User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2021/Aug

Chrischan revdel
Does this need revdel, up to my removal? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think this has been confirmed in the discussion on ANI. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sat Aug 14: Wikimania Wiknic NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Intesa Sanpaolo
Hi, I tried to revert a large deletion edit to the above article, but I couldn't because a message said there was a link to a Wikipedia blacklist site. This is too technical for me. Can you help? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * All ok now. User:Materialscientist reverted the edit. Denisarona (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom
I know most of the arbitrator's take no joy in deliberating the cases when it involves behavior of editors and administrators and that's a good thing to me. It should be a difficult task because it involves people and, if you are here for the right reasons as an editor, it involves something we love to do. However, I want to acknowledge when I feel anyone has made solid points and I believe that is the case with regards to the recent filing concerning BHG. You formulated and expressed an in-depth analysis of the situation and came to a very accurate conclusion. I appreciate that you took the time to dig into the issues and then articulate the facts as you saw them. I do not know how much good will come of the decision at AN/I, considering neither side of the case has attempted to apologize for their part in the argument, but I do believe that BHG is an amazing editor that offers great positives for the encyclopedia. This AN/I case provides us with a great lesson for everyone, myself included, to kind of pause and evaluate how we interact with each other and make sure we are doing so in the best way possible. Anyway, I didn't want to write a book but I did want to let you know that your comments stood out to me throughout the entire process. Thank you. -- A Rose Wolf  18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I appreciate the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022-23
Probably getting ahead of myself, but your talk page showed up at the top of my watchlist with "ArbCom" as the section title, and it spurred me to comment (As I get older, I find I need to comment as soon as I realize I want to, as I'm increasingly likely to forget about all about it in a few minutes....). Many of us pestered you to run in 2019, even though you didn't really want to. I can't recall if I ever thanked you properly for that, but it was a selfless thing for you to do, and it improved the committee a lot the last 2 years. While I hope you'll run again, I have a feeling you're kind of done, and just want to say ... in a less presumptuous way than this probably sounds ... well, you have my permission. I want you to run again, but I promise not to hassle you about it anymore. Thanks so much for doing this for so long, and for carrying much more than your fair share of the burden around here. (And if I'm wrong and you're not burned out, then I'll be even more grateful in 2023.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But you do not have my permission. Back to work and no more of this foolish talk. EEng 04:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)