You really dont seem to have got the hang of WPNPOVFAQ policy and are advised to follow it carefully Oh and blanking your talk page is your right but it isnt impressive      I blanked the page because there was a lot of unnecessary old stuff on it    I know the NPOV extremely well and Im 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 WPRR too      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 thats a mistake For the amount of attention and kind of attention that is appropriate to what creationists have or have not debunked see WPUNDUE Try to take Wikipedia policies on board or you will find yourself blocked     I didnt 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 Im trying to get fair hearing instead of the deeply biased presentations currently on WP      Youre misrepresenting your editsThe 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 isnt Youre changing over and over the description of the position of mainstream science Thats the exact opposite of what you claim to be doing If youre very familiar with WP policies I have to suppose you simply dont like them Im afraid Im going to enforce them just the same dont edit war any more on this or any other article or I will block you     And you honestly dont 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 WPs 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 TalkFlood geology regarding a statement in the lead of the article  I dont 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