User talk:Brandon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Archives | ||||||||||||||
Index
| ||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 5. |
I added CleanBrowsing to the list of public resolvers, but noticed you removed it. It a pretty popular DNS resolver, included in Chrome, MS Edge and many routers. Added more references to CleanBrowsing's own page that is marked for deletion. Can I add it back and link to it? Adding more to its main page too.Nzlp1kkiwi (talk)04:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, Brandon! I am surprised to see this article was deleted. Did I not decline CSD on this? I thought I did. — Usedtobecool ☎️14:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked fora deletion review ofTX2. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. On behalf of a confused new editor.StarMississippi01:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Brandon,
The IP is back making the same unsourced edits and has now made personal attacks against me in the edit summary. I am at 3RR reverting this now.
Please may I ask why the IP address was blocked when I started my request by saying the abuse was coming from a dynamic IP and this wasn't the solution? The user is already on their third IP in this edit war. It's not going to stop without page protection.
Thank youUnknown Temptation (talk)09:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brandon,
I'm a bot that helps logarbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of aSeptember 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to theAE protection log.
While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:
If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code atthe AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let thebot operator know about the false positives.
Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example,[[WP:CT/BLP]] or[[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to thebot operator or to the arbitration clerks at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard.
Thank you!ClerkBot (talk)14:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brandon,
Just a reminder, when you are deleting articles, please review the talk page and delete them as well. Two articles recently deleted by you had messages on the talk page that were meant to be seen by the admin deleting the article. You can also do what I do and use Twinkle to do page deletions as it will also delete talk pages and all redirects at the same time. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!06:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! While reviewing articles nominated for G11, I noticed you recently soft-blockedつぼ市製茶本舗 様 for a promotional username. Looking at their edits, they’ve mainly been creating a promotional page tied to their former username. In this case, a hard block may be more appropriate so they’re required to address thepayment disclosure policy before being unblocked. I have updated the block to reflect this, given that the soft block template indicates the editor can simply create a new account rather than request an unblock, and we want to ensure they understand PAID. I understand some of the language around the block notice has changed, so I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you come across a similar situation in the future. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, and/or concerns regarding this. More than happy to hear your perspective! Take care,Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)13:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandon,
In the deletion request of my userpage, I set a parameter that had no effect: I tried to say that you should delete all of my userpages, including my subpages. Could you please delete all of my userpages? Thanks!
Best,Faster than Thunder (talk |contributions)Tamil speakers: Contribute here16:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked fora deletion review ofJirard. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)12:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brandon,
I'm a bot that helps logarbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of aSeptember 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to theAE protection log.
While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:
If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code atthe AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let thebot operator know about the false positives.
Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example,[[WP:CT/BLP]] or[[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to thebot operator or to the arbitration clerks at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard.
Thank you!ClerkBot (talk)23:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I findthis block a bit dubious: the IP edits were properly explained, were falsely labeled as vandalism, and the named account made just as many reverts as the IP. A two-way warning or two-way block would have been more fitting IMO. --JBL (talk)00:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. With thanks again for applyingthe PP change toAvondale House, and while I'm happy to open a new request, before doing so I wanted to follow-up onyour kind offer (to 'Drop me a talk page message if pending-changes protected ends up not being sufficient
'). In short, I wonder if the current protection level is less-than-sufficient. In encouraging constructive engagement/editing. As a half-dozen pending-changes reviewers have had to review/reject/respond toongoing noise since the PP tweak. Almost daily. Anyway, happy to (re)open PP thread. If needed. Just wanted to follow-up as suggested first...Guliolopez (talk)12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
