"
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