Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady/Archive 2

message: I'm sorry but I'm getting really tired of the back and forth on this particular page by people claiming to just want to help improve the article when there are so many articles on Wikipedia and even among the soap opera articles that are in far worse shape than this one and this one clearly has quite a few editors working hard to improve it already. A real and conscious effort is being made to bring this article into compliance with all Wiki policies. Yes, I was new to many policies when I started this article but I have been learning as I go and I thought this article was in pretty good shape. Much better than some other articles that no one has taken any interest in. Why is that? The interest in this article should be cited as proof of the popularity of this couple and the level of controversy surrounding the couple. I just don't understand why so many people have such a keen interest in this article when there are already several editors involved with this article several of whom are not members of either "fan base".
I'm just curious what brought the new IP address editor to this particular article if they didn't have any interest in the subject of the article. I have no desire to have this article non-compliant with any Wiki policy and I think I've conveyed that through my explanations of why I've made certain editing decisions. Even when I haven't agreed with a point, I've tried to edit the article to respect the point of view and ensure that the language used is not biased.
As for "some"/"many" etc. I don't really care - it's just a word to indicate that not ALL viewers see it the same way. I never imagined that such a minor thing would become a major issue with this article. It is a fact that not all viewers saw the scene the same way. How would you convey that if not by saying "some"?
As for the "potential supercouple" phrase used at the beginning of the article. I think it should remain for the simple fact that a respected soap magazine compared the EJ/Sami relationship to Luke and Laura who are certainly considered a supercouple by anyone's definition. This comparison, for me, makes the "potential supercouple" comment valid. Radiantbutterfly 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are so many people interested in this article? 

message: Since nobody has objected to many of the points I made days ago, I'm going to start implementing the uncontested ones. It's completely irrelevant WHY somebody decides to edit any particular article, as long as they abide by the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia articles. For the record, however, I will say that I couldn't care less about the controversy and the arguments one way or the other. 24.6.65.83 02:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And they've been reverted with the, IMO, misleading edit summary "issue is being discussed on talk page of article" by an editor who hasn't discussed them on the talk page. There have been no comments on the proposed changes in over a week, indicating the discussion is stale. Anybody care to revive it so we can move forward on improving the article rather than simply blocking ANY progress? 24.6.65.83 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked over the referenced WP:MOS.  What section do you feel justifies the changes made today?  I did not see anything addressing specifically your changes, 24.6.65.83.  I also saw that it says WP:MOS is a guide, not a mandate.IrishLass0128 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the sub-article WP:HEAD, third paragraph of the section entitled Wording, where it says "Avoid restating the subject or article title, or of an enclosing section in headings. The reader assumes you are writing about the same subject, so you need not refer to it again, thus, 'Early life' and not 'His early life'." 24.6.65.83 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line by line comparison part 2 

message: Another editor just reverted the article to a form that contains huge amounts of fan speculation and unsourced statements. I'd like that editor to explain why phrases like "some believe," "many viewers (not all) saw it as" and "many viewers" are preferable to a sourced document that cites third party references. 24.6.65.83 18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I’d be perfectly happy to remove the entire section about the controversy but I know that we would have even nastier edit wars if we did. I would prefer to bring what we have into compliance and I’m hoping the reference I provide will be sufficient to end this debate. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ok, I removed most of your back and forth but I just wanted to say that your attitude here leaves something to be desired. I respect your knowledge of Wiki but your sarcasm is unnecessary. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I think there should be some way of sourcing message board content especially in an article like this because the opinions of viewers are being discussed and the best and most reliable source for viewer thoughts and opinions is soap opera message boards. I would recommend sourcing several though because it could be argued that one particular board is more biased a certain way than another. A sampling of several should provide an accurate representation. That said, I would not support message boards as a source of anything other than the fact that certain opinions do exist. Whether they are majority or minority opinions should not be stated unless there is a more concrete source available. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Message boards are generally considered questionable sources because of the lack of editorial oversight and the possibility that the board may be biased one way or another. Virtually every discussion I've seen has ruled out their use as sources for fan opinions (I can't think of one case where their use was accepted). The usual argument is that if something has enough of a fan base for opinions to be notable, then that will be reported in third party publications. 24.6.65.83 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have is that my opinion DOES exist (I hold it so I should know) but the soap opera magazines to date, refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn't mean that it isn't a fact that some people hold that opinion. I just think the reference to, as I said, multiple message boards should be enough simply to prove that an opinion exists but nothing more than that. That said, that talk radio show podcast I mentioned does provide both points of view so maybe that will be sufficient for the article. Radiantbutterfly 13:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isn't if the opinion exists, but whether or not it's noteworthy enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. Let's face it, everybody has opinions about lots and lots of things but many/most of them aren't encyclopedia worthy. That's why the standard for verifiability is reliable third party sources. Hopefully the podcast will meet that standard and we can move forward with the article. 24.4.252.58 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert by CelticGreen

message: *Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. Also, the character of EJ is going through what some believe is a classic soap redemption and Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before. She has not yet forgiven him for what he did, but the story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
*Recently, viewers have been shown scenes depicting EJ and Sami scheming together. The Suds Report: May 28, 2007 wonders if NBC is redeeming EJ. Sami is being shown to trust him a little bit more than she did before although she has not yet forgiven him for what he did. The story is leaving it open for that to happen as indicated by former Co-Executive Producer Wyman.Soap Opera Digest, "New Twist in Days's Most Controversial Tale", week of July 17 2007.
I contend the second is the better of the two because it provides a firm reference for the "redemption" rather than a vague "some believe," doesn't rely on the phrase "classic soap opera redemption," and doesn't start two consecutive sentences with a single word/comma combo that is stilted and awkward. 24.6.65.83 03:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have no objection to this change. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody objects in a day or so, it will be implemented. 24.6.65.83 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  Radiantbutterfly's English sounded so much better.CelticGreen 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to address the uncited "some believe" language? That is completely against Wikipedia policies of Original research and Verifiability and still has not been addressed after 11 days. Pairadox 02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redemption

message: *This was a notable speech in this pairing's history because many viewers (not all) saw it as the first time a suitor of Sami's had expressed this level of acceptance of her true character and because it was the first time EJ revealed to Sami that he had feelings for her that extended further than just physical attraction.
*nothing
Where to begin? No citations to back up the claim it's notable, I guess. Then we get to the weasel words that are so weaselly they even have a parenthetical qualifier. Contentious does not equal notable. It's dependent on Original research because it requires an editors judgment of what exactly is "this level of acceptance." 24.6.65.83 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I propose: “This was a notable speech in this pairing’s history because it embodies the sentiment of acceptance that later dialogue confirmed was Sami’s primary reason for not killing EJ when she had the chance.” Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't address the claim of "notable speech" not being referenced. 24.6.65.83 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you are talking about "romantic moments" you cross into an area of personal preference.  What some find romantic, not all do.  When the wording was differnt there were multiple changes and edit wars.  The addition of the wording as is has eliminated this warring.CelticGreen 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again the issue of citations for "notable speech" have not been met. Would you care to address them, rather than citing personal preference and pandering to edit warriors instead of adhering to guidelines? Pairadox 02:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable speech

message: *Even with this seeming attempt to clarify the issue, an elaboration of the scene itself through flashbacks is likely the only thing that will convince many viewers to change their minds one way or another about what happened.
*nothing
More weasel words and original research. It draws conclusions about 1) the motivations of the show's creative team, and 2) what will "likely" change viewers minds. 24.6.65.83 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do not agree that this comments on the motivations of the show’s creative team in any way only on what viewers would need to gain closure on the whole issue but I agree that this is my opinion and I do not object if the consensus is to remove it. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so it will come out unless somebody else offers up a better suggestion. 24.6.65.83 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: <sigh> You do not own the article, and you do not get to dictate what stays and what goes. If it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it needs to go. Please address the article in light of these guidelines. Pairadox 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third request:The statement is still not in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Please provide citations that state 1) "this" was an attempt to clarify the "issue", and 2) an elaboration of the scene is likely to be the only thing that changes viewers minds. Pairadox 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: *Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide as to the subject of the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline, even referring to it as rape himself, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:
*Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide about the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline. He referred to it as rape, though also commenting on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami:
The first is a run-on sentence. "As to the subject of" is awkward phrasing and overly verbose when "about" will do. "Even referring to it" implies that this is an extreme statement, while "he referred to it" is more neutral wording. 24.6.65.83 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I appreciate the kind comments about my writing style by CelticGreen but I actually didn’t write this paragraph and I agree with IP address (it would be a lot easier if you registered a username by the way) that the original was messy. I would propose only a slight further change:
*Actor James Scott, portrayer of EJ, was interviewed by Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide about the highly debated EJ and Sami storyline. He referred to it as rape but also commented on how he truly believes that EJ is in love with Sami. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your wording even better. 24.6.65.83 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A portrayer's thoughts

message: *Days former Co-Executive Producer addresses EJ and Sami controversy
*Days former Co-Executive Producer
Simple Manual of Style edit. Basically, there is no need to repeat the name of the article or the superheader in a subheader. The entire article is about EJ and Sami, the entire section is about the controversy, so the MOS says to leave them out. 24.6.65.83 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do not object to this change. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another couple of days for further comment... 24.6.65.83 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the wording was simple, there was multiple edit warrings and changes that included the word "rape" and caused the article to be non-neutral.  Adding the 5 additional words has eliminated the edit warring that previously took place.CelticGreen 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you thought about simply adhering to the guidelines, which would eliminate the need for the redundant, wordy, and out-of-guideline header? Pandering to other editors POV edits is not the way to improve the article. Pairadox 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days former Co-Executive Producer

message: *Some viewers who do believe that EJ raped Sami, and magazines, such as Soap Opera Weekly (editorial in magazine week of June 11, 2007), are comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura from General Hospital (see section below, Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy). Luke and Laura became a supercouple in part due to a reworking of the storyline as a "seduction", even though it is currently an undisputed fact that Luke raped Laura. Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers, to be compared to such a supercouple as Luke and Laura arguably shows the potential for EJ and Sami to become a Days of our Lives supercouple, in spite of the controversy surrounding the pairing.
*nothing
The entire section looks to be an argument that EJ and Sami have the potential to become a supercouple. A comparison in Soap Opera Weekly is being used as evidence to support the theory, not as a source for the theory. I personally don't care one way or the other if they are, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox to present evidence for an unpublished theory. As WP:OR says, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." In this case, the source does not say that EJ and Sami are a potential supercouple. That appears to be a conclusion of the Wikipedia editors. 24.6.65.83 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I disagree with you here and I would like to hear a few other editors weigh in on this one. The comparison was made to a supercouple so I think the conclusion is valid. Why would the article compare apples and oranges? Comparing EJ and Sami to Luke and Laura put them on the same level and that level in soap opera circles is “supercouple”. Again, I’d like to see a few more thoughts on this from other editors. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Luke and Laura comparison

message: *Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy
*Soap Opera Weekly opinion column
Again, another WP:MOS edit. The entire section is about the controversy, so repeating it in the subheader is not necessary. 24.6.65.83 04:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I do not object to this change. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one I'm implementing now. It's such a silly thing to put off any longer. 24.6.65.83 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, what? 24.6.65.83 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. Please explain why guidelines should be ignored in this case. Be explicit, and understand that pandering to others POV edits is not a good reason. Only be adhering to guidelines is this likely to stay NPOV. Pairadox 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soap Opera Weekly opinion column related to the controversy

message: *Some viewers agree with the opinion presented by the author of the referenced Soap Opera Weekly column, but others do not agree that the controversial scenes are being glossed over by the soap operas in question. As yet, no publication has addressed this opposing point of view or the issue that in all 3 cases quoted in the column, the male character is going through or has gone through a character redemption. This is of no consequence to some, but is a key point for others.
*nothing
I think the second sentence sums up my objections to this when it says "no publication has addressed this." This is the very definition of WP:OR; "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." 24.6.65.83 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don’t have time now but I will read the policy on this and comment on this point later. Radiantbutterfly 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. 24.6.65.83 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SOW column agreement

message: *It seems that an editor, User:Zelse81, has redirected the EJ Wells article (the one about this fictional character, of course), which also caused its deletion.
I will have to take care of this matter to ensure that the EJ Wells article about this fictional character is restored. Flyer22 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a mess! It looks like the real culprit is User:Loreleishannon and User:Zelse81 only compounded the error. Anyway, the EJ Wells article has been restored. 24.6.209.4 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's great that you caught that and managed to restore it. I wish I had time to keep a close eye on a few articles on here but I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with this one! :) Radiantbutterfly 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EJ Wells article 

message: Simple answer ~ some, not all.  Some viewers see what happened between this couple as romantic, others do not.  Some see what happened as rape, some do not.  There is no conseses on this couple's history therefore the word "some" has been placed in the article to appease people who do not think this pair is a couple or romantic or that the sex was rape.IrishLass0128 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:AWW. Pairadox 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: It's not that some [people] see what happened between EJ and Sami on the night that is questioned as rape as romantic (I know that the viewers here of the show, from whichever fan-base or no fan-base of the show, that I've talked to don't/didn't see it as romantic), it's that some [people] don't see it as rape. Anyway, I understand your point on this matter, IrishLass, of course. I was only clarifying. However, Pairadox makes strong arguments on the matter of Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Flyer22 ~ While she may make a strong argument for an article about a willow tree, I do not feel she has an understanding of this particular couple/issue.  There are several as I count editors that disagree with her edits, yet she continues to make them based on her belief of the motives behind the original reverts, as she has indicated she has not "gotten over" those reverts.  And while she has presented no other editor who agrees with her, she continues to make changes.  As someone who watches soap operas, you and I can hopefully agree that not everyone agrees what is good and bad on a soap and "all" viewers rarely, if ever, agree on the likability of a couple.  Regardless of popularity, there will be SOME viewers out there who disagree no matter who the couple.   That said, AGAIN, the word SOME in this particular article is appropriate.  And I've read WP:AWW that says its a GUIDE, not a mandatory formatting rule.  That's where the perverbial wiggle room in this article comes in.  It also states that using SOME is acceptable and will not be removed.  First paragraph example of the city of Montreal. A pronouncement that Montreal is the best city in the world will get removed; an innocuous note that some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world may not.IrishLass0128 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting rather frustrated by the constant reverting to unsourced and tag-free versions. Simply because one editor declares an issue has been resolved does not mean that it is, especially when the truth is apparent in the edits and on the talk page. What part of WP:V is unclear or merely a guideline? I don't care what some viewers believe or don't believe; I want to see citations that state this is what they believe or don't believe. Even if you ignore the "guidelines" about weasel words, Verifiablity is NOT a guideline, it is a policy that needs to be followed. Pairadox 20:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just because ONE EDITOR says it's wrong, doesn't mean it is.CelticGreen 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some 

message: Whether or not repeated use of "some viewers" (and variations), without attribution, violates Verifiability policy and Avoiding Weasel Words guidelines. 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * So why aren't letters printed in the "viewers voice" columns of Soap Opera Digest not counted?   There have been countless letters of varying opinion on both sides.  How does that NOT equal "some viewers"?  IrishLass0128 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment:Some viewers 

message: I forgot to login earlier - in case anyone is wondering, 74.113.157.178 is me. Radiantbutterfly 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that was you?! I apologize for changing your edits where, in the Controversy section, you put the popularity sub-sections first. Flyer22 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  74.113.157.178 

message: Given that it has now been confirmed through recent scenes (Sami kissing EJ) and spoilers that Lucas and Sami are breaking up (Sami will ask for an annulment) that the show will be giving EJ & Sami a chance, I think the popularity of the couple is actually more significant than the controversy now. The show has obviously acknowledged that they believe the popularity of the couple is enough to overcome the controversy. This is why I swapped the 2 sections within the Cultural Impact section. Radiantbutterfly 13:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must state, though, that I feel that the controversy of this couple is still more significant, as, in a way, it is also what gave them bigger cultural impact than what they would have had at this time without that controversy. But I'm not truly against you swapping those two sections around. Flyer22 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy of the couple is what gave them bigger cultural impact but I think it is their popularity that created the controversy. I did not want to push for this before the show changed direction on the pairing because I figured that would create more headaches with the article but my feeling is that if everyone hated the pairing, the show would not have even considered putting them back together and so the controversy really wouldn't have existed. The controversy is primarily over whether or not the pairing is "acceptable" and since it does appear based on recent scenes and spoilers that the show is going to give them another chance, I think that the popularity has won out over the controversy...for now anyway. It's a soap so everything could change tomorrow depending on the writer's whim and what the producers feel is the best direction for the show. Radiantbutterfly 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of "controversy" when can we get that stupid "attribution needed" removed?  Explain to me WHY so I can understand it, WHY can't thousands of opinion and rebuttle letters addressed multiple times in SOW and SOD not count as sourcing on the fact that there is a division in what some believe and what others do?  SOW has addressed it.  TotalTVOnline.com has addressed it.  Major publications acknowledge not everyone believes what happened December 29th is cut and dry.  Why are those stupid "notations" still there and how can we fix it?  I asked before but the question has never been answered.  IrishLass0128 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because all letters prove is that certain individuals believe one thing or another - it can't speak for large numbers of people. We have no idea if those letters are representative of a larger population, if they are isolated opinions, anything. All we know about is the individual who wrote that particular letter. Anything else is speculation on the part of Wikipedia editors. Pairadox 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some can be as few as three.  That's the point of what the passage says "some people" saw it one way, other another way.  So if more than three people saw it one way "some" is justified.  And it was specifically said that they receive many, many letters by the editor.  More for EJami than for LUMI.  And you didn't answer the question asked.  And in case it wasn't clear ~ I was asking Flyer22 the question.  NOT YOU. And it's not for any other reason than I've heard and don't accept your reasons.  I want Flyer's opinion on the subject.  You've repeated yourself enough, I get it.  What I want is another opinion.IrishLass0128 19:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If three people saw it that way, then undue weight is being given to their opinions. Cite the editors of the publications, not the letters, and cite them properly. Finally, you don't get to dictate who posts to this talk page. (Or your own, for that matter.) If you want a personal message from Flyer, send him/her an email. Pairadox 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect here, saying "some" people saw something a certain way does not give any weight whatsoever to the statement. Saying "a majority" or "most" or "many" gives undue weight. Saying "some" is actually very accurate. Radiantbutterfly 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've not told anyone named Pairadox to not post on my page, you have me confused with someone else.  Sorry if you're offended by the phrasing of the question but it was directed at Flyer22 because I know your answer and you're just repeating yourself.  I did not "dictate" anything, that seems to be your thing.  You're dictating who can edit this article and have scared off editors from doing so.  I just asked a question looking for a NEW answer.  You've answered the question ad nauseum repeating the same answer.  Of course, I understand why people who not want to deal with you.  I've been warned by others, I should have listening. "Some" was just a point, you shouldn't take things so seriously.  But, fine, I'll not ask any more questions or bother with this article again.  You win.  Congratulations.IrishLass0128 22:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice parsing of the language, but it's clear from this deleted section of your talk page that you did tell me to "go away" (even if it was directed at an IP address I used before registering for an account, I made clear it was the same person). It's not about winning, it's about creating the best article possible. Pairadox 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine, whatever.  As I repeatedly said, you are not someone who is pleasant to deal with and you can have this page.  I didn't lie, or parse the language (whatever thar means), if you were the IP I didn't know when I wrote what I wrote.  I did a control F to find your name.  You showed up once, and I did check the deleted content.  Have the page, you've not improved it. Butterfly and Flyer improved it, you just have been hassling other editors who want to improve it but don't meet with your idea of standards. No problem, you win, have fun.  This article doesn't mean that much to me to deal with the likes of you.  Congrats again, you win. IrishLass0128 01:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I swapped the popularity and controversy sections again because I feel the popularity really is the more important of the 2 sections in this article. Also, I have added the reference to EJ and Sami winning Best Couple in SOD's Hot Off The Net poll. Radiantbutterfly 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IrishLass0128, as for the sourcing of this article, I don't have much different to "say" than Pairadox on that matter. I know that you wanted to "hear" something that was different on that front, but, really...it's as Pairadox states on that matter. I don't, however, feel that you should stop working on this article, of course. It's best if you continue to work on this article with us. Flyer22 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Flyer22 I guess I just don't understand, and this is not just something that would apply here, why a printed editorial which is titled "It's just my opinion" (or something very close to that) that is clearly only one person's opinion that gets published because she's a columnist counts, but rebuttal letters that are a sampling of a portion of letters received, do not count.  Do you see my confusion?  Both are published items, but only the paid columnists opinion counts.  Why is that?  Is that a better way a phrasing the question?IrishLass0128 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of popularity 

message: :Image:Tango1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bye, bye Bot, we got it covered.  Go away now! IrishLass0128 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tango1.jpg

message: I just wanted to know if her name could be changed back just to Samantha "Sami" Brady and remove Roberts now that she is divorced.Perfecttlovee 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering for this article it never should have been changed, I fixed it. IrishLass0128 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sami's last name