User talk:Michaelsbaum

Image copyright problem with Image:Logo-AMCC-70p.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo-AMCC-70p.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I couldn’t figure out how to go back to it". Oh dear, oh dear. Do you see the words "Image:Logo..." above (in the message text, not the title). Do you realise that they are part of a link? Have you tried following the link? You could also click on the "my contributions" tab above. -- RHaworth 10:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

I have moved Michaelsbaum/Sandbox to User:Michaelsbaum/Sandbox. -- RHaworth 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator's code of conduct

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this article -- is it the full-text of the code of conduct? Or is about how the code is used? You may want to upload it to Wikisource instead of writing an encyclopedia article. -- Merope 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigs

Hi, there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! - CobaltBlueTony 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMCC

OK, it is an 'article about' not the 'text of'. How to install? "My guess is that my question is too obvious!" No, not the question, but the answer is obvious. However first:

Establish notability. Provide references (with external links) to the use of the code in the real world. How many aviators have actually heard of the code, let alone read it?
Correct the rest of the SHOUTING.
Reduce the number of links to secureav.com to three at most and put them at the end of the article.

To install, simply copy from edit box to Aviators Model Code of Conduct. -- RHaworth 10:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your convenience, would you please take a quick look at my sandbox and see if it is moving in the right direction -- or perhaps give me some further suggestions. Specifically, I'm trying to respond to the notability issue by revising the "Implementation" subheading content and including explicit third-party references. User:Michaelsbaum (via email)

Why on earth use email for the above? A message on my user_talk page would have reached me faster. Yes, you have addressed my points well. The heavy set of external links in the Implementation section looks non-standard but at least they are the independent refs I asked for. So - go for it! Install it as per the above and see what happens. I won't tell anybody that you are the principal editor of the Code. -- RHaworth 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviators Model Code of Conduct

I have deleted the link of this article from the 'See also section' of Glider. I should have explained in more detail why I did this last last time and I hope this explains why I deleted it again.

Firstly the Glider article is about unpowered aircraft in general, ie the objects themselves, not on how to fly them (or how not to fly them). A link to Aviators' Model Code of Conduct is not directly relevant to the subject matter of this article.
After a little research it appears that the article is mainly aimed at publicizing your own venture rather than at improving Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new publications, however worthy. Even if your venture is completely altruistic, I think that the article fails the criterion of Wikipedia:Notability. I quote: "The number of sources provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." The fact that the code exists does not mean that it automatically merits inclusion in Wikipedia. On similar grounds you could have an article for every book, magazine and manual that was ever published. I have therefore tagged the article for 'notability'. JMcC 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find yourself asking 'how can I get my article linked into Wikipedia', you are starting from the wrong end, and I think this is the question that you are still asking. When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Consequently Wikipedia is not a manual on everything about gliding and as a result there is little about how to fly a glider. The content is mainly about how gliders work, what they are used for and what types. The 'See also' section therefore has links to:

Gliding - what they are used for
Gliding competitions - more detail on what they are used for that could not fit into Gliding
Hang Glider - another type
Foot-Launched Powered Hang Glider - another type of glider though I must admit as a group it is not ideal. I have thought about zapping it here and putting the link into Motor glider
Military glider - another type
Gimli Glider - this is an oddity, but it's interesting to learn how good a 767 is as a glider
Paraglider - another type
Underwater gliders - another type, if you stretch a point

Clearly Wikipedia should be a good starting point for an investigation to any area of knowledge. Consequently, I would prefer a link to the Code through Airmanship, because that has direct relevance to your material. (There is already a link from Gliding to the airmanship article.) Personally I would refer to your material as an external link. Inserting it as a Wikipedia article provides few additional benefits beyond giving it publicity, hence my concern about notability. If you wanted to get a worldwide airing, you could try Val Brain's site Gliding and Motorgliding International. PS I do not understand the abbreviations POHs and PIMs. JMcC 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I should say that I am very interested in flight safety. I have attended two funerals of pilots whom I knew well and I have also been close to attending my own. My concern is whether Wikipedia is the place to promote it. To answer your points:

My 'little research' was to look at the web-site and this shows that you are the author of this publication. Not a problem in itself, but this put me on alert
Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository of everything. Adding something does not automatically improve it. Furthermore scattering references to the Code in arbitrary places does not improve the structure of Wikipedia, even though greater awareness might improve flight safety
It is good to hear that you draw no benefit from SecureAv
I was wrong if I suggested it is a new publication. Its age is not an issue
Notability is a tricky thing to define. If I had thought it was completely trivial I would have suggested it for immediate deletion. Putting on the tag merely asks the question. Doubtless it is a worthy venture, but I am still unsure why it merits an article in an encyclopedia, any more than any other publication. To take an extreme example, you will find entries for the Harry Potter books because there is much more information about their impact than you could find in the books themselves, whereas the article on AMCC merely mirrors what is on its web-site. Looking through the FAA's list of on-line resources, I can see several other equivalent sites and wonder, if by allowing AMCC, Wikipedia would set a precedent and would have to have articles on each of these as well
My definition of airmanship is probably broader than yours and so I see much of the AMCC as being in that field. Consequently that is where I would refer to it. JMcC 10:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender. I would like to get on with my life. JMcC 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aviators Model Code of Conduct

The article Aviators Model Code of Conduct has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, does not meet WP:GNG. Most of the third party refs cited do not mention the subject, but are there to support general claims about accident causes. Only ref that even comes close is a directory listing by the FAA, on a big long list of general links

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The above criticism focuses on a lack of support regarding accident causes. That part of the content is merely prefatory to the core, substantive content of the AMCC page: the creation and availability of peer-reviewed aviation safety collateral. This collateral continues to receive international recognition -- as highlighted here: http://www.secureav.com/newdevelopments.html .To the extent that there is concern regarding the prefatory material, I respectfully suggest that an effective approach would be to require the improvement of the prefatory material -- and the eventual deletion of that prefatory material (NOT the entire page) should Wiki standards not be satisfied in due course. I'm confident that your suggestions will catalyze responsive editing by the community. In any event, please consider providing ample time for such responsive contributions. Michaelsbaum (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, Michaelsbaum. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Aviators Code Initiative, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above. The Aviators Code Initiative (ACI) has, without exception, been and continues to be 100% voluntary by all parties and participants -- and there has strictly never been compensation of any type to or from any of its editorial contributor, volunteers, and/or board members. Its work product is always made available free of charge to the public. The proposed edit was merely for accuracy. There is no external relationship or conflict of interest between Independent Monitoring LLC and the ACI; and no website link between ACI and IM exists or was proposed. Michaelsbaum (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]