CockpitSeeker

CockpitSeeker, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CockpitSeeker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay to fly (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pay to fly and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Baltic Aviation Academy, aviation visionary.png

Thank you for uploading File:Baltic Aviation Academy, aviation visionary.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Just as a side note, if you created this image yourself and choose to use an acceptable free license tag (public domain, CC-BY-SA, etc.) to keep the image on Wikipedia, be aware that you are forfeiting significant intellectual property rights that you may not be intending to forfeit. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

CockpitSeeker:

Hello, I can't happen to find where to add the copyright credentials? I made it, meaning I'd like to use:

Where/How can I do this... oh wait, it looks I just did, didn't I?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay to fly has been accepted

Pay to fly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Aerospeed (Talk) 23:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Baltic Aviation Academy aviation visionary.png

Thanks for uploading File:Baltic Aviation Academy aviation visionary.png, which you've attributed to http://www.cockpitseeker.com/2015/baltic-aviation-academy/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pay to fly

Hi, CockpitSeeker. You raise an interesting point. That since the company either lacks enough Wikipedia-notability to have an article or one just hasn't been written yet, there could be a citation backing up its existence. This should be done with reliable, third-party, published sources (not from the company, blogs, press releases, etc.) instead of a direct link to the company. Newspaper or magazine articles about the company, discussions about the company in books, etc. I'm going to remove the direct link again, but please feel free to add a good citation that offers proof the company should be in that list. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo! Thank you for your conversation. I figured indeed there should have been a trace of that company. I believe proof they should be in that list do appear with the link "educational program" 3 columns after, where this so called Aviation CV offers to pay "36000€" upfront for the "salary during employment (loan deducted) first year: 0€", which means pilots at Aviation CV "pay-to-fly" (the topic of this article). I'll stick with your reliable sources idea and find a better one. Thanks, CockpitSeeker (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cockpitseeker.com / paid editing

Hi, CockpitSeeker. While looking at the previous issue, I noticed there was a CockpitSeeker.com. Do you represent them, work for them, or are otherwise compensated by them? Or by Aviation CV or other company listed in Pay to fly? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Yeah, this CockpitSeeker.com exists. Those guys rock, they exchange mails with the European Commission and apparently went to the Parliament as well (saw it on their facebook), and they disclose all their info for free openly. I wish they paid me, or any airline listed in Pay to fly really. But it's the other way round, no airlines want to appear in that list since it means they enforce this "paying-to-work" scheme. Not a good publicity if you ask me, they wouldn't want to pay anyone to disclose that really ;).

I took this name more as a tribute (like I would have chosen "Anonymous"), I am a "cockpitseeker" (unemployed pilot) myself, like thousands worldwide. Cheers CockpitSeeker (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, CockpitSeeker. In your Pay to fly article refer to Atrans Aviation, They are a scam in Vietnam and so many cadets here lost money badly with them, Many cadets trust them cause they appear into your article Can you please remove their name into the article so no one else will be cheated. I hope you can help people to do a good thing. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richk1consult (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richk1consult, thank you for posting.

There is a misunderstanding about what the article is about entirely:

_Pay to fly is about airlines that make pilots pay to work, which should be illegal!

_This means all the airlines featured are NOT to be trusted. That's the whole point, they ARE scammers by default!

Just like I answered to Stesmo above, this is the opposite of publicity and you can notice some people tried to remove airlines' names to clear their reputation. Removing any airline ourselves would defeat the whole purpose of the article: warning people.

I'm asking you a favor however: if you're willing to help those pilots, try to direct them to the original crew behind cockpitseeker.com, I heard they helped some of us.CockpitSeeker (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pay to fly page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

About your revert, please note that Category:Aviation is a business category already, because it is a child category of Category:Industries which in turn is a child category of Category:Business. There's no point in categorizing the article in the general business category, because it's not about business in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Marcocapelle for this clarification. In that case, would it make more sense in your opinion to remove the Category:Industries, leaving only Category:Aviation (which is more precise in this case anyway)? CockpitSeeker (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Aviation is defined as the design, development, production etc of aircraft, that's exactly what industry is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)