User talk:TimothyBanks

Soap opera moves

While many of your recent soap article moves may be technically correct, I think you're going a bit overboard. Since characters marry and divorce so frequently, the convention with these articles is usually to stick with names by which the characters are commonly known, and not necessarily change and move them every time they marry or whatever. I'm not going to change Jessica Buchanan back, but she's been married to Antonio Vega for like 5 minutes and they're already apart; all you're doing is making things more complicated. TAnthony 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was designed to deliver facts and considering that soap characters marry and divorce frequently, thats what we are hear to do, edit the profiles and make their names, latest recaps, etc., known to the general wikipedia browser. If (example) Alan Williams marrys Jenny Ray for even one day, it is known that within that day, Jenny Ray will be known as Jenny Ray Williams.

Yes, the names are valid and should be noted, but not necessarily in the name of the article. Articles don't need to be moved every time someone marries or divorces, especially since some characters aren't really known by their "technical" married names, etc. Constant moving is a waste of resources and clogs up watchlists. Time can be better spent expanding and actually copyediting the many poorly-written soap articles. That said, many of your moves are probably appropriate at this time, so thanks for that. TAnthony 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soap characters do not necessarily take their spouse's last name, any more than people in real life do. Take Erica Kane on AMC -- she has never once taken a spouse's last name. Nor has Marlena Evans on DOOL. The average soap marriage doesn't last more than three years, so it is easier to list most females by their maiden names. In some cases, they keep their maiden names. D'Amico 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're going to move articles like Victoria Lord Davidson, it is your responsibility to check for (and fix) double redirects. I fixed those for you, but I shudder to think how many others you've left in your wake. TAnthony 23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBanks, you have got to stop moving the names of the women of soap operas to names that they are not well-known by, or to names that take out a part that they are well-known by. Dixie Cooney is more so known as Dixie Cooney instead of as Dixie Martin. Second, the Cooney part of her name is a very important part of her name, seeing as she is a legendary character more known under that name. I moved her article back to Dixie Cooney Martin, of course. It was this same way when you moved Kendall Hart, the name that Kendall is most famous for, to Kendall Slater. Well, I was the one who moved her to Kendall Hart Slater, leaving the Hart in her name, and because she actually refers to herself as Kendal Hart Slater quite often. You've really got to better think out these moves, and what the woman is more well-known by. Yes, Wikipedia is here to present facts, but Wikipedia also states that when a fictional character or a real-life person is more well-known by a certain name, their article should be of that certain name. The fact of their married last name can be presented in the lead (introduction) of their article, of course. Flyer22 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned plenty of times. If you don't discuss your page moves before moving them, I will have to block you for 24 hours. Obviously dispute resolution has failed in this case, so I'm warning again, please discuss page moves or you will be blocked for 24 hours. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBanks, I responded again...here...about the importance of common name. I responded there to you before that article was moved again by you, as you may have already known. Flyer22 08:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Kennedy Allen

As you may be aware, there has already been an AFD for Kara Kennedy, so you may have to justify her notability at some point. Anything you can add to the article about independent notability (rather than simply through famous relatives) would help it to survive. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny & Carly

I was away for the weekend, but here's the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonny and Carly Corinthos. TAnthony 05:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Carey

Hello, TimothyBanks. Some time ago, I had the Krystal Carey Chandler article moved to Krystal Carey, because moving these female characters' names every time they are married, especially if they are more well-known by their maiden name, is off. We don't even know for sure if Krystal and Adam Chandler will stay married for much longer. She even dropped the use of that last name for now, no matter that it's still supposedly her legal last name. Though it's kind of silly that they are still supposedly married, and yet J.R. and Babe are already divorced, when Adam set out to be divorced from Krystal while J.R. and Babe's divorce was going slower. I'm going to move the Krystal Carey Chandler article back to Krystal Carey. Just as TAnthony stated, it can be addressed that her last name is Chandler without having the title last name of her article be Chandler. Flyer22 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied to your comment on my talk page, of course. Also, don't forget to sign your user name by typing four tildes...~~~~... when "talking" on a talk page here at Wikipedia. I mean, I knew that it was you who was addressing me, but I'm just reminding you on that matter, since it's a main Wiki-policy and since when you didn't sign your user name, a bot signed it for you instead. Anyway, see you around, TimothyBanks. Flyer22 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple article

Hey, again, TimothyBanks. The reason I changed my mind on putting the word Present to represent the soap opera supercouples current status in their Years of reign column is because I feel that simply putting the present year is telling enough that the couple is most likely still together. But even if the couple is not together anymore, the Years of reign column is to showcase their Years of reign, of course, which, still together or not, is what it does. Plus, if we put Present (or, how you put it, Presently) for the soap opera supercouples, then I feel that we should do that for all of the other supercouples on the other supercouple lists within the Supercouple article who are still together as well.

Is the reason that you feel that putting Presently is better...is because simply puting the present year could still mean that couple is not together? If so, I must state, as I just did above, that the Years of reign column signifies their years of reign, of course, so putting the present year, whether the couple is still together or broken up is very accurate, seeing as they reign or reigned in that year. And their on-and-off status is a part of that reign for most of them. I don't feel that we have to get specific by stating Presently.

And on a different note, you and User:The Real One Returns need to talk out your constant moving of the Victoria Lord article, from Victoria Lord to Victoria Lord Davidson. This constant move-war has gotten ridiculous between you two. I suggested to The Real One Returns to talk this over with you as well. But it seems that no approach between you two about this has happened...yet. Flyer22 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed, but I went ahead and used the word "present" for the Supercouple article to reflect a couple's reign, as in currently. Flyer22 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to ignore naming conventions, huh?

If so, and you continue to move articles from their common name to a name not all that common for them, that will certainly get you blocked from Wikipedia for good. As I stated above, I explained ...in this link to you about common names, which you most likely read. Greenlee Smythe is not often referred to as Greenlee Smythe du Pres...and she's not mostly known by that married name of du Pres either, in the same way that Britney Spears was and is not known as Britney Federline (nor should Britney's article have ever been moved to Britney Federline...not unless by some miracle the name Britney Federline were to have become her common name). But you clearly aren't "listening" on this matter. Well, you are, but you're ignoring. If this keeps up, your ignoring the factor of common name for articles, then it will most likely lead to you being blocked permanently from Wikipedia. Flyer22 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Write on your talk page and explain all the moves you have done in a summary before you edit again. Repeat, you have been warned. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move an article again to an uncommon name, such as you did twice now to Doris Wolfe...and you will be blocked. Flyer22 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Flyer22 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Hi TimothyBanks. Although I'm sure you mean well, some of your recent moves involving soap opera characters seem to have caused some distress to other editors. Before moving any more pages, please take care to ensure that you are following consensus in doing so. If you are in doubt, it may be best to start a discussion on the article's talk page first, or list it on the requested moves noticeboard. Because this has been something of a problem in the past, any further controversial moves might be viewed as disruptive, and dealt with accordingly. Thanks, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warning you any longer. I'll simply report you, and as implied above, you are not too far away from being permanently banned. As I just replied to you on my talk page, I suggest you move any wrongly moved article back to its common name. A wrongly moved article is no justification for you wrongly moving articles. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Lord

While we appreciate your interest in this article, you cannot make assumptions about a fictional universe without proper sources. The character's marriage might be invalid in the real world, but you need to cite an episode or another source for any assumptions like this that you make. Please stop restoring this information without a proper source. — TAnthony^Talk 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the initiative and moving incorrectly moved articles back to their common names. I've already talked to User:Kogsquinge about his incorrect moves as well, just in case you want to take a look at his talk page. He mostly watches over The Young and the Restless character articles.

Also, make sure that when you move articles back to their common names, to state that in your edit summary so that other editors know exactly why you are moving the articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be careful not to move articles such as Kendall Hart Slater or Blair Cramer Manning, or Annie Lavery where those names have clearly become their common names. Kendall, for instance, has two common names now: Kendall Hart and Kendall Hart Slater. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your new query on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Tenney

You are correct that she is better known as Carly Snyder. Feel free to move that article to its correct title.

Also, when you know without a doubt that an article should be moved, just move it. It's only when you move an article simply due to a recent name change that I (and Wikipedia policy) have a problem with. Or even when the name change is not that recent but is still not that subject's common name. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Taylor

Please stop moving the Karen Taylor article over to Karen Winters or Karen Taylor Winters. We go by common names here. The character just got married to Neil Winters a few days ago. A few days does not make her common name Taylor Winters. Her marriage is mentioned in the article and her full name is in the introduction. It is not necessary to move her page to a new name that she is not commonly known by.Rocksey (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, I almost (only by a slim margin) cannot believe that you are up to this moving business again against common name policy. Saying that I will seek you be blocked if you continue this is not a threat; it is my being fed up with your doing this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Griffin Jr

Please do not add this character to any page. It was a 5 second joke character and will never be mentioned again. CTJF83Talk 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ashley Abbott, you will be blocked from editing. Rocksey (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Ashley Abbott. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Rocksey (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Your talk page is littered with warnings about improper page moves dating back at least 2 years. Enough. If you move another page in violation of WP:Common names, I will block you myself. AniMate^draw 07:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about moving articles without discussion first, and yet today you moved Nora Hanen to Nora Hanen Buchanan. It's clear that you were anxious to change the character's name because of yesterday's wedding, but too lazy to pursue the Assisted Move that would be required to move it to Nora Buchanan (which has edit history). Do us a favor, don't move articles. Period.— TAnthony^Talk 05:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

In light of the many warnings which you have ignored, I have blocked you for 2 weeks. Please take this as a strong warning that you need to reform as an editor here. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]