Okay ANNA Let me take advantage of your previous offer to help I appreciate the table formatting that you provided for me on 13 JULY In my very first post I stated cur prev 22 20 11 July 2013 Wikithunderbird talk contribs 96 899 bytes 1 383 I established a more detailed basis for a discussion of the Recorded Radar Data which has been absent These graphics raise significant issues about the accident This is my first time to edit Wikipedia Would appreciate help from a neutral editor Greg undo I am afraid that I might have a problem with a prolific editor Binkster This is your only warning If you continue to edit war without discussing and gaining consensus on the talk page you will be blocked Thanks Dark Thanks for riding herd on that article it needs some calming down As you can see my involvement is just one revert of disputed text after which I immediately started a discussion I also called for full page protection Binksternet talk Wishing to avoid an edit war I have refrained from using UNDO on his first reversion cur prev 19 50 15 July 2013 Wikithunderbird talk contribs m 102 102 bytes 29 Trying to format the new table undo That took place just 2 minutes after I posted an edit On 7 JULY Binkster deleted portions of a referenced article on TWA 800 He sighted promotion of an upcoming documentary but I don t find any evidence to justify that conclusion That general information was the point of the original article see cur prev 22 32 7 July 2013 Binksternet talk contribs 95 496 bytes 1 300 Reverted to revision 562784153 by 112 119 216 120 Revert uncited appears to be promotion for upcoming documentary TW undo thank He appears to have a very strong POV which is allowable on TWA 800 Note my invitation to TALK followed his reversion Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to TWA Flight 800 Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions Thank you Binksternet talk PLEASE NOTE that my source material is the original NTSB FINAL REPORT from the year 2000 I have added nothing nor have I systhesized anything What I HAVE done is pointed out errors in the original report that have gone undetected up to this point These are factual errors and fundamental errors If there is some aspect of that which I can clarify for you please give me your specifics Respectfully Instead of responding the next day he proceded to delete ALL my edits to the Twa Flight 800 Article cur prev 01 01 16 July 2013 Binksternet talk contribs 95 484 bytes 4 134 Removing Wikithunderbird additions per WP NOR This editor is driving the article toward a conclusion of two SAMs fired at jet undo thank His hypothesized conclusion appears driven by his own strong POV and is one that I am willing to debate but he is allowing it to drive his actions and seems to be inviting an edit war I emphasize again my edits are based entirely upon information contained within the SECONDARY SOURCE created when the NTSB published their FINAL REPORT Nor do I synthesize that information with any other sources I am concerned with the factual correctness of the FINAL REPORT as analyzed and published by the NTSB I have made no mention of missiles or any other possible cause for the tragedy I HAVE summarized key information from the report in a form understandable by three different methods by others Mathematics edit An important use of secondary sources in the field of mathematics has been to make difficult mathematical ideas and proofs from primary sources more accessible to the public 17 in other sciences tertiary sources are expected to fulfill the introductory role Please see if you can persuade Binkster to talk about this before he reverts my edits As I look at his past work I can see that he has the background to understand what I have said If he insists upon his POV then I am willing to add my own POV when necessary as suggested below But he should not attempt to speak for me WP OPINION Hard facts are really rare What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people POVs Inherently because of this most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs An articl