User talk:TheMadTim

{{unblock|The 'civility' issue centres around my labelling of [[KarateKid7]] as a liar. The claim is validated by reference to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:KarateKid7] in which KarateKid7 claims that "Comment The page has been locked to prevent TheMadTim from vandalising the page. KarateKid7 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)". When I asked the admin who locked the page, [[User:Xaosflux]], whether or not this was true [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xaosflux#Dude.21], [[User:Xaosflux]] replied "Absolutely not, however I HAVE protected the article Davie Dodds and hope that everyone will edit civilly regarding it."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheMadTim#Question_re:_Talk:Davie_Dodds]. KarateKid7 is a liar, and as part of [[WP:3RR]], I think it was important to show that. I therefore request to be unblocked on the basis of the aforementioned. Aditionally, KarateKid7 has now signed up as [[TheMADTim]] and I need to have editing priveleges in order to report this.}}

Welcome to Wikipedia. Hello, TheMadTim, and Newcomers help page , where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Editing tutorial Picture tutorial How to write a great article Naming conventions Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

--

]

Hello

Hello there. Thanks for your interest in and contributions to Wikipedia. For pictures,

]

Thx dude!--TheMadTim 10:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See, I can add a signature and everything now!) ;)

Who are you to delete anything from

, a topic of which you are almost definitely completely ignorant??

Stay out of other people's work products until you have one of your own. 216.194.5.238 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the user at 216.194.5.238, please do not verbally harass wikipedians. Please be

]

Amazing Racist

I've undeleted the most recent edit before the original Articles for Deletion debate, and placed it at User:TheMadTim/Amazing Racist so you can read it. David | Talk 19:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion had been created in the wrong place, so I fixed it. You can now access it directly from your original article by clicking on the link, or go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football. Fan1967 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks for that man, it was a pain in the arse to edit where it was. I found it further down the page dude, sorry to hassle you Holmes. Thanks for your help dude. --TheMadTim 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, however I HAVE protected the article Davie Dodds and hope that everyone will edit civilly regarding it. I will remove the protection in a few days. I would only protect a mainspace talk page in extreme circumstances. I am also not involving myself in the 3RR report, other than to note that the article is protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K dude, thx for the expedient reply. --TheMadTim 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KarateKid7 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I've closed this deletion discussion early. The reason for this is that in the first 24 hours of the discussion, there were 16 keeps and no deletes, other than your own. I am not asserting that the nomination was improper, merely that there is no point keeping it on AFD for the five days when it already has such a high level of support to keep. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, It doesn't really dude. there are just a lot of sock puppets. =] --TheMadTim 11:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours because of incivility and revert warring, as well as to enforce a cooldown. I recommend a

]

OK Dude No probs. The dude is a total liar tho, and I stand by what I said. =] --TheMadTim 15:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude You do realise that I only actually made 3 edits on the Grame Dott article? The other two were to revert vandalism! --TheMadTim 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. User:KarateKid7 is now using the username User:TheMADTim to insert comments over which we have previously had revert disputes. [1]. I strongly urge admin to look at this user and to ban them, and all of the other accounts they use. --TheMadTim 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll block that user as an imposter anyway, but no unblock --pgk^(talk) 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, is there some possibility that you could tag User:TheMADTim userpage with a tag to indicate it is a sock puppet of KarateKid7?--TheMadTim 23:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppet of User:KarateKid7 and User:Karatekid7.

I have three choices here. I can completely ignore you, I can insult you again, or I can try to make you see sense. Please read the following:

1) Do you know the expression "Can't see the woods for the trees"? Obsessively quoting rule books and removing harmless edits needlessly because it hasn't been verified, does nothing to assist Wikipedia. Why do you do it? Do you honestly think that Dott is not a rangers fan and that it was removed?

2) Why did you not respond to the following?:

I heard this too - it was mentioned in the commentary. How do we cite this? Damiancorrigan 10:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AND

How do you cite what has been heard in the commentary? It seems you are removing things for the sake of it - it is clearly a well-documented fact that he supports Rangers, heard by hundreds of thousands in the commentary, so why remove it? If something is common knowledge, do we need to cite everything? "Graeme Dott is a man(citation needed). He was born in Scotland(citation needed) in 1977(citation needed) and plays snooker(citation needed)". Purlease. Damiancorrigan 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3)Here are some other unverified facts in the Dott article. Please explain why you have not removed them.

• (born 12 May 1977)
• from Larkhall in Scotland.
• He is the current snooker world champion.
• turning professional in 1994, Dott has slowly climbed the rankings,
• reaching the top sixteen in 2001, where he has remained ever since.
• he is now up to number 6 in the rankings for 2006-07, his highest ever position.
• he looked in danger of plummeting down the rankings.
• Dott finally achieved a ranking tournament victory at the 888.com 2006 World Snooker Championship
• he was previously runner-up in the 1999 Regal Scottish Open, the 2001 British Open, the 2004 World Championship and the 2005 Malta Cup.
• He scored his only competitive 147 break in the 1999 British Open.
• Dott married Elaine Lambie in 2001
• the couple celebrated the birth of their son, Lewis, in 2004.
• Elaine is the daughter of Dott's manager, Alex Lambie,
• brother John used to manage Partick Thistle F.C..

Do you see why your behaviour is inconsistent and irritating? Dott is a Rangers fan. This is a well known fact. It is a better known fact than the name of his wife. Why do you want this to be verified, when you don't want everything else verified?

Damiancorrigan 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, this is the last wikipedia edit I'm going to make. 1) If you don't agree with Wikipedia Policies, I suggest you don't use Wikipedia, or use the relevant discussion pages to suggest amendments. 2) I didn't respond because how the fuck would I know how to cite something which is in commentary? It's the job of the editor who adds the statements to make sure that their contributions are verifiable, not mine. Don't ask me to do their job. If you can't verify a statement with a source, it shoudn't be in Wikipedia. Read the policies. 3)Why haven't I removed them? Why haven't you? I'll edit whatever the fuck I want to. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what I can and cannot edit?

I will point out to you, seeing as how you 'don't have time to check the facts', that I originally added a request for a source on 01:47, 1 May 2006, which was done at 01:55. [2]. This source was subsequently removed by a vandal at some point before I made the request to have the source replaced. Why the fuck you want to dispute something which every experienced Wikipedia editor will tell you is common procedure, and was originally dealt with in eight minutes, fuck knows. Your probably just another one of Karatekid7's sock puppets. I'm outta here. --TheMadTim 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your mind and dont leave wikipedia. Yes, there are admins out there who ignore other users. In cases like these you should talk to other admins. If you have problems with admins you should talk to them. I hope that you change your mind and choose not to leave wikipedia. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when leaving Wikipedia, the point is to leave, not start using

]

Unblock

If you wish to be unblocked you must remove the <nowiki> and </nowiki> from the template. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was banned because one editor who didn't like my contributions became overly familiar with an admin/mod IRL, and the admin/mod subsequently banned me. The user in question use multiple proxies, known to Wikipedia. He went under the names 'KabadiKid' and 'KarateKid7' among others. He abused proxies to act in breach of Wikipedia policies. I am banned, and he continues to vandalize articles. This is the reason why I no longer trust or use Wikipedia.

Additionally, Mackenson, or whatever he is called, is evidently incompetent.