User talk:Floydfever22

Please do not remove the link from Australian Pink Floyd. It will be reverted until at least friday pending the discussion at Content_noticeboard. You may make a post there describing your thoughts on the matter. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Your edits are becoming vandalism. Please discuss changes at the content noticeboard (Link Above) and don't arbitrarily change the page. This is not how wikipedia works.''  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware wikipedia was policed by you? How can you justify saying that removal of a link that is as stated lots of times 'against wiki policy' deflamatory and vandalism??? thought it was for members of the public to make accurate insertions to the best of their knowledge with genuine reasons.I'm simply following Wikipedias rules on not adding unnecessary external links.This could never be called vandalism.You're adding things that are against wikipedias rules.The link gives no more information on the band than the actual band site.I'm beginning to think you're a friend of Ian Cattell and have ulterior motives.Which of course is against wikipedia rules.I find your post to me threatening and shall be reporting such(Floydfever22 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC))


 * No. Wikipedia policy involves gaining consensus when authors disagree. This dispute was long standing before I intervened. The Ian Cattell link was there before this edit war, and so was to remain there until the dispute was settled. Your edits were reverted and you were given plenty of notice, both here and in the edit summary of my reverts. If you wish to dispute this link, post in APFS's talk page, or at Content_noticeboard.


 * A particular APFS forum was making these changes by sending numerous users over, including even a member of the band. This is in breach of WP:COI. It is reasons like this that wikipedia is not a simple democracy where the highest vote count wins.


 * And yes, I do assist in policing wikipedia. That is the difference between established users and newcomers. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What APFS forum? If this is the case then I have NO knowledge of this,and I find it highly unlikely as I haven't even seen a reference to 'this' on any site.I'd be interested to know which one you're referring too?Could it be you're being a little paranoid about this?or is it that you too have some form of 'connection' with Cattell and you're not editing this page from an unbiased stand point?

It's my opinion and It would appear others too,that you're 'policing' this page against wikipedia policy.It has been shown that the site to that particular individual contains nothing extra about the 'band' that can't be found on the bands official page.Cattell's site is purely a site for 'him'.The only different videos to the main site from what I can see is CE stuff.This makes it an unnecessary external link for the bands page.

I'm not a newcomer to Wikipedia.I've been using it as a reference for a long time and observing content of many pages.I don't feel the need to jump in on every page and start making edits.I'm also aware of many employees of tapfs having their own websites with many references to the band.Let one link go,and you have to add them all.Even if they do nothing but repeat themselves.Hence the reason links should be about purely 'band' information only.(Floydfever22 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

Then not being a newcomer you should be familiar with the policies I am enforcing in stopping an edit war and stop making claims with no grounds. Please see this to understand where I come from on the single purpose accounts coming from a forum. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  09:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As I'm not a newcomer I'm fully aware with Wikipedia policies.hence why they state they don't want links that aren't offering any other information and have no purpose in being there.Such as Cattell's link.As myself and others have said.it offers nothing new than the main site.So I am following wikipedia policy,as others have also said.This leads me to believe you have some links to Cattell yourself,friend perhaps?

I read the talk in that page from that user,and???Are you saying some people voicing their opinions are the same person?i can't see anything from what's been said to warrant that accusation?maybe you're just throwing up a smoke screen to cloud the fact more people disagree with you then agree? I have no idea what your angle Is on this,unless as I wrote above you are indeed connected to Cattell(Floydfever22 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC))