" 

 == Pink Floyd == 

 Re. the post you left on Talk:Pink Floyd, ""Apparently, a Wikipedia editor had a cow today..."" – I can't see the vandalism accusation on your talk page, nor on the edit summary of the revert.  As for the content of your change, ever since Wright died, some editors have been inserting comments about it everywhere they can, and other editors are undoubtably getting frustrated in reverting.  I did think the edit summary sounded a little cranky, if you're asking for an opinion on that.  I saw an accusation of POV, and I think the issue is that the article should only contain comments from band members regarding future reunions, rather than speculation from us.  A lot of the ""death notice"" insertions we've seen in the last week have been more blog-like than encyclopaedic. 

 It's similar to a problem when new albums come out, and editors want to document every detail about recording dates of each track, online download release date, CD release date, etc.  If you look at older albums by the same bands, you will just see an album title and a year are usually sufficient.  Some editors seem to feel that recent information needs to be made more prominent, and be expressed in greater detail.  An encyclopaedia should ideally be timeless, giving equal weight to past and recent events, or possibly more weight to past events, if those past times were the band's peak years.  It should be noted that Syd Barrett's death is not mentioned in the lead section. 

 Sorry, I'm just rambling out my thoughts here, hoping it will explain what's going on.  You can't take things too personally at WP.  Right now I'm having to deal with a sore anon IP editor who didn't like me disagreeing with a change he made (even though I did agree to ""meet him halfway""), and is vandalizing pages to insert complaints about it, calling me a (euphemism for vagina). )   "