Hello, I'm FPTI. I noticed that you made a comment on the page 2024 in aviation that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FPTI (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you should also note that I am not attacking anyone, im giving my honest opinion on their edits. The edits I make is to make Wikipedia better. 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect that, and I appreciate it. If I could advise you on something, I also saw that you wrote "Also note that if you add an incident or crash other than 2024 in aviation stuff. They should have an article to conclude that it is notable." I believe this is incorrect. See WP:NLISTITEM. "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles."

So, even though these incidents may not have enough coverage or notability for a standalone article about them- which could be debated- they still received international news coverage, which strongly suggests that they are important enough events to get a mention on a list of aviation events. --FPTI (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your unexplained re-arranging of housekeeping comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1118 (why did you move them?) and reverted a tag on United Airlines Flight 1118 didn't really contribute much, partially with the AFD looks very likely to be closed as delete. With the article tag, I'd second FPTI's reminder to be civil since the edit summary adding it seems overly harsh; saying someone is "perhaps blind" could easily be read as a violation of WP:No personal attacks. I hope you'll reconsider how you interact with other editors to help match our collaborative spirit. Skynxnex (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert the tag if its true? You've been on Wikipedia since the Dinosaur years you should know that the article clearly has problems and the tag not being there is weird. (The article is still awaiting deletion so put aside AfD for now) 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the tag in question, it's not really actionable, is it? "Whole article" isn't an issue and doesn't provide guidance of what the editor things is wrong. Also, ((Article issues)) standalone isn't the correct tag to be there, as it redirects to ((Multiple issues)) which is meant to be a container for multiple more specific maintenance templates, as its documentation says: Do not use this as the only message box on the article or section; it should be used with at least two other message boxes contained inside it. I could maybe see putting the notability tag inside it and have something like ((Copy edit)) or something would be more productive and better chance of actually being fixed. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]