You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeju Air Flight 2216. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to go for "tit for tat" or are you going to read the edit summary I gave you here [1]. Multiple editors seem to agree that the note is a good placeholder. If you don't like it, fix it before removing it. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link where this was previously discussed? It is your job as the one who wants to reinstate the content to cite reliable sources that directly supports the material. This is not a WP:BLUESKY situation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't previously discussed, it was added in by an editor who you reverted, then added back in by myself and improved upon by other editors. If the death toll being the highest needs to be sourced, how am I supposed to source it? Drop multiple lists from Aviation Safety Network, which will take a lot of time (that I don't have) to format and not look hideous? Or can we agree that 176 < 179 and save for any undisclosed Area 51 incidents there have been no sources stating any accident in the time periods stated exceed 179 in death toll. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The correct course of action before blanking anything by the way (save for vandalism or WP:BLP violations) is ^{[citation needed]}. Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hii @Fantastic Mr. Fox , it's me @Callmehelper
I just wanted to apologise to you for my previous response.
Looking back to my reply, i realize that it was kinda rude reply, but tbh that's not my intention.
I really didn't mean to disrespect your valuable time and efforts. It's my frustration that i let it out very badly, which i shouldn't.
I will definitely make sure to be more respectful with my tone in the future.
I hope you will understand my side.
Thanks.
Much Regards. ✊ Callmehelper (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a few changes on a wikipedia page. It shows that you reverted the changes. Could you please help? Priyalgor (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted as the reason provided ("not comfortable with showcasing these details") is not sufficient for removing content from a wikipage. I suggest you look over WP:COI for further advice .Fantastic Mr. Fox 13:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2025.

I can't always tell because again a third of unconstructive edits come from IP addresses. In any case, if there is consensus for it to be there so be it. I guess I'll let the IP know they probably should use an edit summary to explain what they did. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Someone added it last year and it was only editted by a few editors, so it is understandable how it can appear as unconstructive. Fantastic Mr. Fox 10:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]