User talk:Moneytrees

This is Moneytrees's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 34: 20 days

Thank you

Greetings, Thank you for noticing my revert, I appreciate. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 20:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Washi189

Have you seen the latest edits on washi189's talk age?Halbared (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Halbared Just seeing it now; looks like it's been resolved? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, it did seem like that for a second...! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May music

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)[reply]

Stange Law Firm

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moneytrees, not sure if you noticed this but Darkm777 moved the article to draft space which seems out of process and very suspicious. S0091 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 I saw that, I'm waiting to see what further happens there. But since I'm the one who prodded the article, I probably won't take action on that account (WP:INVOLVED). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a similar position because I stubbed it so don't want to be edit war-y plus a dash of laziness. I am also curious about what happens with it. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ban

I respect your decision, but not really needed anyways. I never did editing in Armenian genocide topics, my topics are usually defenece industry and military inventories. But the user who reported me does editing in these topics, and in matter of fact he also denies other genocides, which have scholarship proofs also by the other sides, but he doesnt get anything i guess if the reason is denying as point of view, which supposedly you can express as your view in discussions, but I'm the one getting the ban. But it doesn't matter, have a great day ! IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]