User talk:William D. Money

Skip Bayless section about personal fitness
Hi, I was the one wanting to take off the Skip Bayless section about personal fitness. I don't see why it's so important that it needs an entire section, it can be mentioned that he is a fitness enthusiast, but it's just not that important, anyways, I won't delete or change it unless I see other people feel the same way, considering Skip Bayless doesn't have the most discussed wikipedia page, that probably won't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussobrennon (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Help me!
Why am I not receiving email notifications on edits made to an entry on which I have checked the box, Watch this page?

Please help me with...

William D. Money (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Watch this page" adds the page to your watchlist on Wikipedia. You won't get emails about changes to pages on your watchlist (some of us have thousands of pages on there, and would received many thousands of emails every day if this were the case) but you can view changes that have been made using the Watchlist link in the top right of your screen. Yunshui 雲 水 13:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Why do I receive some email notifications regarding changes on pages on my Watch list and not on other changes?

Please help me with...

William D. Money (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You can set your email preferences at Special:Preferences. Unfortunately I can't see yours so I don't know how you have them set up, but if you look through the settings there you should be able to see what circumstances on Wikipedia will result in an email. Yunshui 雲 水 13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Skip Bayless
Hi, you are currently engaged in an edit war on Skip Bayless. The edits you have reversed provide a clear rationale for deleting content on the page. These are not "malicious edits." Moreover, you have not discussed the content that you seek to include on the talk page. Please discuss your views on the talk page or post on a user's page. thanks! --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring policy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Skip Bayless. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Edit warring
Please read the policy page linked in the title of this section. Additionally, read WP:Consensus and WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Understanding these policies and conventions are essential to your continuing to being able to edit here. You should not edit the article mainspace at Skip Bayless without going to the article's talk page to determine consensus regarding article content. I almost blocked your account for stating that you would continue to revert on that article but I've decided that it may be possible you do not understand the disruption you are causing. You may yet be blocked by another administrator as you have continued to demonstrate an extreme resistance to editing collaboratively. Please understand that by not changing your present course you are jeopardizing your editing privilege.  Tide  rolls  19:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr Money. Inoticed that this entry is the only Wikipedia article that you have edited. This leads me to believe that you may have a personal or professional interest in the content of the article, that is, you may have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article at all. While you ascribe other editors' intention in cleaning up this article as malicious, it looks like ordinary clean-up to me, removing material that does not meet our standards for sourcing and verifiability. The people who are reverting your addition are ordinary Wikipedians with many years experience on the site who participate in editing a wide variety of articles, and some of them are administrators. While I can't speak directly as to their motives for editing this particular article, the chances that they are behaving maliciously are vanishingly small. Not everything is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia; even the most famous athletes do not have discussion of their elementary school athletic careers. Please use the article talk page to discuss what (if any) of your content warrants inclusion in the article. Please note that if you re-add it again you will surely be blocked for edit warring. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your message
After you read the pages I've linked above we may discuss any clarification that may be required. What you need to recognize, and quickly, is that  you have already engaged in edit warring. Your account is subject to blocking now; however, blocking accounts is not our first priority. Writing content is our first priority. You must add content in compliance with Wikipedia policy and convention. To repeatedly edit against these policies is disruptive and will be stopped. Again, do not edit the article, read the policies as directed and begin discussion on the article talk page. If you have questions regarding the policies, leave a message here. I am watch listing this page.  Tide  rolls 
 * One point of clarification; administrators do not referee content. My approval of your content would simply be one editor's support and would not mitigate your edit warring. That's the reason I am directing you to the article talk page. You will need to establish consensus there for what content ends up in the article.  Tide  rolls  20:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article talk page you are seeking is found at Talk:Skip Bayless. There is a link to the talk page on the main article page; directly above the article title is a tab marked "Talk". Let me know if my directions are insufficient.  Tide  rolls  20:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, William D. Money, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You have had problems in the past, regarding the usage of pages, talk pages... I'll help a bit. First of all, the talk section link is at the top of each page, over the text. Each page has is own talk page. If you go up here, you'll notice these links over the big User talk:William D. Money which lead to your user page, this page and the history(and possibly other tools. Second, some additions you made to the article are not supported by our policies. First of all, WP:NPOV, one of the Five Pillars(core policies) forbids inserting biased information. This is supported by WP:PEACOCK, a term that describes promotional language or general attributions that should be replaced with facts and be attributed to a source. Also:WP:UNDUE says that giving an aspect of the article too much room in proportion to its importance(for example, writing an article about earth that contains a section named "Africa" that occupies 90% of the article text would be an example of extreme misrepresentation) is not wanted here. Please look at the corresponding policies before using your editing privileges further. Thank you.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC) PS: Also, please WP:Assume good faith when talking with other editors. Just because you think that an edit removed -in your opinion- valuable information, it does not have to be malicious. It could be an error, or they have a valid reason to disagree. Talking with each other helps in those cases.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Todd Snider details
Hi and thanks for your recent generous and significant additions to the Todd Snider article. It appears very well sourced. The next logical step for editing would be to add some formatting and pare down some of the details to make it more readable. The article in its current state is too long and unwieldy. To quote Too much detail, "Is it something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? ... Readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect. Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject." At the same time, some more sub-section formatting would help make the article more readable. Take Counting Crows as a model. I'm going to flag the article to encourage assistance from other Wikipedia editors. Goffman82  18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your help. I added sub-section headings for the relevant decades to the Recordings section. Do you think I need to add sub-sub-section headings such as the ones in the Counting Crows page you referenced? William D. Money (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I wanted to let you know I read the info at the "too long" and "excessive detail" links, and it seems that generally speaking, I've stayed within the guidelines on the Snider entry. Was there specific information that you considered excessive? I welcome any other suggestions you have about making the entry as readable as possible. If you think it advisable, I can add another layer of subsections under "Recording" based on the label eras, like "The Margaritaville/MCA Years" and "The Oh Boy Years," that sort of thing. The "Film, Television and Books" and "Songs Covered By Other Artists" sections don't seem that long to me, but I can think of a way to subdivide them if you think it is advisable. The latter could be organized by decade, and the former could be organized by category: film, TV, and books. Again thank you, Goffman82, for your help. William D. Money (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the formatting is helping a lot. I would, as you mention, add further sub-sections across the board to break the long sections into smaller pieces, like Counting Crows or Clay Walker. You're probably right that none of the many items of information are, in isolation, excessive or outside the scope of a Wikipedia article; it's just that in aggregate, presented in long stretches of unbroken text, all those details add up to an article that is hard to read. The answer may be simply formatting. Additional photos could help too.  Goffman82   08:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added additional subsections to the three longest sections. It definitely makes the entry more readable. I'm hoping these last additions will satisfy your concerns so the notice at the top can be removed. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks. William D. Money (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Few musicians have such a detailed history on Wikipedia. Well done. I'm removing the maintenance tags.  Goffman82   02:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man. William D. Money (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * And if you're interested in continuing to improve this page. Additional photos from the different eras would add a lot. For guidance on how to ask for permission from photographers see How to ask for permission, If you're NOT the copyright holder, Example requests for permission.  Goffman82   02:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Where exactly would I place the additional photos so they will look right in the layout? William D. Money (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ToddFACPRpic.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Nashvegas Fantasy Football Association
Hello, William D. Money. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nashvegas Fantasy Football Association, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nashvegas Fantasy Football Association


Hello, William D. Money. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nashvegas Fantasy Football Association".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)