" 

 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