User talk:Rgsconsulting

Speedy deletion nomination of Birmingham Power Squadron


A tag has been placed on Birmingham Power Squadron requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only is this local chapter of the US Power Squadrons not notable, but the text was a copyright infringement of the Birmingham Power Squadron website. As you agreed when you created the article, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Restating the reasons for the deletion:
 * As a local chapter of USPS, the article met speedy deletion criterion A7, a non-notable organization.
 * Since it was copied from the BPS website, it also met criterion G12, copyright infringement.
 * The infringement left little option: the article had to be deleted because of the copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fred,
 * Please let me know why you deleted our new (and in process) subject for the Birmingham Power Squadron. I am the Public Relations Officer for the Birmingham Power Squadron, am authorized produce this entry, and to link ot our web pages.
 * Ron Simpson - User rgsconsulting


 * As public relations officer for the squadron, are you authorized to donate its copyrighted materials? The text you added bears notice that it is under copyright and an all-rights-reserved license. Unless the squadron is willing to allow all derivative use—including commercial reuse—of the material it places on Wikipedia, we cannot use the text here.


 * Even if the text were freely licensed, the issue would be whether the Birmingham Power Squadron is a notable organization. There is no dispute that the United States Power Squadrons is a notable organization. However, the general rule of thumb is that local chapters of national organizations are not notable.


 * Additionally, please review the guidelines on conflicts of interest. As an officer in the BPS, you clearly have a conflict. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry for butting in on this but if you are the PRO for the chapter then probably you should not be writing the article at all due to conflict of interest - see WP:COI. It would certainly be dangerous territory, even if you were permitted to do it. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that C.Fred types faster than me, I shall crawl back under my stone.  - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC

I see what you are saying, however, we ARE a significant organization as the USPS operatest through it Squadrons and we are a significant educator in our area and significantly involved in the community. Additionally we have acted as the catalyst for corrpboration between South East Michigan Squdrons, The Coast Guard, The Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Michigan DNR, US Customs and Border Patrol, Canadian Customs, the Oakland County Sherriff's Department, and the Macomb County Sherriff's Department.

Additionally, as Public Relations Officer, I am authorized to refer to our website. There are no conflicts of interest as it is my job to describe our organization to the world. Thanks, Ron Simpson Rgsconsulting (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I am thoroughly confused. In no way am I intending to continue working on the same article - you have now made it abundantly clear that I can't because it is an abuse of wikipedia. This was my first article and it appeared appropriate to me. I will not continue. And considering my id, you are making a leap describing both points on what my id "means". It means nothing, not an organization, not a role. I simply use my email address as user Ids so I can remember them. It makes it very simple for me. For a first time user, and a recent financial donor to wiki, responding to the recent campaign, I an not impressed with how I have been welcomed. What should be a intellegently democratic tool, appears to be controlled by an intellectual oligarchy. I plan on moving this up the organization if it continues. Please cool your editorial rhetoric. Shouldn't there be some mentoring for greenies like me?? Thank you! Ron Rgsconsulting (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding comments is fine. There is no conflict of interest.  It is by job as the PRO to describe us to the public and to maintain our definition.  I am out here describing our value to the community.
 * Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgsconsulting (talk • contribs)


 * Have you read WP:COI? "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."[emphasis added] Personal interests include one's civic organizations. As the public relations officer, you clearly have a conflict of interest because you have accepted a leadership position to promote the organization you have a personal interest in! (Unless PRO is a paid position, in which case "employer" applies rather than "personal interests.") —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think the same thing would apply to the National Organization then. This is not promoting a "personal" interest; it is desribing a community interest. There is absolutely nothing I personally get out of this. Rgsconsulting (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not necessarily what the writer may "get out of it" but whether or not they can present the article from a "neutral point of view". We all have opinions etc and it does affect our writing, but if an editor is really close to the subject then judgment tends to become cloudy. It is a can't see the wood for the trees scenario. There are other reasons, but this is the biggie in my opinion. I really do not think that this article is going to happen - C.Fred seems to know the rules inside-out & is v. experienced. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you in your education here. If you read the article, you will see it is not written in any way superlative; it is a very neutral, simple, straight-forward descripton of function - encyclopedic description of the organization. I'm an IT guy, I'm not really versed in advertizing, so can only describe the organization. Again, thanks. Ron Simpson Rgsconsulting (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Username
Ron - please pick a new username which reprsents you as an individual, rather than your company. Thank you. 7 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Rgsconsulting, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 7 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to rename my account. It appears that this is the way to do it. Rgsconsulting (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to us what "Rgspol" stands for? We want to make sure you are requesting an account that represents a single individual and not some entity of some sort. –MuZemike 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. It simply matches one of my email IDs. RonRgsconsulting (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am thoroughly confused. In no way am I intending to continue working on the same article - you have now made it abundantly clear that I can't because it is an abuse of wikipedia. This was my first article and it appeared appropriate to me. I will not continue. And considering my id, you are making a leap describing both points on what my id "means". It means nothing, not an organization, not a role. I simply use my email address as user Ids so I can remember them. It makes it very simple for me. For a first time user, and a recent financial donor to wiki, responding to the recent campaign, I an not impressed with how I have been welcomed. What should be a intellegently democratic tool, appears to be controlled by an intellectual oligarchy. I plan on moving this up the organization if it continues. Please cool your editorial rhetoric. Shouldn't there be some mentoring for greenies like me?? Thank you! Ron Rgsconsulting (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Rgsconsulting (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start with the block. The block given was for a username violation, and a username violation only. The violation results, IMHO, from the string "consulting" at the end of your username. It gives the appearance that you're editing on behalf of a company named RGS Consulting. I don't see the same issue with the "pol" string; I'm willing to assume good faith in the username unless there's evidence to the contrary.


 * That said, the block was not levied because of your edits to the Birmingham Power Squadron, even though there was a lot of discussion on this page about concerns that certain editors (myself included) have with the editing, specifically your conflict of interest with the organization—and your protests that it doesn't apply to you. (By way of analogy: A boater gets stopped by an enforcement agency for speeding through a no-wake zone. However, he protests that the zone shouldn't apply to him.) Your statement above that you don't intend to continue working on the article shows that you're willing to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines.


 * One of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I don't see evidence of any malice in your edits; I do see evidence that you're willing to learn, to focus on areas where you don't have a conflict of interest, and to grow as an editor. Accordingly, I'm going to go ahead and grant the request to unblock your account so you can file a change of username request at WP:CHU. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)