Select Page

User talk:Brandon

Wow - I was going to leave a similar message to Brotherbog below - I hope this is the correct way to do so :) In addition, all the "MrEarlGray's" edits have a racial/religious dimension/bias. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josibald (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandon

Great Panda pic!

I was wondering if you could just keep an eye on shahid malik which you're semi-protecting. Some subtle but negative edits attempted. I've left a reasonable message on the relevant talk page but I'm a novice....

thank you.


Brotherblog (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I was going to leave a similar message to Brotherbog below - I hope this is the correct way to do so :) In addition, all the "MrEarlGray's" edits have a racial/religious dimension/bias. cheers.

I think ive placed the message incorrectly but it relates to the page 'Shahid malik'. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josibald (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback about an edit request to the Cloudinary article

Hi @Brandon, I see you've made some edits to the Cloudinary article recently. I was hoping to get your feedback on a suggestion I've made to the intro paragraph. I think the opening sentence is weak since it only describes the company as a "SaaS technology company" and is front loaded with a list of cities with corporate offices. In my suggestion I've move the description of the technology up and bumped the cites to a second sentence since that information seems less important.

I'm a connected contributor and i've tagged the COI request for review, but I was hoping to get your thoughts since you're a recent contributor to the article. Thanks for the help and any feedback is appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloudinary

Thanks! SBCornelius (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brandon, I've proposed edits to the History section of the Cloudinary article. Do you have a few minutes to review and provide feedback? I have tagged the request for review, but some feedback during the wait would be helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cloudinary
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCornelius (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certification on demand

I've added another source. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure I understand the purpose of the article. "Certification on demand" seems to be a concept unique to qualified electronic signature and specifically mobile qualified electronic signature at that. Given mobile QES does not seem to be explained in any existing article, how about a redirect to qualified electronic signature? Brandon (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lift ban on URL and assure that it will not be used again

Hi Brandon

scalefusion.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Link requested to be whitelisted: scalefusion.com

Greetings team

People from my organization few years back added their direct link instead of wiki link to the wiki page over and over without understanding the guidelines and community rules by wiki.

The page they added scalefusion URL to was the 'List of MDM software' wikipedia page.

Now, when I joined new in the org. and tried to add our name to wiki list again as an added MDM provider in the market and added LinkedIn page link there, It got removed again. Then I did my research and got to know from employees of Wikipedia on LinkedIn (Mohanananda and Shivam Patel) that wiki doesn't allow website links so they banned my organization's URL few years back. So, I request you to please lift the ban from the given URL and I will make sure that we don't put it up there unnecessarily.

Please help me lift the URL ban and I assure to follow guidelines. My organization's URL is scalefusion.com. Not pasting the link here to avoid hyperlinking.

I assure this will not happen again from our end. Please consider this as a request and I will be grateful to you. Sakshi Singh Das (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins Coie

What kind of conversation do you want to have regarding primary vs secondary sources? In this instance where the rationale is being cited, having the primary source rationale is more valuable than a secondary source characterization of it. Would love to hear your thoughts. Akyrimos (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says otherwise: WP:SECONDARY. For a primary source to be suitable in this context, you'd have to argue that your reading of the EO is not an interpretation. Given that the minutia of EO wording is regularly litigated in federal court, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that it does not require "specialized knowledge" to consume an EO. Brandon (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity rating

Hey there, this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cybersecurity_rating&diff=1284801896&oldid=1266200801

deleted some link spam, but also deleted links to WP articles. Was that your intent? (Full disclosure, I work for one of the linked companies, so I don't feel comfortable changing it back, either way.) 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC) —johndburger 19:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appin (company

I noticed that you reverted my edits that removed several sources cited in the Appin article which do not in any anyway relate to the sentences, paragraphs and the article's subject. Every single source removed has sufficient edit summary explaining why it is removed. Please review those sources removed and challenge them with evidence of how they are relevant to the article. There is no guideline that says removal of irrelevant sources in article should be discussed first. The only guideline I am aware of is that every edit should have edit summary explaining why such edits are done. I kindly request that you carefully review the removed sources and explain why they are relevant to the article.

Finally, I want to let you know that I am restoring the edits because to the best of my understanding of sourcing guidelines, irrelevant sources must be removed from articles immediately they are noticed. There are still more of such sources in the article and I will remove them as I review them. Warm regards. Piscili (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits with summaries beginning with "unreliable source per source detector" are inadequate. This is a contentious article with a long history of abusive editing. I'm directly telling you I disagree with some of your edits, please use the talk page. Brandon (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandon, I see that you've nominated the above article for GA. Several statements/paragraphs in the body lack references, which is generally a reason to quickfail a GA nom. I'm giving you a heads up as a courtesy so you can address this quickly and hopefully prevent a QF. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Thank you for the suggestion. Brandon (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cohere- edits and updates

Hi Brandon, nice to meet you. I am new to Wikipedia and have declared my affiliation with Cohere on my userpage. I saw your participation in several computer-related Wiki projects, including Project Computing, and would be grateful for your review of my suggested changes and updates to the Cohere article, like removing outdated HQs and restructuring some of the content. Per my understanding of Wikipedia's regulations, I am not meant to make these kinds of substantial changes to the article on my own; with your approval, I'd be happy to implement. Thank you for taking a look, LivingInaCloud (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Appin (company)

The article Appin (company) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Appin (company) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of History6042 -- History6042 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]