User talk:`.Thirty Thr33

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.Quarte t 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Quarte t 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always my fault, never the other guys, right? [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if I get blocked again, for the third time when I only make constructive edits, I'll just register a new account. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not "constructive edits". If you look at the talk page, you're clearly not following the consensus. Quarte t 04:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand if it was like 20 people against it, 2 for it, but since its one registered member and one IP address, i think its ok. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see two IP's and a registered user - and considering the sources you've given to back up your side are message boards, your position in the argument is not particularly strong. I have an ESPN article that does not list Twist [1], but has Semenko, Oreilly and Tim Hunter. ESPN would count as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Can you show anything that has Twist listed in the top ten besides forum posts?

And stop with calling other editors "idiots" - all you do is red flag yourself for admins to block you yet again. Quarte t 04:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia have a policy about instigating? It should. hockeyfights.com's forum list twist as a top 10, and if we're going with the "consensus" find me links that favour another enforcer over twist. kthxbai [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards because they're considered original research - anyone regardless of expertise can post their opinion there. Please check out WP:OR for more detail on that. Quarte t 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can't comprehend. The owners of hockeyfights.com put the top 10 list on their forum instead of making a page for it. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me I do, and it's not considered a reliable source. I see you're having a bit of trouble, so read WP:VERIFY - in fact it's probably a good idea if you get to know all the policies here before you continue. It'll save you future headaches. Quarte t 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything from say - The Hockey News or another legit publication with an editorial process? Hockeyfights.com just looks like fansite run by fans to me. Quarte t 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even though Twist was probably one of the best enforcers hands down, everybody knows it unless you hate him, just because you can't find a proper source because google sucks makes it any less factual? Awesome. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 05:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and think - you could easily spin it the other way - "you want him included because you love him even though there is little evidence to support his inclusion, and the consensus is against you". Again you're just giving me your opinion, which I don't care about - because let's face it, you're not the most upstanding editor here, considering I could have you blocked right now for edit warring - but if you want to start posting some sources - I'm more than willing to listen; otherwise you're just wasting my and every other editors time. Quarte t 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about his wikipedia page? I didn't create it, I dont even think I've edited it. Is wikipedia a valid source? And blocking me would be pointless, we both know this. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that you shouldn't reference use a Wikisource as a source on Wikpedia (as per WP:RS) - this is in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.

Quarte t 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just let this go, its very boring to me. Take Twister off the page, I don't care. After you read this, blank my talk page. Thanks. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for breaching WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

.-- Waggers 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]