolutely minimal, and, after this experience, probably a good deal less. Whilst holding the user name 'veracitycounts' I have also used a log-in name - something like 'ratifybeforeediting' - although I am now guessing. It was used during the recent NatWest exchanges with 'Chrisieboy'. It was obviously me, and it was no more than a keyboard shout to get that 'Chrisieboy' chap off my case. To be totally honest (veracitycounts !) until 'Chrisieboy' poked a stick into my cage, I only associated 'sock' to feet and airfields !

Goodness only knows why this 'Chrisieboy' chap was so determined to remove my edit. The cynic in me wonders whether these large corporate sites employ user-editors to delete anything with a negative connotation, irrespective of whether it is factual or salient, as my edit unequivocally was ? It was merely a short quote,verbatim from BBC News ! At one point 'Moonriddengirl' entered the fray, and this silly debate became tripartite. She agreed that my edit was fine, with the exception perhaps of some quotation marks - so why didn't 'Chrisieboy' simply titivate the edit on my behalf, and I would have thanked him accordingly ? Life is too ephemeral for all this mental aggravation over a simple good faith edit.

You have my assurance, as an individual of probity, that for at least one month I will undertake not to edit the NatWest page, although this would have been highly unlikely in any event. Perhaps you would kindly ensure that 'Chrisieboy' does not emerge from the ether when my back is turned,and make further deletions of fair, reasonable,factual, encyclopaedic, and good faith edits, to the NatWest page.

Best regards )Veracitycounts (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for such a timely response.

Over time I have used various log-in names, essentially because I forgot either, or indeed both, my user name and password. I have only ever made small edits in the past, and certainly never encountered any hoo-ha (apologies for my terminology) in respect of my prior good faith edits.

My 3 sons and my wife all use Wikipedia. However, like me, it is very much on the novice level. I will have left Wikipedia logged-on from time to time, although I wouldn't have thought anything of it. If I was asked for the user name I would have freely given it, although I will cease doing so.

To retain a perspective, even our combined family use would be absolutely minimal, and, after this experience, probably a good deal less. Whilst holding the user name 'veracitycounts' I have also used a log-in name - something like 'ratifybeforeediting' - although I am now guessing. It was used during the recent NatWest exchanges with 'Chrisieboy'. It was obviously me, and it was no more than a keyboard shout to get that 'Chrisieboy' chap off my case. To be totally honest (veracitycounts !) until 'Chrisieboy' poked a stick into my cage, I only associated 'sock' to feet and airfields !

Goodness only knows why this 'Chrisieboy' chap was so determined to remove my edit. The cynic in me wonders whether these large corporate sites employ user-editors to delete anything with a negative connotation, irrespective of whether it is factual or salient, as my edit unequivocally was ? It was merely a short quote,verbatim from BBC News ! At one point 'Moonriddengirl' entered the fray, and this silly debate became tripartite. She agreed that my edit was fine, with the exception perhaps of some quotation marks - so why didn't 'Chrisieboy' simply titivate the edit on my behalf, and I would have thanked him accordingly ? Life is too ephemeral for all this mental aggravation over a simple good faith edit.

You have my assurance, as an individual of probity, that for at least one month I will undertake not to edit the NatWest page, although this would have been highly unlikely in any event. Perhaps you would kindly ensure that 'Chrisieboy' does not emerge from the ether when my back is turned,and make further deletions of fair, reasonable,factual, encyclopaedic, and good faith edits, to the NatWest page.

Best regards}} (Veracitycounts (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

As you know from my above post, I am more than a tad restive having been blocked by Wikipedia. This must surely be a classic sledge-hammer and nut scenario. I am a stage 1 novice with Wikipedia. I made a simple good faith edit to the NatWest page, which everyone (bar 'Chrisieboy') agrees is very valid. Even my wife senses my injustice, and she seldom agrees with me ! Yet, I have been blocked ?

The above Wikipedia site, in relation to blocking user's IP addresses states :

'IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time'.

Does this really describe me ? A pensioner who barely uses Wikipedia, although on this occasion helpfully edited a very salient BBC quote into the NatWest page. I stood my ground against a hectoring cyber bully ('Chrisieboy') who repeatedly deleted my edit, and now I find myself black balled, like some heinous reprobate. Wikipedia is an excellent facility, although my experience tells me it aint yet perfect.

I look forward to my early release on good behaviour please !>(Veracitycounts (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

---

Your wrote

You have my assurance, as an individual of probity, that for at least one month I will undertake not to edit the NatWest page, although this would have been highly unlikely in any event. Perhaps you would kindly ensure that 'Chrisieboy' does not emerge from the ether when my back is turned,and make further deletions of fair, reasonable,factual, encyclopaedic, and good faith edits, to the NatWest page.

If you want to edit here you will have to understand that user:Chrisieboy has acted completely within the self imposed rules that we have. So NO I will not do anything to "ensure that 'Chrisieboy' does not emerge from the ether". I think that you need to read two documents before I remove the block. The first is WP:CONSENSUS that say that everything we do here is based on consensus editing. You will appreciate that if you can have a spat on editing this page imagine how heated debates can get when they involve issues like is Water boarding torture, or the legality of the invasion of Iraq, or national disputes: ones you have never heard of like Liancourt Rocks, ones you may be familiar with Kosova/Kosovo, and ones you will be only too familiar with anything to do with British Irish relationships such as what is the correct name for the Republic of Ireland and are the British Isles a geographic term or a political one.

Because it does the project no good to have articles changing all the time we have a strict three-revert rule. You can be bold and make edits to articles. But if they are reverted by another editor then best practice is to discuss the reasons for the edits on the talk page and see if you can reach a consensus rather than edit warring over the changes (you revert, they revert etc). If you can not reach a local consensus then follow the guidance in the dispute resolution (I was responding to a Wikipedia:third opinion request over the Nat West article).

You will find that reading the three content policies helpful WP:Neutral point of view, WP:V and WP:No original research

As you have been a puppet master, see WP:FAMILY your family should consider acknowledging a connection between accounts, and do not EVER edit in support of each other. BTW Acknowledge DOES NOT MEAN GIVING OUT ANY PERSONAL DETAILS, just putting a note on the user pages of the family accounts that you are sharing a computer with the user name of the other users.

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Veracitycounts you have been suspected of using those accounts.

1. Did you use those accounts?
2. Are there any others?
3. For a one month cooling off period you agree not to edit the National Westminster Bank page or talk:National Westminster Bank. The restriction will last until the start of September.

To keep it simple: If you want me to remove the block just answer yes (and mean it) to 1. and 3. and either "no" or list the other accounts in response to 2. -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspected socks moved to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Veracitycounts --PBS (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|In response - To questions 1 and 3 Yes , to question 2 No. 'Life is a pot-pourri of bureaucracy, rules and small print, and then we die'. Anon.}}

County Natwest

The first thing to say. Is it is often better to let matters like this drop. In my opinion this place often has the social interactions of a primary school playground, laced with the fact that no matter how offensive a person is they are very unlikely to be physically assaulted. Going to teacher is a dangerous business, because one can not be sure that the teacher will support you. One thing though is that most of the teachers (admins) do not like having their judgement questioned, so because they are really only hall monitors, and not the teachers they appear to be, they can often be quite like the other children (By the way (BTW) as there is no age requirement, some of the editors here are children, and not adults acting as children!). So as the saying goes no use crying over spilt milk. Memories here like in a school playground are quite short so no harm done unless you transgress in any other way in which case everything and anything will be dragged up into a court of star chamber and be used against you. It is completely fair though because you are at complete liberty to do the same back to them! To see these spats in opetation just read WP:ANI.

I did not block you, X! did because you used sockpuppet accounts abusively (that is in a way that is unacceptable not rudely) See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

I made you make the minimum possible promises to unblock you account, that in my judgement would not get my reversal taken to WP:ANI where my decision could have been questioned and if the consensus was against me reverted. You coming to my page and complaining does not help if anyone wishes to question my judgement.

I arrived at the National Westminster Bank because MorningGirl had put in a request at WP:THIRD. THIRD is the first step in the dispute resolution process, and if you had allowed us to follow it without breaking the rules, you could probably have persuaded enough editors to agree with you that a modified version of your text should be included in the article. But I know the feeling that when you are head to head with another editor it seems as if there has to be an immediate solution, but because editors are all over the planet decisions take time.

"Big Swinging Dick" is a literary quote I think it is originally from The Bonfire of the Vanities and is the term used by describe successful traders by Tom Wolfe (although I don't have the book to hand so can not check). It is [also] in Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis. Many people who worked in the City in the 1980s are familiar with the term (and used it). -- PBS (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, "if you had allowed us to follow it without breaking the rules, you could probably have persuaded enough editors to agree with you that a modified version of your text should be included in the article", but I am not going to edit this page for you, if I were to do that user:Chrisieboy would not unreasonably cry foul. I would intervene if I thought that the wording on the page was libellous or blatantly false in some other way, but this is much more a question of nuance.

I would suggest quite strongly that you drop that subject for a time, and instead look at other things that interest you, there are literally millions of pages and thousands of subjects. Wikipedia can be very frustrating if, as you did in this case, you run into someone who does not agree with you, but it is very rewarding when you make changes to a page that others then take up and develop further. If you do this over the next month then you will have gained some experience of editing with other editors and be in a better position to implement the changes you want to make to the Nat West page. But understand that your previous behaviour played right into the hands of Chrisieboy who not unreasonably cried foul when you broke the rules:

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

— wikiquote:A Man for All Seasons (1966 film)

--PBS (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Shared IP address

If you decide to start editing again as you say that other members of you family also edit from you home network, you might consider placing one of these boxes: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts on you home page. If you have a look at my home page your will see I have one, because I run two accounts. I created this one

This user may sometimes share an IP address with Username.

with your situation in mind. It will allow you to be transparent and will reduce the chances of accusations of sockpuppetery -- PBS (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To the left of my user and talk page you will see a "E-mail this user". -- PBS (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)