User talk:Moneytrees
| This is Moneytrees's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days  |
Thank you
[edit]Greetings, Thank you for noticing my revert, I appreciate. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- No problem @Chippla360-- I thanked you because that edit had been tagged as a potential copyright issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- @MoneytreesAlright that’s fine, I hope to be where you are someday, I’ll keep making good contributions, thanks. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Washi189
[edit]Have you seen the latest edits on washi189's talk age?Halbared (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Halbared Just seeing it now; looks like it's been resolved? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- OK thanks, it seemed...strange. I thought a user who has admitted to multiple accounts and AI stuff had gotten confused with which account he had logged in with, and then gone around reverting his other accounts edits to show he was different, which is just mad. :D: Halbared (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it did seem like that for a second...! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- OK thanks, it seemed...strange. I thought a user who has admitted to multiple accounts and AI stuff had gotten confused with which account he had logged in with, and then gone around reverting his other accounts edits to show he was different, which is just mad. :D: Halbared (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
May music
[edit] | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA, and his Easter Oratorio for FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I saw that you proposed this article for deletion the same day as another editor stubified it, removing more than 1/2 of the content and all but one reference. I find that unusual and possibly not in accord with a fair process. The whole point to stubification is to try to rescue an article, not to delete it. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Bearian The article was created by an editor indicated to be a UPE affiliate, who repeatedly cited SEO spam sources. I put more weight into that when proding the article than the previous stubbing of it; upon doing my own research, I could not find sources which ascertained notability, and then Prodded the article. I noted the previous edits and sources for those looking in the articles history, rather than basing my action entirely off of the previous stubbing. I clarified my Prod rationale to make this more apparent. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)