User talk:Flyinggal07

Welcome!

Hello, Flyinggal07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Airmed[edit]

Please be advised that wikipedia is not a place to promote companies or organizations, and we also have some pretty strict policies about conflict-of-interest, specifically about editing articles on companies you work for. As you're new here, I can fully understand why you might not have understood this. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on my talk page[edit]

(copy of my reply on my talk page)

Since you're new and still learning your way around here, I'll reply both here and on your talk page. Your entry may be valid (I'll get to that in a moment), but it really is inappropriate for you to be writing it, in view of our conflict-of-interest rules. For instance, I'm sure you've heard about a little air ambulance company called "Air Methods". I happen to work for that company, so when it came time for someone to write an article on Wikipedia about that company, I was very careful to recuse myself from participation in the process, in order to avoid any appearance of creating bias. Wikipedia is a place to have independent information about companies, so articles written by folks that work for those companies are automatically suspected of bias.

There are a number of things that are necessary for an article about a company. First, it needs to meet our requirements for notability of the company. If the company in question meets the criteria, that notability must be notified in the article through reference to reliable sources - meaning independent, 3rd party sources, like mainstream or industry media - which meet the verifiability standards. Simply providing a link to your company's website isn't sufficient, because your company's website isn't going to be objective and crtical. Remember, this isn't a place to promote your company or give it a good image. For instance, the Air Methods article contains a reference and a link to sources that could be considered critical and unflattering to the Company. Articles also need to meet the standards of our Manual of Style.

In addition, the article needs to be written in objective, neutral, encyclopedic language. The one you added was written in promotional PR language. Some examples: the article read: "the leading air medical transport company"...who has determined it is the "leading" company? Because this is written by a company employee, it is clearly non-objective. How do you measure "leading"? It's a subjective statement, rather than a statement of fact (again, to compare, the AM article says "largest", which is a demonstrable fact based on statistics, rather than a subjective statment). Another: "AirMed offers unparalleled medical care". "Unparalleled"? No one else offers the level of care your company does? Has this been adjudged this way by an independent source? Has CAMTS or Aeromedical Journal made such a statment that you can quote? "Chosen as air medical transport for the world-famous Mayo Clinic"...are you the only operator that flies for Mayo? Do you have independent confirmation regarding an exclusive contract? For instance, this Mayo Clinic website page doesn't even mention you, and give advice to physicians on how to pick an air ambulance service...if you were the exclusive provider, the article would likely say that. And this article talk's about Mayo's own not-for-profit air ambulances, MedAir and Mayo One...do you operate these aircraft? The article doesn't list you as the provider, and neither does your Wikipedia article. And as for DoD, are you the only company that has a DoD contract? Is there something in your contract that gives you some kind of preference over other competitors? And which DoD contract, at which DoD installation? I know for a fact that you're not the preferred provider at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base.

Your article states that you operate the "largest permanently configured ICU-equipped aircraft in the country"...that's really misleading, as your biggest aircraft is a Hawker 800. The USAF and Navy operate much bigger ICU-equipped planes, the C-9 Nightingale. And what about Aviation Bridge, which uses Gulfstreams for ICU transport? Last I checked, a Gulstream was bigger than a Hawker. "Rivaling patient care in some of the finest hospitals, AirMed jets are equipped for virtually every critical care scenario." That's pure promotional language, and has no place in an encyclopedia article.

I don't mean to discourage you from editing, but what I'm trying to show you is that your article sounds like a promotional brochure, not a sterile, factual, accurate and properly sourced overview of the company. If you're in the biz, there are still plenty of places in the encyclpedia that could really use your input, articles on medical conditions and such where your expertise would be helpful without causing conflict-of-interest issues. If you have any further questions, please let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]