User talk:AviationHist1

History by Contract
Thanks for communicating. On the contrary, my revisions are intended to stick to the facts, and not to exaggerate them. You were correct to restore the capitalizations in the Wright Flyer label, which I unintentionally lost. I find that some of your other edits to the article seem intended to support the case for Whitehead, and it is my goal to make sure that the article remains neutral. You are free to report my edits to whomever you wish, but I believe my edits to this article are quite responsible and correct. DonFB (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We should try to avoid an edit war. Let's discuss the issues on the Talk Page of the article. DonFB (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Re: Gustave Whitehead page Don, you admit you never read History by Contract. There is such a thing as documented fact.

The facts are what I am adding, documented. Not biased statements, such as "young aspiring author" description of Stella Randolph, Whitehead researcher. She was nearly forty and was a journalist and educator. Etc. This article is old and biased, it needs updating to incorporate Jane's findings. If it takes an editing war to get to the documented truth, so be it. AviationHist1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Gustave Whitehead. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on History by Contract. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

What I am doing is adding to an article some updates which you may dislike, but have citations. Then you remove those, each time. So who is edit warring? It is you, Binksternet. You obviously don't want edits with citations to change the material on these sites. I believe it is you who should be blocked. Why should anyone use Wikipedia as a source if it is one-sided? AviationHist1 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Your recent editing history at Gustave Whitehead shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Binksternet and his cronies are clearly edit warring as they continuously insert information on this Gustave Whitehead page that denigrates Whitehead and researchers. I am editing the page to remove the negativity and restore it to professional appearance, with citations. These "mother hens" for this page are clearly Wright Brothers enthusiasts who have had a long history of controlling this page and placing misleading or non-neutral info on it. Improving the page is what I am doing. If they dislike what I put on it, they can open up a talk page comment and provide citations to prove what I added isn't correct. As you see on television and in the media, the CT state legislature is convinced Whitehead is first in flight, to add to what Jane's, the bible of aviation, has determined. There is much more that will come out on this so get ready to be open-minded. The cult of the Wrights is over. Now is the time for facts. Binksternet has reported anothor person, a tv producer who specializes in historical documentaries, for edit warring. This just shows how completely immature he is and the cronies are that support this, as well as how unreliable Wikipedia information is. This is an example of "mobbing", or being bullied by a mob, in this case, of biased, bitter people who have a near religious connection to the Wrights LEGEND. AviationHist1 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to be calling me some sort of scheming crony, a protective mother hen, a fervent Wright brothers enthusiast, a violator of the WP:NPOV guideline, a mob bully, immature, biased and bitter. Some of those statements are uncivil attacks and others are merely false. You might want to review the WP:No personal attacks guideline to see which of these statements are not appropriate. There is also the WP:CIVIL guideline. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you call yourself? A person who is trying his best to undermine the true history of Gustave Whitehead, why? Who are you and why are you doing this? It is inappropriate. AviationHist1 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I call myself a follower of Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, for WP:Neutral point of view, and against Original research. You appear to rely largely on William J. O'Dwyer's book and John Brown's website, the latter not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. O'Dwyer's book is but one of our sources—it cannot be used to clear the slate of mainstream authors with whom he disagrees. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
I started the following discussion about you: ANI. You are welcome to comment. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely (but not infinitely) from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)