User talk:Tembew

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Flood geology appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Flood geology. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The obvious POV pushing on pages like that is hard to miss and ignore. I was simply trying to support the "formal tone expected in an encyclopedia" rather than the propaganda piece typical of those articles. I went on your page and say this wonderful bit "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.". Too obvious. --Tembew (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My beliefs or lack of them have no bearing whatsoever on the subject...flood geology simply isn't considered to be a branch of geology in mainstream science.Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What it is considered as should not be all that it is presented as. The fact that objections take up the majority of articles like that and even corrupt the very first paragraph is telling. What the scientific community thinks about it can be included in a section but you know very well why you don't want it as such. Anyone coming to Wikipedia just to find out what these things are, will be repulsed by the bias demonstrated.--Tembew (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

February 2013
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

weed out the editors who risk harming the credibility of the website if you care at all. The more the biased nature of some of the editing gets out (and is easily demonstrated by the inaccuracy of the information to support certain points of views) the more people will look down on wikipedia. Exploiting aspects of the rules that do not favor objective representation of topics. How is it ok for a topic to contain almost entirely criticisms of it rather than providing information about it? is this an encyclopedia or an opinion website? If I go to an article looking for information, should I be greeted by what some random people think about it? Anyway, ok. I simply did not like that he decided to edit my talk page when he was clearly one of the problems with the websites (judging from his page its very obvious where he stands). If I should point out that there is research showing that the supposed evolution of life would have had to be a miracle at every step, it would be edited out and I'd get a warning. Brilliant. I speak of User:Apokryltaros member of the palaeos.org cult.--Tembew (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)