Hello. Thanks for your nomination, but I think it is unlikely to be accepted as there were no injuries in the incident which according to the source you provided is not uncommon. I suspect this event is not of wide interest as ITN requests. ITN is not just a place to post articles about news events, they must be significant to some degree. You may wish to review WP:ITN to learn more about ITN. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wide interest will go away quickly as there are no casualties in this incident. "Wide interest" is often confused with "trending". It is "trending" because news readers are seeing that the plane landed safely and once they do, they will move on. ITN does not typically post transportation accidents without something like a large number of casualties/deaths or damage to a notable structure. This is just a malfunction with a plane that caused it to make an emergency landing which it did safely. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you said "damage to a notable structure" , The falling of a planes whole engine cover is not a small damage and it has done damages in ground as well . AyaanLamar (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The part fell off over the ocean and did not damage anything on the ground. Unless the Eiffel Tower, White House, or other comparable structure was damaged by this plane part, that is not significant enough for ITN. The plane itself is not a notable structure. While certainly disturbing to witness, the plane landed safely with no injuries. As the NYTimes notes, something similar happened last year. Based on my experience this is not going to be posted to ITN. I'm honestly not even sure it merits an article- though I'm only dealing with ITN at the moment. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't question your good faith at all, and I cannot prevent you from pursuing this. But I felt it fair to be realistic with you about the chances of posting an unremarkable incident with a plane with no casualties. If you choose to ignore my experience and advice, that is your decision and I respect it. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "331dot's Wikipedia", people can have different views on it in good faith- though the notability is being questioned. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have created two redirects to articles from draft space titles which have never been used as titles of drafts. I can't conceive of any possible purpose in doing that, so I have deleted the redirects. If, however, you do think there is a good reason for such strange redirects, feel free to let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The registration of an aircraft is the only info to recognize a specific aircraft ex:A Number plate on a car ,There is no other way to trace it so please revert the edits AyaanLamar (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's draft space is for preparing content which may eventually become an article. You don't give any reason at all for making an exception and using draft space to hold redirects to existing articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now realised a probable reason why you created the redirects. Presumably you would have created them in main space, but you can't create mainspace pages from a new account. Is that right? There is a page for new editors to request creation of redirects, but I shall save you the trouble of doing that by restoring your redirects and moving them across from draft space to main space. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AyaanLamar Please do not double warn users like you have been doing. This doesn't explain this, however. And there are several instances where users had been reverted, properly warned by actual editors and then subsequently warn bombed by you. CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯17:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might be because both user clicked revert at the exact time.You must understand there are countless people recent patrolling and they all come across the same vandal caused by users AyaanLamar (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Double warnings are very rare, and in many cases you've issued warnings minutes after it had already been reverted and warned. This along with your improper reports to RFPP, mishandling of AFDs, and lack of understanding on how and when a page is under protection leads me to believe you might not be ready to handle patrolling articles. You've also given some improper warnings, starting at level 3 and 4 for rather minor run of the mill vandalism. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about these processes but you need to slow down and put more thought into what you are doing. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
