User talk:AOL account

..for a more detailed explanation of what I'm doing--205.188.116.200 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing is someone needs to tell Tawkerbot not to revert me--205.188.116.200 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing old warnings, per WP:AN, any other questions/concerns, please visit

• /Nearly complete list of tagged AOL users

Ok, i seem to have missed quite a few--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When people remove warning tags from their own user page, we consider it vandalism, and use the following warning message:
  • {{wr0}}
  • {{wr0}}
• When people remove contect from someone else's user page, we consider it vandalism, and use the following warning message:
  • {{
    tpv1
    }}
  • {{
    tpv1
    }}
• Despite what you claim,
  WP:AN
  does not justify your actions. No other user has concurred with your decision, even though a series of edits this drastic would require community consensus.
• Therefore, I have reported your actions for investigation as vandalism, and I ask you to please stop what you are doing and go through the proper channels -- that is, public discussion -- to see whether your idea of removing old tags should or should not become Wikipedia policy. --M@rēino 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's borderline irrational, it's impossible for any AOL user to actually receive any message sent to their talk page. When they get a new message they're sent around from one talk to the next, the best way to look at an AOL talk page is as 'community property'. Having several years worth of vandalism warnings sitting in front of them, is little more than a deterrent to productive editors, and a how to guide for vandals--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...What? Ryūlóng 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, stop throwing {{test4}}s at people for very minor vandalism, and they won't have any incentive to keep vandalizing, the only thing they get out of it is your reaction to your vandalism, remove that, and they get nothing--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 00:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. As I stated at
    verror}} warnings. Ryūlóng 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 'verror'? I still remember when {{
      test5}} were the only things to choose from--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • {{
        verror}} are used when false information is inserted, a Verifiability error. Ryūlóng 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Yes, I know, I was just musing over all the templates that have been added--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm still standing by the first two I listed, as they added identical information to the Mystic Force articles and sections on episodes. My criterion is that if it isn't listed on TV.com, it's fake and vandalism. Ryūlóng 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except, that's a content dispute, which is the textbook definition of not vandalism, now if they were inserting random letters, spam, or graffiti those would be clear cut examples of vandalism, this is borderline--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the information is unsourced (which a good amount of anonymous edits to these lists have been) then it is vandalism. There have been way too many fan-made lists of upcoming episodes for these to be content disputes. Ryūlóng 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • All I'm saying is,
                  content dispute, no where near blatent vandalism--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
                  ]

User has been given a standard NPA warning and a basic welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your assistance. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

May I ask you the reason for this edit. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see the doppleganger notice at the time, and assumed it was an impersonator/vandal, the fact that it kept being targeted by WatchtowerJihad socks also looked rather odd, not to mention they kept claiming to be your sockpuppets, guess I wasn't paying enough attention--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. When one tries to do a lot of work, slip-ups are bound to happen. WatchtowerJihad has in fact tried to impersonate me, see Category:Imposters of Ambuj.Saxena, though the account in question is my valid and legal sock. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't by any chance know what is going on with Xanax is my FRIEND (talk · contribs) because it seems to have followed me home, so to speak--AOL account 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at his contribs, and I don't think he's WatchtowerJihad. The only related edit he's made is this one to

and here where it managed to find more yet more WatchtowerJihad vandalism within 3 minutes of registration, not to mention this game, they were playing on Talk:South Central Farm, where one would vandalize, and then the other would revert to yet another version of vandalism, and they'd go back and forth until a dozen AOL talk pages were lighting up vandalism warnings--AOL account 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm. The first edit was, again, vandalism removal. The second diff does indeed seem to be WatchtowerJihad vandalism, but you'll notice Xanax is my FRIEND was not involved. (I'm not even sure if the "reverting vandalism to vandalism" trick was deliberate; the other vandal may just have slipped an edit in while "Ward Cleaver" was reverting you. It's a common race condition with reverts, both good and bad faith ones.) I haven't seen any actual vandalism from Xanax is my FRIEND; let's just assume good faith until and unless there's actual evidence, please. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, since Xanax is my FRIEND isn't a vandal, you wouldn't mind sprotecting my user and talk pages to stop the near constant not vandalism to them--AOL account 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I see Syrthiss already sprotected your user page. You should probably add some kind of notice, such as {{

sprotected}}, to this page; I haven't. You may also want to copy the trick I've used on my own talk page for allowing new/anon users to edit a part of my talk page despite the semiprotection, especially if you're serious about acting as a "good will ambassador between AOL and Wikipedia". Oh, and welcome to the wonderful world of being a vandal target.  ;-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ps. I wonder why you seem to think Xanax is my FRIEND is involved; surely it's more reasonable to assume that the reason you've been targeted is because you reverted vandalism by Ward Cleaver, who is an obvious sock of our dear friend WatchtowerJihad. From what I've seen of Xanax's edits — not that there have been many — he still hasn't shown any vandalous tendencies. His latest edit, though unsourced, was otherwise perfectly reasonable. Of course, it's true there are vandals that sneaky, but this just doesn't smell like WatchtowerJihad to me; he's sneaky in his own ways, but doesn't seem to have this kind of patience. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alright, fair enough--AOL account 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird. I don't think I've ever had a warning for vandalism before, warranted or not... and what you call "only a few recent edits" is what I call "Wikipedia is taking over my life again and I'm not getting any work done", but whatever! You've made me go and restore my user page, anyway. --woggly 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, allow me to, once again, explain how the system works here on Wikipedia. You are entitled to remove warnings from AOL talk pages (technically, policy states you are to archive warnings, but since it is AOL we are talking about here, we all have been very lenient about it and have not really questioned your actions to a large extent), just as much as I am entitled to restore them. As you have said, it would make no difference how many warnings are on the talk page of AOL users, or how old or new they may be. AOL users will always be warned, due to automated vandal fighting tools, among other things, so you ought to understand that is not going to change. Therefore, I am going to ask you to refrain from you preforming such activites as policing AOL talk pages, and refrain from edit warring with administrators on the AOL template, as this will warrant a block. You may wish to review

• most of the warnings you are restoring are that old :) and inserting false information into a template, while helpful for some people, who they are I'm not sure, the vandals I guess, is rather pointless, although it probably helps justify a lot of range blocks :)--AOL account 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to note that you accidentally removed warnings that were placed within the last 48 hours from some talk pages. Ryūlóng 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't an accident, AOL hasn't used XTP headers at any time since 2004, they're no more or less random to AOL users than older warnings, if you want to restore the more recent warnings, as you have been doing, I have no objections--AOL account 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm talking about warnings from last night. Not ones from 2005. Ryūlóng 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, those aren't going to be any more or less random to the person who receives them, then the older warnings, you of course can restore them if you want to--AOL account 00:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not a vandal. QuizQuick 01:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? same to you?--AOL account 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you didn't mean to do this [1] :)--

That would be very kind of you ;) :P --

talk|e 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

[2]. Thanks, — 

• sorry, that obviously wasn't right, I was already in the process of a self revert, but you beat me to it--AOL account 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. — 

talk

) _{14:02, 01 August '06}

Hello AOL account. Your userpage directs all concerns to the relevant

• Thanks, I thought I had updated those a long time ago--AOL account 15:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the summary while using VandalProof2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu

and keep the screen shots. 152.163.100.139 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, I'm a little wary to take the advice of an anon aol user for obvious reasons, either way I'm sure someone will fix it once the current aol issues die down--AOL account 23:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still an administrator? I don't see you in the sysops list. Anomo 22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was never a sysops, are you thinking of someone else?--AOL account 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you seem to be the same person as before since you made the list of all the AOL IPs.

User_talk:AOL_account/Nearly_complete_list_of_tagged_AOL_users. I wanted to ask you, do you really still use AOL? I don't mean AOL won't let you cancel, but you use it by choice. You don't speak in ALL CAPS. Anomo 01:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but the vandal who uses the AOL accounts is malicious. And, it is best to tag which IPs he uses in order to forewarn administrators of his activity. Bearly541 03:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just delinked and deleted the {{AOL-static}} template, since no such thing exists: the user pages labelled with this were either AOL dynamically assigned IP addresses ("DAHA" in AOL terminology) from the ipt.aol.com pool, or corresponded to nonexistent IP addresses, such as in the case of User talk:172.324.195.106. -- The Anome 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current