User talk:HighInBC/Archive 91

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Advice sought

I wonder if you could advise on the right course of action on a weird issue I have. I’m asking you because you have familiarity with some of the background as you posted in this thread. I’ve had some involvement with that issue with the user in question. Over the last 24 hours I’ve had three notifications of multiple failed attempts to login to my account. I don’t know why, but I decided to check when the user in question had been editing WP and they broadly coincided with the login attempts - 24 hours ago, 14 hours ago and a couple of hours ago. I then asked another editor who had been involved in that issue with the user whether they had had failed login attempts - they had 2 failed login attempts with exactly the same timings as my last two. I don’t know where to go with this or whether checkuser can be deployed in some way. Can you advise what I should/could do? DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just been told that another editor who was involved with this issue has had attempted logins in the same period. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm one of the involved editors experiencing the same issue. I never had any such incident happen to me before, and was considering whether to report it when DeCausa contacted me telling it happened to them as well. Now we have been told that a third involved editor suffered similar attempted login attempts as well. While I've changed my password to a stronger one, it still troubles me whether someone is attempting to compromise our accounts and how far are they willing to go in that way. Impru20^talk 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighinBC, with the three of us, who had been involved with this user, being targeted in this way over the last 24 hours, but never experiencing these attempted logins before, it seems more obvious what’s going on than when I originally asked you for advice. I think I’m inclined to just raise it in the existing ANI thread as WP:HARASSMENT (although a fairly incompetent attempt at it). Nevertheless, I would appreciate your opinion before I do. Many thanks. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only advice I can give is to have a very good password and consider implementing two factor authentication. There is little to be done with people creating these warnings. I don't think checkusers can see the IP doing it. Even if they don't feel they can guess your password they may just be doing it to annoy you. A strong password and 2FA is all you need, after that you can ignore it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also have had a number of attempts, it does not concern me since my password is extremely secure and I have 2FA on my account so whoever is doing it, na-na-na-na-NA! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to be clear, when you say you have had a number of attempts, do you mean in the last 48 hours or just generally? DeCausa (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ya right after your post was made, probably in response to your post. 9 of them. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it’s some sort of Joe Job don’t you think it’s obvious who’s doing it and shouldn’t it be raised in that ANI thread? DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can try bringing it up at ANI, not sure if there is enough evidence to pin this on any specific person. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SpamBot3000! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Regardless of your final opinion. Thank you for the review. :-) Buffs (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unfortunate fact that unblock requests that are not quickly answer often get lost in the fray. I have reviewed the situation and responded to your request. You may not like the result, but at least you got an answer. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I did get an answer. Can you clarify a couple of points

What "ongoing disruption" did I engage in? Or how was I "disruptive"? I've explained the quote issue ad nauseum. What specifically was wrong with it?
Why doesn't WP:BEFOREBLOCK apply to me. Why do I get no warnings before a block? Buffs (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFOREBLOCK does not say that warnings are a prerequisite for blocking, rather it says just the opposite. You have been here for 14 years, I am thinking the administrator felt that you did not need to have appropriate behavior explained to you.

I really do not have much to add that was not already said at the ANI thread. You have already been told by several other users, if you have not accepted it from them I doubt it would be much different coming from me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to not repeat something if no one will explain what I did. "You need to learn from this" is pointless if no one will tell me what I did. No warning has ever been given. You'll note that your warning on my talk page has been followed and I will NOT recreate the page again. However, it doesn't make sense. Buffs (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to help him. But, I'm not gonna make that mistake, again. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for your input here either, I asked for HighInBC's opinions. Please leave me alone.
I don't want to go this route and I'm not looking for anything but clarification, but I'm seriously confused. I can't keep a page of people I've asked not to interact on my page, but he can put it on his talk page while swearing to hold a grudge? Please clarify what is/isn't allowed. I'm not asking for a block or any negative actions against GoodDay at all. I'm not even asking for anyone to remove anything. I simply want to know what I can/cannot do because I'm very confused.Buffs (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome on my talk page Buffs, it is not for you to shoo people away. People have been explaining this to you since you posted at ANI, and even before. Regarding the page I deleted I linked to the relevant policy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked GoodDay to leave me alone. He's clearly following me around (even if he has been to your talk page before) and didn't need to butt in.

...and you didn't answer my question. I asked for a reasonable clarification because the page you cited does not clarify that point. Your signature says "Need help, just ask" and your response is "go figure it out on your own"? Can I put a list of people who I do not wish to interact with on my talk page like GoodDay or not? Buffs (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are at about the best position you can expect to be. Despite reacting to a valid block by bitterly complaining in multiple venues and engaging in disruptive behavior towards other users you have not been blocked further. Your original block is about to expire. The only advice I can give you is drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

I am not aware of any shitlist being maintained by GoodDay, but no that also would not be allowed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked everything over. I can confirm, that I've no such list. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His TP seems to indicate otherwise.

PLEASE explain HOW I have been "engaging in disruptive behavior towards other users". No one seems to be willing to answer this question. This is the last time I will pose it. If I cannot get an answer, then I will be forced to guess. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain. The only venues I've "complained" in are this page, ANI when asking for my block to actually be reviewed rather than ignored, and my own talk page. That's hardly "multiple venues". Buffs (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a list. That's a response to you, which I couldn't post on your talkpage, as you told me not to contact you there, again. FWIW, you're allowed to contact me on my talkpage, anytime. PS - I agree with the other two editors, however. Drop the stick. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of comments directed to you in the past week, by a half-dozen different editors (mostly from the ANI thread, some from this page):

there are quite a few non-productive comments on Talk:The Daily Wire by Buffs
I’m not sure why it wasn’t declined long ago. It’s argumentative with little apparent recognition of what they’ve done wrong.
Stop complaining & let the partial block run its course.
You're kind of relentlessly aggressive; people don't like that, on WP and in real life.
your argumentation style certainly can come off as borderline bludgeon-y and tendentious.
I'll close this to prevent further digging.
let the matter go
drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

It is too bad that there is no identifiable pattern here that a person could reflect on or learn from. --JBL (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Our blocking policy requires that you are provided an explanation. It does not require unlimited explanation, nor does it require an explanation that you accept. JBL has provided you with links to what people have already said. You are hardly refuting the idea that you are relentless and aggressive, rather you are continuing to reinforce this. I have not repeated all of this to you because if you have not accepted several other people telling you I have no confidence that you will accept it from me. I don't have anything further to add to this discussion other than to repeat my suggestion that you move on. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you can't say I haven't tried for an explanation that makes sense or to ask for clarification. I waited very patiently for almost 4 weeks for a reply without a single remark to any other page. No action was taken until I went to WP:ANI to ask for help/clarification. While you offered both, you only supplied one.

Regardless of the outcome, I do appreciate at least reviewing the request rather than making me sit in the cold.

However, I cannot believe you are not only permitting this harassment by JBL and GoodDay, but actively endorsing such behavior. This is an absolutely blatant example of WP:HOUND and fits the definition to a T, but you seem unwilling to condemn it; I can only speculate as to your motive. I find your signature to be a complete joke; you don't appear to be willing to offer actually offer any substantive help, just vaguery.

With all that said, I bid you adieu. Buffs (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You don't need a public list of people you've asked to stay off your talkpage. If you really need to curate such a list I would suggest a text document on your PC or something similar. Unless you're warning huge numbers of people to stop using your talkpage, it should be easy enough to remember them, and take the matter to AN if they decide to continue.

The best advice in this situation is going to be to let the matter go, and ignore GoodDay. Try to reflect on why you were blocked, and modify your behavior to prevent it in the future. For example, I stay the hell away from political articles. Nothing good EVER comes from editing or in many cases reading those. SQL ^{Query Me!} 08:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've deleted my post from the aforementioned discussion at The Daily Wire article, in order to appease Buffs. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Was it really appeasement or did you finally realize you ran afoul of WP policy?~~ You know what, gonna just WP:AGF here. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am terribly sorry for what I did. I thought that what I did was acceptable because he appeared in the category "Wikipedia People." I did this for a lot of people because other people have done the same for other editors. Could you delete the rest that I have tagged for deletion? Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recognized right away that this was most likely an honest mistake. I believe most other people recognized it as such. It looks like those other pages have been taken care of. Thanks for responding to me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the discussion, and never will. I apologized to the person in question, and I took a 3-day Wikibreak. This reminds me of the time that a deceased editor's obituary got oversighted even though their editing career took up half the obituary. I naively assumed everyone I did it to would be okay with it, and just overall didn't understand the policy. I assure you, it won't happen again. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		You do lots of good.Here is a barnstar for you.Keep doing good here Pyramids09 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. So nice to follow the orange bar at the top of my screen and find good news. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 2nd that barnstar. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You stepped up and gave closure when no other admins were willing to do so; I genuinely appreciate it despite our differences of opinion. Buffs (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where im getting the rules from

WP:BMB, WP:BANREVERT and WP:PROXYING; when it was removed as block evasion, it should not have been restored, and instead of restoring a blocked sock's comments the user could have just made a new section. Im not sure why you dont have a problem with people proxy editing for scrutiny evading sockpuppets, but just in case you were not being condescending and were actually asking me where I got the rules from, there ya go. Oh, the standards bit, that must have been condescending though. Guess my hope was misplaced. Ah well. nableezy - 01:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which blocked user was it? It is obvious that it was an alternate account, but far from obvious that they were a blocked user. Note that you have changed your argument since my comment, you originally accused the user of being a sockpuppet, now you are referring to a banned user. Your original argument did not hold up.

Look through the ANI archives and you will see countless sections made by sockpuppets closed. While banned and block evading users are reverted, sock puppet posts are generally closed and archived. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? The user was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Who cares what the master is, by your own view the master should be blocked as well. What youre doing by allowing this piggy-backing on to obvious sockpuppets is giving motivation to continue. Because the downside, this account is blocked, is easily circumvented with the next account, especially if you dont care if it was blocked 5 edits in to it. nableezy - 01:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are posting rules referring to posts by blocked or banned users, now you are supporting it by pointing out that they are blocked after making the post. You seem to be disputing my claim that your concerns are not based on our rules, and you have failed to convince me otherwise.

We both agree the user was acting wrong. That does not change the fact that the topic ban imposed by the community was violated. Two people can be wrong at once.

A user in good standing requested enforcement, which is not a requirement. You seemed unsatisfied with that somehow, they then created their own section heading in an attempt to satisfy you. My comment was expressing a hope that this satisfied your concerns which I still maintain were not based in any policy.

Should we ignore the topic ban violation because it was reported by a sock puppet? If we do that then we are encouraging people to make a sock puppet and report themselves.

If you think we should have a policy that posts made by sock puppets should be removed then propose that policy and get consensus for it, I may even support it. However as it stands there is only such a rule for blocked or banned users. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a user in good standing restored a section removed as "obviously block evasion". That is proxy editing. The section was already archived. And deleted. I dont really care about any part of this besides that part. And dont care enough to comment further, but I chuckled at the My comment was expressing a hope that this satisfied your concerns, so cheers for that. nableezy - 02:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but I responded to you complaining about a sock puppet's post being restored, you were not talking about block evasion at the time.

I had no knowledge of a user claiming it was block evasion, what is more there is no evidence at all that this was block evasion, merely sock puppetry. One user saying so does not make it true. I asked you at the top of this rather long discussion "Which blocked user was it?", is there any evidence that this is a blocked user?

What exactly do you want from me? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly to be less condescending and not respond as though you're deigning to meet "[my] standards". Is there any evidence? I have no clue, I didnt remove the section. I did see it removed, and restored, and think that the latter should not have happened. But I dont really care anymore. nableezy - 03:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you were complaining to a user about standards that simply are not part of our rules as though they were rules. Other users went out of their way to meet your arbitrary standards. You were being forceful, and frankly wrong, and ya I made light of it. You were asking people to meet your standards so don't ask like it came out of nowhere. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert block

@HighInBC: I think you've stretched the limits of "broadly construed" a bit too far with your block of JPL. The post in question has nothing to do with a religious figure in itself, it simply refers to the general rules surrounding notability of heads of academic institutions. Had JPL specifically contributed to the actual AFD for Samuel E. Waldron, or if their academic notability thoughts pertained specifically to religious people then I'd agree with you, but having thoughts on general issues of WP notability guidelines that aren't religion-focused is not part of his topic ban. Please could you reconsider the block, or at least put it to the community at ANI. — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadly construed" does not enter into it, they directly mentioned a religious figure which is a specific prohibition in their topic ban. Not only did I not stretch "broadly construed", it was not a consideration. This was not some tangential violation, it was a direct violation.

This was already discussion at ANI and closed with my block as the result.

Despite this I am once again giving this user another chance and unblocking early. Please keep in mind that this topic ban was given as an alternative to removing them from the site altogether. They came very close to an outright ban and this topic ban is the only thing that prevented that. It is the result of an extensive community discussion and consensus. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @HighInBC, for your patience. I share in your hope that John learns from this instance. I believe @Amakuru is well intentioned and I share some of their concerns and have expressed them on multiple occasions. That being said, this instance was not a skirting of the TBan. I mulled over it for a time and came to the same conclusion you did. It was a direct violation, even if a mild one. It could not be overlooked and needed to be addressed. I appreciate the swift response and I think it will help John immediately and down the road. This TBan is very difficult to follow even if it was quite simple in scope. However, John has to realize the community made a decision and it will be enforced. I try to offer advice where I can and when it is solicited but, ultimately, that is his account and he is responsible to make sure he follows the TBan requirements. I hope he finds a way to navigate it properly and I will continue to assist him when asked by him to do so just because I believe he can be a positive for the encyclopedia and I want to see him succeed. --ARose Wolf 16:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I of course also believe Amakuru is well intentioned. Often it is difficult for an administrator to balance the concerns of various users. Ultimately I have to side with the greater consensus. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you spambot 5000. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

Bots Newsletter, December 2021

BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).

September 2019

Y Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · N2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · ? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

Y OAbot 3, DannyS712 bot 47, Pathbot 2, PearBOT 2, DannyS712 bot 59, DannyS712 bot 62, HasteurBot 14, PearBOT 4, WOSlinkerBot 4, MilHistBot 5
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthony pointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"

November 2019

Y BHGbot 4, YiFeiBot 2, DannyS712 bot III 64 · ? PearBOT
Old bots do new tricks: DannyS712 bot III 64 prowled redirects, YiFeiBot 2 archived GoCE requests, and BHGbot 4 removed links to portals deleted at MfD (until its authorization was revoked in January at operator BrownHairedGirl's request).

December 2019

Y DemonDays64 Bot, DannyS712 bot III 66, Bot1058 6, Monkbot 15, MilHistBot 6, PearBOT 5, DannyS712 bot IV 65 · N2 SportsStatsBot · Xinbenlv bot, SteveBot 8
Redirects to be autopatrolled: A RfC took place at WP:NPP, closing with unanimous consensus that new redirects should be automatically marked as patrolled by bot. DannyS712 wasted no time, and submitted DannyS712 bot III 66 the next day; it passed two days after that.
200,000 bios get short descs: Along a similar vein, Bot1058 6 was approved to remove disambiguation pages from Category:Monitored short pages and a new bot (DemonDays64 Bot) changed lots of http links to https using JavaScript Wiki Browser. One particularly neat task, PearBOT 5, automatically generated short descriptions for more than 200,000 biographies.

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
Will reFill ever get fixed?
What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I for one welcome our new robot overlords. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user you just blocked

Revoke their Talk page acess too, they will just abuse you endlessly otherwise. They are a sock of User:Abigblueworld Mako001 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already on it. Seems another admin did that and somehow my block undid that without a conflict. Fixed it though. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New account

User:Don't use the common block reasons or drop-down bar, type my main account now. Mako001 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Determined individual. I will be sure to use the drop-down bar if I block them. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings (2021)

HighInBC,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. I share your optimism about the coming year. Good luck to you and yours. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.