As several editors have objected to your change, the onus is now on you to visit the talk page of the article and make your case there for your suggested change. Declarations of intent to edit war will be considered a battleground mentality and will be brought to the appropriate administrative board if you do not cease. ValarianB (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AC, you might want to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Perhaps you're not aware of what can be added to Wikipedia and what constitutes original research, but we can't just add details because we think they belong unless reliable sources support the details. JG66 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FlightTime. Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to The Dark Side of the Moon even if you provide a/some source(s), you'll still need to start a discussion on the article talk page to allow editors who regular watch that page a chance to discuss the reliability of the source(s) you provided. One reason is, genre sources can easily be considered an opinion and not fact. Genre's are a touchy subject here on Wikipedia and without discussion/consensus, regardless of your source(s), your addition or removal will most likely be reverted. Your edit has been reverted and archived in the page history for now.

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I grew up in the seventies, listening to Dark Side on my Uncle's HMV BSR turntable, and Floyd was never considered prog then; that was the domain of Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, et al: [1]." Unfortunately, that opinion piece has a fundamental flaw that proves the author, Will Byers, doesn't know what they're talking about. They say "They could do wacky time signatures if they fancied, without inspiring the likes of Marillion." They obviously don't know their facts - Marillion WERE inspired by Pink Floyd (particularly the guitarist) and have said so on many occasions. So Mr Byers should have done his research a bit better. [[User:Roderickstilley|Roderickstilley]] ([[User talk:Roderickstilley|talk]]) (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eat to the Beat; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WP:ALBUMAVOID says Sputnik user reviews are unreliable. Udiscovermusic fails WP:USERG. And take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#Album_of_the_Year. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tommy (The Who album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Piotr Jr. (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Read that. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to self-revert this edit to Tommy (The Who album), lest you be blocked for edit warring? —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]