You really don t seem to have got the hang of WP NPOV FAQ policy and are advised to follow it carefully Oh and blanking your talk page is your right but it isn t impressive talk I blanked the page because there was a lot of unnecessary old stuff on it I know the NPOV extremely well and I m always fighting against the EXTREME POV of Evolutionists The stuff I changed on Flood Geology is an example of extreme evolutionary POV I changed it to reflect reality Problem is most Eovlutionists are completely unable to see their own POV And most of the editors of Flood Geology are not geologists I am an undergrad paleontologist Stop edit warring please Stop edit warring on Flood geology to insert fringe claims or you will be blocked Please read WP 3RR too talk This topic is about a fringe belief so it ought to accurately reflect what flood geologists actually say But it is nonsense and full of misinformation and outright lies Not one of the editors defending the Evolutionary faith are geologists They just keep repeating the same nonsense debunked by creationists ages ago The topic is about a fringe belief so it ought to be written from a fringe point of view No that s a mistake For the amount of attention and kind of attention that is appropriate to what creationists have or have not debunked see WP UNDUE Try to take Wikipedia policies on board or you will find yourself blocked talk I didn t say written from a fringe POV I said it should reflect what flood geologists actually say not what enemies says they say There is a big difference If critics wish to comment on what flood geologists actually say fine But at least the actual position of flood geologists should be accurately presented As written the page is deeply flawed and pushes a single POV The problem is that most evolutionists are totally ignorant of and blind to their POV pushing They actually think that they have no bias I am very familiar with WP policies which I why I m trying to get fair hearing instead of the deeply biased presentations currently on WP You re misrepresenting your edits The reason I warn you against edit warring is that you have recently reverted three times within a short period of time to insert one and the same change to the article from This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding though it is now known that they are the product of ice age glaciations an unknown phenomenon at that time to This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding though it is now interpreted as the product of ice age glaciations an unknown phenomenon at that time And you say that change is about the actual position of flood geologists No it isn t You re changing over and over the description of the position of mainstream science That s the exact opposite of what you claim to be doing If you re very familiar with WP policies I have to suppose you simply don t like them I m afraid I m going to enforce them just the same don t edit war any more on this or any other article or I will block you talk And you honestly don t see the POV in known versus interpreted Good grief You could say generally interpreted almost always interepreted or possibly someting like the current consensus is that it is and they would all probably be acceptable Consensus is an opinion Present it as fact and you are pushing POV Unfortunately majority POV is generally accepted as no POV on WP That is a serious flaw and a significant hit to WP s credibility Also it take at least two to edit war It does no good to cry foul when another editor is as determined as you are over a differnce Flood Geology Request for Comment There is a RfC on Talk Flood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article I don t know if you watchlist this article but your input would be appreciated Weight I know you think the scientific community is wrong but please re