User talk:Floydian Tree

Pink Floyd discography

Hi, just to let you know, the reason the Pink Floyd discography article says "ten compilations (including three box sets)" instead of "seven compilations" is that these counts are duplicated in the infobox, and there is no keyword for box sets. So the box sets have to be counted as compilations in order to keep the infobox and opening paragraph consistent. Frankly I don't know why we need to count everything again in the opening paragraph, and for that matter, I don't know why the infobox needs to count up what is clearly seen by looking at the charts further down the page. Probably the count of studio albums is significant, but in future I may propose removing the rest from the opening paragraph. Also, I would question why A Nice Pair is listed with box sets. There are other issues brewing on the article, which I would like to resolve first, so I'm putting aside these proposals for now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ennio Morricone discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ennio Morricone discography was changed by Floydian Tree (u) (t) deleting 7610 characters on 2010-10-24T15:59:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will change the red links, because there are too much red links. Maybe that was your intention (and you think too be powerfull), but it will be reverted, because other people have worked a lot on this article to get it like it is now. Several weeks of work of several Wikipedians is gone by adding red links (with easy Bots). Such a changements to an article can only with a discussion on the talk page. So, without such a discussion, no changements like that. Every big edit concerning this will be reverted. Floydian Tree (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was already stated once before in an edit summary that the red links are still noteworthy, despite the pages being nonexistent. mechamind 9 0 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not healthy to be holier than the pope. These pictures are used in a rational way. There's no copyright issue.Floydian Tree (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a policy issue see WP:NFC Werieth (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont blindly revert, you will be blocked. Werieth (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]