User talk:Esse123

Hello, Esse123

• Don't remove a great deal of content from the supercouple list within the Supercouple article here at Wikipedia, without providing a valid reason or some type of reasonable reasoning for removing a great deal of content. If you don't provide a valid reason or some type of reasonable reason when removing a great deal of content from Wikipedia, it is considered vandalism.

• Also, stop adding your opinions to the article EJ Wells and Samantha Brady. Wikipedia is not such a place for such biased opinions. I will have to go and fix all of what you did to the EJ and Sami article now. Refrain from that. Flyer22 09:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just read over the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article after your edits, I suppose I'm fine with your addition to the controversy section. While reading over it in history mode of reviewing the edits, I thought that you had added your own opinions to the controversy section. Sorry about that. But you did re-word a few things around in that article as to how you feel on that matter, which would be bias, and Wikipedia doesn't generally want that. Anyway, EJ and Sami are still a popular couple, which is why they are mentioned in the Supercouple article. They are not called a supercouple directly in the Supercouple article. See you around. Flyer22 09:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Esse123 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I don't totally know how to reply to these or send you a response so I'm just typing it here and hope you see it. Yes, my additions to the EJ & Sami article are not my opinions, they are events and behaviors occuring on the show. I deleted that paragraph of the supercouple article because it seemed to me the source sited was not legitimate and the conclusions drawn from it were totally someone's opinion. If you actually look at the source sited, it is not an "article" but in fact an e-mail sent by one person to a soap opera website. It was not anything written by a journalist or any statement made by a legitimate source. The conclusions the author came to base upon that source seemed all a matter of personal opinion.

• Okay, Esse, I saw your response. I just put it back above this response. It was like a hidden message. Of course, I'll see your response, if you type a message on your talk page or my talk page. With the EJ Wells article or the Sami Brady article, it has been generally agreed upon by some Wikipedian editors to use the term "forced sex" beside their relationship of each other in their Flings and romantic relationships section, because not all people agree that it was rape in which EJ did to Sami that day. Thus the wording "forced sex" is a tad more neutral, even though one could say that it means the same thing, it still has a tiny bit of room not to necessarily mean rape.

As for removing that part of the Supercouple article, if it's just a fan's thoughts and not the site's thoughts, then what would need to be removed is that supposedly sourced reference, not the entire paragraph about there being some instances where a character is equally popular in two romantic pairings that are not a love triangle. When responding or leaving a message on Wikipedia's talk pages, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this...~~~~...next to your posts, without the periods being beside the four tildes, of course. Flyer22 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Esse123 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC) But if the source sited is deemed insubstantial, then the discussion about those particular characters becomes one person's thoughts. The general statemnt about equal popularity of couples though no love triangle exists, okay perhaps I shoudn't have deleted that. But there is no evidence that the characters used as examples of this - Lumi and Sami & EJ - share equal popularity, as is stated. Many would dispute that statement, the evidence sited to support it is not legitimate, and it is one person's thoughts. This is why I deleted it and why I still believe it should be deleted until and unless a legitimate source can be sited.

• Yes, I understand your thoughts on that matter. But if we can find a legitimate source for that statement, then that part of the section can stay. We should try and find a valid sourced reference as to that, and if one isn't available, then it's best to remove that part of the article that you mention should be removed. Also, Esse, it's better to sign your posts at the end of your comments rather than the start of them. Anyway, I'll see you around later. Flyer22 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good to hear that you're considering removing it considering the lack of evidence to support it. Incidentally, that same reference was used to support this statement in the EJ & Sami article..."...even as a wedding between Lucas and Sami neared, soap opera site soapdom questioned whether or not Lucas and Sami are truly more of a Days of our Lives favorite couple over EJ and Sami". The poster is clearly taking license with this statement as the site does not question this AT ALL. Oh yeah and FYI, I'm still learning how wikipedia works so if I break some rule or offend in some way, it is not intentional. My goals are simply to create a more fair and balanced portrait of what is going on with these characters both onscreen and off. Esse123 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote that. I didn't look over that wanna-be source well enough when having been asked for my help on the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, and I assure you that I was not being biased in writing that. But at one point, somewhere at the top of the (what I now see as an) email, it did seem as though the site itself did question whether or not Lucas and Sami are truly more of a fan favorite couple over EJ and Sami due to that email they received. Anyway, I will remove that from the EJ and Sami article. And, as mentioned before, I will see if I can find a valid source for the above concern we mentioned within the Supercouple article. If I can't find a valid source for it, I will remove it and probably find some other way to work EJ and Sami into the Supercouple article since they are a popular couple, and some of us other Wikipedian editors already had to deal with newbie editors just popping up and adding them to the Supercouple article. If we remove EJ and Sami from the Supercouple article completely, then most likely we will see some more newbie and or random Wikipedian editors add them, and most likely to the wrong part of the article, so it's best that we avoid that.

And, yes, I know that you are here on Wikipedia to be a good editor. Thanks for joining as a Wikipedian editor. And if you ever need help on something on Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to ask me. I just now read the email that you sent me, but we've already discussed the issues within that email here. And as a piece of advice that an experienced Wikipedian editor gave me around my first few days here as a Wikipedian editor, make your user page, Esse. It's best that your user name show up in blue ink than in red ink here at Wikipedia, which will happen once you create your user page. Blue ink gives off more of a "real editor" vibe to usual and or experienced Wikipedian editors. You don't have to create some very detailed user page. You can simply say "Hi" on your user page, save it, and then your user name will show up in blue. Flyer22 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, flyer22, I truly appreciate it. I'm sorry to hear about your plans for the Supercouple page. I disagree with keeping references to EJ & Sami on that page simply because some active and determined individuals refuse to let up on adding them. I believe giving in to that kind of behavior compromises the integrity of the article. I know I personally was shocked to see references to them made on the site while there were no references to other Days Of Our Lives couples who have arguably been MUCH more popular and existed onscreen longer than one year. Bo/Carly, Bo/Billie, Austin/Carrie, and the Philip/Chloe/Brady triangle come immediately to mind. These were couples that never reached supercouple status (though many would argue Austin & Carrie did) and wouldn't be referenced in an article about supercouples, but again were more popular than EJ & Sami and whose storylines lasted much, much longer. In the case of Austin & Carrie, their story spanned nearly 15 years.

And yes, I'll create a page for myself. Thanks for the suggestion. Esse123 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not looking to keep EJ and Sami in the Supercouple article due to a few newbie editors who may add them back. No way, not just any couple can be put in this article, and if we let up on people who were wrong, yes, that would and does go against Wikipedia's integrity. I was just pointing out that EJ and Sami as a couple will most likely be added back in some wrong way, and since they are popular, it is the reason that they are mentioned in the Supercouple article at all. But, anyway, I'll talk more with you when needed. Flyer22 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but there are many couples who are popular, more popular than EJ & Sami - who are actually no longer a couple and haven't been since last fall - yet are not mentioned. I guess I'm just not clear what criteria their mention is based upon, especially when couples like Austin/Carrie, and other more popular couples, are not referenced at all.

There is a very loud, very active online community campaigning for EJ & Sami to be paired. That does not mean that a reference to them in an article about Supercouples is appropriate or even makes any kind of sense. In my opinon, there are too many other couples/triangles that should be referenced long before any mention of EJ & Sami. I guarantee the majority of readers are not going to understand them as a reference for anything, both within the Days Of Our Lives viewing community and outside of it. Esse123 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable couples

You are completely correct that there are many popular soap opera couples, just as the Supercouple article states, which is why, out of all of the popular soap opera couples, only notable popular soap opera couples can appear on Wikipedia. By notable, I mean, something such as what Wikipedia:Notability states or what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states. If you take a look at the articles J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey or Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone (two articles in which I created), you'll see that they are noted in outside (non-soap opera) press. It's rare that a soap opera couple would be featured in a celebrity dominated magazine, thus J.R. and Babe being featured in a celebrity dominated magazine proves their notability, that their dynamic is recognized by more than just the soap opera media.

Also, when it comes to fiction, Wikipedia doesn't want articles that are just a plot summary, and articles that are just a plot summary will be deleted from Wikipedia. Well, the fictional character articles usually aren't deleted only for that reason, if they are just plot summaries, and even though Wikipedia doesn't want articles that are just a plot summary. But the soap opera couples will be, if they only provide a plot summary and no real-world context. At this time, I've saved three supercouple articles that were up for deletion here at Wikipedia: The Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article, and the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt article, which, by checking the talk page of each of those articles, you can see how they were spared from deletion. I fixed them up to include real-world impact in which proves their notability by Wikipedia's policy. I also saved the J.R. and Babe article, though that couple would be more so called a popular couple rather than being called a supercouple (yet). And the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article was almost deleted as well. It was spared, and I'm certain that my additions to it helped it a little (or a lot, without sounding too ego-driven) in surviving. While EJ and Sami as a couple haven't been cited in non-soap press, unless you count Sympatico/MSN/TV Guide, they do have a noteworthy controversy that ties the two together. The popular couples you mentioned above are most likely not mentioned in the Supercouple article because they don't have the notability standards that Wikipedia requires.

At this point, I have to fix up all of the articles (that I haven't fixed up yet) of soap opera couples that are mentioned in the Supercouple article. Some may not be able to provide notability by Wikipedia standards, and if they don't, they will probably be deleted one day from Wikipedia, and that could be soon for some of them, if an editor here at Wikipedia tags one of those articles for deletion.

As always, I'll talk with you when needed. Flyer22 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• It seems what you're discussing here is the existence of an article for a given pair of characters. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm not arguing for the deletion of the Ej & Sami article (though I do believe it's a highly misrepresentative, biased article with a very narrow view of the characters and their relationship). I'm talking about the deletion of their presence in the Supercouple article (the paragraph I deleted when I first got here) because they are in no way relevant to the Supercouple discussion. Just being "notable" by Wikipedia's standards does not mean they are a "supercouple" or are even close to being in the running as a Supercouple. Any discussion about EJ & Sami as a "couple" in an article about Supercouples, compromises the integrity of that discussion. Especially when so many legitimate couples who have reached far greater standing are not mentioned. In short, it's just plain ludicrous seeing them mentioned in the Supercouple article - it makes no sense and casts a shadow on that article. Again, this is why I deleted that paragraph in the first place and why I don't understand the reasoning behind keeping it there.

Oh yeah, and that doesn't even take into account the whole issue of how unreliable and solitary is the source sited.Esse123 07:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Esse, no, I haven't misunderstood what you've stated. No, it's not silly to have EJ and Sami mentioned in the Supercouple article. It doesn't insult Wikipedia's integrity at all. The Supercouples today section of the Supercouple article addresses popular soap opera couples in today's decade or the 90's, and EJ and Sami are a popular soap opera couple in today's decade of popular soap opera couples, as well as noteworthy, which is the main reason these couples are mentioned in the Supercouple article. Of course, not all popular soap opera couples who have been more popular or are more popular than EJ and Sami can be mentioned within the Supercouple article, but such a controversial couple as EJ and Sami does give ground to notability, not just by Wikipedia's standards, though by Wikipedia's standards, they still need to be cited in outside (non-soap opera) press, such as by a non-soap opera magazine or non-soap opera site addressing them in full to be considered truly notable.

And I must say that I don't see the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article as biased, when it puts forth both sides of the debate. Even before you arrived here at Wikipedia, Esse, it fully adressed the controversy surrounding EJ and Sami and that not every audience member sees it as a rape and that not every audience member sees it as a deal. However, I respect your thoughts on this matter. Flyer22 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, Flyer, someone keeps changing the section I added to the EJ & Sami article trying to minimize the emphasis on Days calling the incident between them as rape. I added that emphasis specifically because there's an underlying tone throughout the article that the incident can be interpreted in different ways and that some people believe it was never the show's intention to portray it as rape. First of all, I think the only section of the audience who are interpreting it as something other than rape are those who want the two together at any cost. The vast majority see it as rape and so does the show, which is why I think it's important that the emphasis stays. It is a direct response to the previous statements in the article that the incident is, as some would like to believe, "open to interpretation". I'm not sure if you're the one doing the editing or not but I wanted you to know my position on it. I don't want this turning into some petty back-and-forth where somebody keeps minimizing the fact that this is a statement from the show about the rape and the fact that it was rape and then I have to keep going back and changing it. Esse123 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm not the one changing what you were just speaking of. To check who is making the edits of an article here at Wikipedia, though, from reading your posts below, it seems that you have become aware of checking the edit history, all you have to do is click on the history tab at the top of any article or talk page on Wikipedia and can click on last (which means last edit) and you can see the difference and or differences made, to which you can revert most of them, although not in one day. Be careful of the three-revert rule. If an editor reverts another editor's work more than three times in one day, the editor in which did the reverting more than three times can be blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Statement" regarding rape

Days has made no official statement regarding the rape. There was a mention of the rape in an article about the Colleen and Santo storyline; and while it's appropriate to have Wyman's quotes, it is not appropriate to call Wyman's comments an official statement by Days. Please discontinue changing the title in the article. I would be happy to post the correct and full article since there appears to be a misunderstanding on your part as to what the article was truly about.75.181.107.214 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• despite your personal opinion, you cannot emphasis the rape when the article was not about rape.

The word "statement" has been changed to "quote". The emphasis on the word rape, and that it was mentioned four times, is in direct response to previous discussion in the article as to whether or not the show intended the events to be portrayed as rape. It is highly relevent given that questions have already been raised in the article whether or not the show believes it was rape. This is not my personal opinion, these are the public words of the Co-Exec. Producer of the show and the fact that he uses the word several times is highly relevant to the article. Esse123 23:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article was not about the rape. It was about Santo and Colleen and your are discounting that for your own purposes. The editor, Flyer22 has told you the decision has been made to keep the article neutral. The title of Soap Opera Digest article about Santo & Colleen addresses EJ & Sami controversy keeps the article neutral which you refuse to do and references the actual article.75.181.107.214 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article is about the rape or not, the rape is an ongoing topic throughout the EJ and Sami article. The quote is relevant, as is the fact that he stated it four times. It is brought up in the Ej and Sami article that there are questions about what the show's intentions were in writing the scenes. The entire article about Colleen and Santo is not as relevant to the issues already discussed in the Ej and Sami article as is the single quote from Stephen Wyman. He uses the word rape - this is not in dispute. If the Co-Executive Producer publically refers to the incident as rape four times then it should be pointed out if the article is to have any credibility whatsoever. Esse123 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And I do believe the word "quote" is much more neutral than "statement" which is why I changed it. Esse123 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken the issue to Flyer22 as she has tried and tried to tell you about neutrality and you seem to not understand that. The article IS NOT about the rape and the number of times Wyman is quoted as saying it is NOT relevant. Emphasising the number makes the article quote non-neutral.75.181.107.214 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will wait to see what Flyer22 has to say, of course. But I've explained why the emphasis is there and why it is important to note given the questions raised in the article. Esse123 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why in your opinion it is important. You are determined to create an edit war regarding this. While I have no problem with the quote being there, your repeated insistance in making the article non-neutral goes against Wiki's standards. The article quoted is not about the rape. The addition of speculation ~ on your part ~ of people's feelings is also not neutral. You need to allow Flyer22 to handle this situation as she is the most neutral person on the subject.75.181.107.214 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is non-neutral, but of course that is up to Flyer. I believe it is directly related to what has already been written. It's been noted that the debate continues despite contiued use of the word. The fact that the Co-Exec. Producer uses the word publically, not nce but four times is relevant. The word "speculation" has been changed to "debate", which has been used before. Esse123 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speculation/debate is not accurate and is emotional and not relevant to the article. THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT COLLEEN AND SANTO, not about the rape. You obviously do not want Flyer22 to help as you continue to change the article to suit your personal beliefs. 75.181.107.214 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "debate" has been used before in the article it is not one that I am introducing on my own. If you take issue with the use of that word, it should not be with me as it has been used before. The subject of the SOD article is not relevent. The EJ & Sami WIKIPEDIA article brings up the "debate" about the rape several times, including the fact that the debate continues despite continued use of the word on the show. Therefore the most relevant portion of the SOD article to the EJ & Sami WIKIPEDIA article is the quote from Wyman. As I have said, the fact that a prominent producer on the show publically refers to the incident, not once, not twice, but three times is relevant regardless of the overall topic of the article, though of course the topic of the article is noted. When Flyer22 comes online she will share her views and I will share mine. Esse123 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can't even count apparently. Regardless, you should let Flyer22 fix the article, not you. She has been an intragal part of formatting the article, you are subjecting your opinions on everyone with the inclusion of your supposition.
• It is obvious you have no desire to keep the article neutral. I will report this to Flyer22 and let her deal with you.

Excuse me, four times. If you check the history of the edit, you will see that Flyer saw my entry, was quite familiar with the entry (did a grammatical edit) and apparently approved of it. She apparently did not deem it as non-neutral. Esse123 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• actually she approved RadiantButterfly's version, not yours. It is obvious you joined merely to ruin the EJami page with your own personal agenda. Your contributes page indicates your single goal is to ruin the page.

Look at the history. I submitted an entry 23:13, 26 July. That was the last major entry. After that, Flyer22 performed several grammatical edits. GRAMMATICAL edits only. Then YOU changed the entry. And then we both started behaving like children editing it back and forth. Esse123 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I stand corrected... Someone else did make some changes AFTER Flyer had apparently already approved my entry. I changed it back to what Flyer had apparently approved and then you started changing it. That is the history. Esse123 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• You submitted a LUMI bias version of the article. The article and title was corrected. You are obviously determined to ruin the page with your opinion.

Regardless of how you feel about the entry, Flyer approved it as neutral. If you have a problem with it, you need to take it up with Flyer. Esse123 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• No she did not. YOU have changed the original entry multiple times including YOUR FEELINGS. Mind you, your feelings completely disregard others' feelings. You apparently have no regard for real rape victims that don't need to see the glaring word RAPE repeated again and again and put in bold. You are a selfish person and completely unaware of the word or concept of NEUTRAL. Not surprising as that's how most LUMIs are.

The only changes I made were in response to your complaints regarding the words "Statement" and "speculation". THIS is the entry Flyer allowed to remain after the grammatical edits and thus approved:

• Statement from Days re: the rape/Soap Opera Digest article about Santos & Colleen

• In an article in the July 17 2007 edition of Soap Opera Digest, Days of our Lives Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman four times refers to the December 29 2006 incident between EJ and Sami as rape. He is quoted as saying:

• "Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”

• The article primarily discusses the Santo/Colleen storyline in which the actors Alison Sweeney and James Scott portray two characters from the past falling in love. Soap Opera Digest points out, "this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in a less controversial tale".

I would be more than happy to return the entry to what it was previously and what Flyer22 had approved. Esse123 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm done with your selfish LUMIness. I've sent Flyer a comment with the neutral post without rape emphasized. As I said, you are a selfish person who obviously seeks to hurt real rape victims.

Neutrality

Okay, you two. I've looked over everything you two have debated here. Esse, since not everyone views what EJ did to Sami as rape, and the show has referred to it as both a deal and a rape, it is indeed not neutral to have the heading of a section with the word rape in it within the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. If that were the name of the magazine article included within that section, then, yes, it would be more accepted that the word rape be in the heading of that section, but that isn't the case here. So when I change that heading from mentioning rape, it needs to stay to hold neutrality. And, 75.181.107.214, perhaps it is not all that unreasonable for Esse to bold the word rape four times while mentioning that Wyman referred to it as rape four times, but I don't see an entire need for that either. Esse, you need to be careful not to impose your personal feelings on elaborating how Wyman feels. You may not like EJ and Sami having paired romantically, or EJ and Sami potentially pairing romantically again, but your personal feelings on that couple need to be left out of editing that couple's article, such as putting the word "rape" in a heading when the word "rape" is disputed as of what EJ did to Sami and that isn't the title of the magazine or tape that that section is referring to. Oh, and I've answered your other comments above that I hadn't answered.

If you two can't come to a compromise, I will need to tag the EJ and Sami article as being an article that has neutrality disputes...at least until what is best for that article is done on this subject we are discussing at this moment on this talk page. And here is Wikipedia's policy on neutrality...Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Flyer22 03:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your involvement, Flyer. There may be debate amongst some about what EJ has done to Sami, but I would think the words of the Co-Executive Producer of the show would carry a significant amount of weight in an "encyclopedic" article as far as the position of the show. It is mentioned in the EJ & Sami wiki article that for some viewers, the writing is ambiguous and that NBC states that Sami "obliged" him. It seems to me the words of the Co-Exec. Prod would be significant in responding to the "ambiguity" of the writing and just as relevant as what NBC has on it's website. It is also mentioned in the EJ & Sami wiki article that the debate is continuing despite the numerous referenes to it as rape by every character on the show who knows what happened, even the perpetrator. This makes the number of times Wyman uses the word "rape" relevant - it was not a throwaway statement or a slip, he stated it numerous times. I appreciate the efforts towards neutrality but just because the statement from Co-Exec. Producer falls along one side of the debate doesn't mean it's not important to recognize in the context of discussing this "controversy".

I would have no problem with the article being flagged as having neutrality disputes. I feel that the majority of the article is not neutral but did not want to argue it, so long as the statement from Wyman was recognized for it's import to the "debate". Esse123 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• The word "obliged" comes directly from NBC not from fans. Before EJ fled to Mexico, he accomplished one more thing that he was trying to do, have sex with Sami Brady. It wasn't the passionate exchange that he had hoped for, in fact, it was opposite. A giant beam had fallen on Lucas and Sami went for help. Sami came across EJ who was more then willing to help save Lucas' life, for a price. He demanded that Sami have sex with him and in exchange, EJ would come to the aid of Lucas and lift the beam off of his leg. A very reluctant and emotional Sami obliged. After EJ was finished, he returned to the cabin and lifted the beam off an unconscious Lucas, but that was all. Sami begged EJ to help take Lucas to the hospital, but it was too late, EJ split for Mexico. from http://www.nbc.com/Days_of_our_Lives/features/dimera/ej.shtml therefore it is not opinion but a "statement" from NBC. To leave the article completely neutral, you cannot add your thoughts on why the article was written. The article was about Santo and Colleen, not about the rape or Wyman's quotes. Your wording changes the tense and text of the original article. I have provided SUBSTANTIAL proof that the paragraph you insist on changing and adding your embellishment to is out of context and have tried to leave the comments but in their original text. You continue to add your thoughts as to why the article was written. I have mearly tried to be neutral. Petty? Fine! I'm only trying to be neutral and hence why I asked Flyer22 for help. She is the most neutral and she has decided on a title that does not include rape. thank you flyer!75.181.107.214 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I noted that the word "obliged" was used by NBC. I'm not sure what your issue is there, I never said the fans. I'm also not clear on what I've added that are my own thoughts. The quote is exact as it is. The emphasis on the word "rape" puts the quote into context with what has already been stated in the EJ & Sami article and the section on the "Controversy". It illustrates it's relevance and responds to previous discussions - that some viewers are debating whether or not it was rape and what the show's perspective is despite it being referred to as rape numerous times onscreen. The fact that Wyman used the word "rape" and only "rape" multiple times and never uses the words "deal", "indecent proposal", or even NBC's word "obliged" is relevant. As I said before, just because the man's quote falls along one side of the debate does not mean it should be declared as "non-neutral". The fact that the article is about Santo and Colleen does not minimize the import of that quote to the EJ & Sami wiki article. The context of the quote is not really relevant (though it has been noted). The quote was made, it was about what happened between EJ & Sami Dec. 29, and it was a quote by the Co-Executive Producer.

I'm content with what Flyer has decided. The body of the entry remains as it should have remained in the first place. Esse123 15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm not sure if you are able to read the entire discussion this individual and I had and I don't know what Wiki's policies are on personal, verbal attacks but I'd like you to make note of some of what was said. I apologize for my part in this petty back-and-forth editing, but there was no call for some of what was said to me. Esse123 04:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Flyer, address the personal attacks, especially the one where she calls me a child because I don't see any "personal" attacks on her. She's a LUMI. That's fact. I'm an EJami. Fact. Neither are personal attacks or deragatory. It is fact she feels an overly compelling NEED to emphasize the word rape and as a rape victim, that hurts and offends me. There has been many a discussion that the pushing of the agenda to "prove" what happened by some as rape has, indeed, hurt and offended real rape victims. The continued insistance by some to push the issue does hurt people. That has been said in actual interviews and podcasts. That is not a personal attack, it is an attempt to make people who are pushing the issue understand that they are hurting others.

The insistence that it wasn't rape is quite offensive and hurtful to many as well, I assure you, as is the insistence that Sami be romantically paired with her rapist. Many of those offended include individuals who ultimately don't give a whit if Sami ends up with Lucas or not. This is also documented in numerous places. Message boards, podcasts, and the actual printed article in Soap Opera Weekly that is sited on this board. Actually, now that I think about it...the entry siting that article completely misrepresents what is actually printed. Perhaps it needs to be changed to be more representative of what the article actually says. And yes, it is my judgement that some of your remarks against me are personal attacks. I don't know how wiki operates or what their policy is for this sort of thing but Flyer will make that decision. Kindly refrain from posting on my discussion board. Esse123 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• An OPINION piece is not an article! Sami was with the man she raped for years, and he had no choice. Sami had a choice and including an opinion/editorial that includes the statement of "no means no" is false and misleading as Sami didn't say no. Wikipedia is not a "board" it is an online encyclopedia. Your statement of "this board" shows you truly do not have a concept of what Wiki is about and you should not be editing articles injecting your opinion. The entry Citing (with a C not an S) the comment from Wyman is about Santo and Colleen. You're the one who chose to include it but do not understand why it should not be.75.181.107.214 22:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've formatted the new addition to the Luke and Laura topic within the Cultural impact section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. And, Esse, the Cultural impact section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article shouldn't ideally be all about the "is it rape or isn't it rape?" debate. Hold off on adding any more opinion pieces or any other further articles about what some people feel is rape as to what EJ did to Sami. More information regarding that topic can be added eventually, of course. But as it is now, it has too much focus on that, when other aspects of this couple can and need to be added as well. Flyer22 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer how are you? And yes, I saw the reformatting and appreciate your intervention. But I'd like to point out that I did not ADD the "opinion piece" to the section, it was already there as a reference. It wasn't I that deemed it a legitimate source for anything, it was already listed as a source. All I did was provide the text. I'd also like to point out that that "opinion piece" is not about the "is it rape or isn't it rape?" debate. There is a clear stance in that piece that it was rape; it appears they do not question that. The piece denounces the pairing based on their belief that it is rape. That is seperate from the "was it rape or not" debate. And also, I can appreciate what the Cultural Impact section would "ideally" be but from what I have seen, the rape issue has so consumed this "couple" that at this point all press about them references the issue. That has been my observation, at least. Just recently Carolyn Hinsey, Executive Editor of Soap Opera Digest states in her ongoing "Carolyn's Corner" featuring her opinions on Days;

"...I will never understand why soaps wreck perfectly good couples by having the man rape the woman. Or "sort of rape" the woman. "No" means NO, and once she says it he has to stop. This is why EJ and Sami won't work on DAYS,"

This was in the most recent issue, August 7, 2007. Of course it's part of an "opinion piece" and since I'm still learning the ropes here at wiki I have no intention of adding it. I will leave that up to you. But I am citing it for you personally because it illustrates the kind of press coverage EJ & Sami are getting lately. Again, from MY observations, whenever this "couple" is brought up in the press the rape issue is inevitably mentioned. And it's usually denouncing the pairing. It is not me that is focusing solely on this issue, this is the reality of what's out there lately in the the press.

Incidentally, I'd like to ask you once again what wiki's policies are on personal attacks. I have directed you several times to what I believe were unwarranted, verbal attacks against me by the other editor. Can or will anything be done about them?

Hope your screenplay is going well.Esse123 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Esse, yes, I am aware that that opinion piece has a firm stance on it being rape, but given that there is a debate as to the controversial EJ and Sami storyline, that is their belief, which is why I alluded to it being a part of the "is it rape or isn't it rape" debate. I also know that you provided the text, not the original reference to Soap Opera Weekly bringing up the topic of EJ and Sami as in reference to the Luke and Laura rape storyline, but the entire opinion piece didn't need to be added like that, of course. And on the topic of adding any more information about a magazine or some people feeling that it was rape as of what EJ did to Sami to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article here at Wikipedia already gets across that point and really doesn't need any more information on whichever magazine feels that it was rape or person who feels that it was rape...at least not at this time. And, yes, I know that it's not you who is soley focusing on the EJ and Sami controversy when it comes to people talking about that controversy.

As for the personal attacks topic that you brought up, I won't get too far into that as of what went on between you and 75.181.107.214. I'll instead point you to the Wikipedia policy called Wikipedia: No personal attacks. And thank you for wishing me success on my screenplay. Flyer22 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Flyer. I realize the entire text probably wasn't needed but given the "uproar" that occured when I included only a portion of another article, I thought it best to simply provide the full, original text and then allow you to edit it as you saw fit. As you can see in one of my previous entries on this discussion board, I felt the original entry that the source was used to support completely misrepresented the analysis the "opinion piece" offered about the EJ & Sami relationship. However, instead of editing what was already there, I purposely opted to ONLY include the full text (along with a short line introducing the text) and NOT edit anything any further. Perhaps this is not typical procedure but again, given that I am new here and given what I believed was an extreme reaction from another editor when I cited only a portion of an article along with what I felt was a fair analysis, I thought it best to make my contribution in that way. Please let me know if I need to alter that method in the future. Esse123 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:29Dec06.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:29Dec06.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)