User talk:Tom Lennox

Welcome[edit]

Hello Tom Lennox, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Latics Good luck, and have fun. --– LATICS talk 21:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Killa Koz (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure films[edit]

I can't really source Spider-man 3 being noted as an adventure films. You can't toss in every genre for a film as well, you have to pick the one that best suits it. As a super hero film, Spider-man here suits best as an action film with it's comic book fights and secondary as either fantasy (the whole superhero costume deal) or sci-fi (with that Venom extra info about the moon and what not.). Compare it to the other films in the Category:2000s adventure films and you'll see the difference between these. Hope that helps! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film genres[edit]

Your recent edits to certain film article violate Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Your opinion on what genre they are or are not is irrelevant, and you need a source to back up your edits. Grsz ¹¹ 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Silence of the Lambs (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws genre[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jaws (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, we have a discussion going at the Jaws talk page. Please do not continue to edit Wikipedia without talking about this and giving your side of the argument. You have been warned about changing movie genres before, so try to talk it out this time. --Plasma Twa 2 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I really have to encourage you to discuss this on the talk page, otherwise your reverts could be interpreted as disruptive editing. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heat cast[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heat (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Srobak (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom your reversions continue despite multiple requests for you to move it to discussion on the talk page, or to address it here on your own talk page. By viewing the above discussions you appear to have a history of this type of behaviour, and do not appear interested in working to resolution in a coordinated manner. Based upon this - should further reversion or otherwise unfounded and destructive edits continue, I will move forward with pursuit of having your edit abilities blocked. Srobak (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Heat (1995 film), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your recent edit summary for an edit to this article is entirely inappropriate behaviour. Edit summaries are permanent. Do not attack editors again. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to The Dark Knight (film), you will be blocked from editing. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits (Feb. 10)[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Dark Knight (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on The Silence of the Lambs (film). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

I think you'll find that the internet movie database is not a reliable source as it is uses user-posted information. See [Wikipedia:Citing IMDb]]. Only a very small amount of the info on it is regarded as reliable--Patton^t/c 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on The Silence of the Lambs (film). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated incivility, especially in edit summaries e.g. [1] [2]. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm down[edit]

Tom, you have recently started being extremely rude and somewhat disruptive on Wikipedia. You blanked the content from the Dark Knight movie page and have engaged in a revert war on the Silence of the Lambs page. In multiple cases you've insulted other editors in edit summaries.

Insulting other editors is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility in editing and not making personal attacks. You've done at least four serious attacks / insults in the last 24 hours, that I see. This has to stop.

It's not acceptable to keep behaving in this manner on Wikipedia. If you can control your language and continue to discuss disputes in a polite manner, you're welcome to keep editing here. If you cannot, and keep being abusive, that behavior is disruptive and corrosive to the project's community. That's not ok.

If you think you can control yourself and work with us rather than continuing to insult people, please keep editing when the short block above expires. If you don't think you can stay polite going forwards, please consider just walking away from Wikipedia on your own. If you keep abusing people, your account will be blocked for longer and longer, and if it keeps up too much longer you will be blocked. It's much better for you if you make up your own mind - either play by our rules and treat people here like adults, or leave of your own accord.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Abortion has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- Menti fisto 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Silence of the Lambs (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Abortion[edit]

I see you deleted all text and replaced it with "its murder". Good - Wikipedia is clearly an anti-life resource and we need to actively end this bias. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the undoer[edit]

You undid my edit to Milk (film) for what reason? I was decent enough to supply a rationale in my edit summary. Do you often use the term "drama film", or is this a Borat-inspired neologism? How many times should Dustin Lance Black be mentioned in the first paragraph? Only twice? Perhaps there is room to fit his name multiple times into a single sentence. Now, I apologize for my sarcasm. --Moni3 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy boy has a history of edit warring, and he's been blocked for it. You keep an eye on him, and you feel free to report him if need be. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate your support, but my remorse for my terse message above grows. Although my points are valid, the message did not have to be delivered with sarcasm, no matter how mild. Indecency, incivility, or rudeness is too often only perceived and not intended. It never warrants an equal reaction. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you call Milk an action movie? Tom Lennox (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Biographical film -- "A biographical motion picture—often shortened to biopic—is a film that dramatizes the life of an actual person or people. They differ from films “based on a true story” or “historical films” in that they attempt to comprehensively tell a person’s life story or at least the most historically important years of their lives." No further genre classification is needed here, and in this case, I'd consider it a POV edit, given "drama"'s connotations of fiction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Black Kite know that Tom is up to his old tricks again. BK has disabled him once, and in discussions with him has indicated that continued, repeated offenses will earn him the banstick. Srobak (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to The Silence of the Lambs (film), you will be blocked from editing. You've been blocked for doing this very same thing before, don't make the same mistakes. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling video games[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of best-selling video games, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TJ Spyke 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of best-selling video games, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TJ Spyke 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tom Lennox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me another chance

Decline reason:

You are blocked for evading your block as User:Pe de Chinelo. You've made multiple new accounts after being blocked, effectively giving yourself your own chances. But you've blown all of them. You continue to exhibit the same problematic behavior. In short, no. If you want to have a realistic chance, you will need to respect your block, not evade it by creating a new account, and remain blocked for a substantial period of time: I suggest at least 1 year. Mango juice^talk 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.