Talk:Sami Brady and EJ DiMera

Seeing a serious problem

Over use of the words "recently" with no date is causing me confusion and I know this couple's time line inside and out. We need to use wording that includes at least "over the summer of 2007" or "in May of 2007" to point out specifics. Sami and EJ have not "recently been scheming" that was back over the summer and winter is almost here. As we go along, this article is needing more and more definition, not less. IrishLass0128 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. Yes, fix the overuse of that word. Flyer22 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll get dates and date ranges to fill in where the words "recently" and "often" and other ambiguous phrases are used. Thanks IrishLass0128 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Romantic moments section

Resolved

The current formatting of this section looks absolutely ridiculous and I tried to fix it but IrishLass undid my revision. I know IrishLass' opinion on this so can someone other than IrishLass please weigh in on the change I made and if you agree with her that removing the space messes up any other formatting, please clearly indicate why because I do not agree. Neither way puts the pictures alongside the appropriate bullet point so the objection to removing the space makes no sense to me. The way it is now looks like someone forgot to delete a space - it is unprofessional looking. Radiantbutterfly (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On my screen when you remove the space, the text tries to wrap around but it doesn't work and the section becomes extremely long and the picture tries to float in the middle of the screen. The picture, where it is now with the space, is flush right all the way to the side and this style is "in line" with many other articles, an example being the Supercouple page where all pictures are flush right or left. Having the picture "float" in the middle of the page is unorthodox at best (something I've not seen before). On my screens there is no extra space so I don't know what you are seeing. It is not about it being inline with the bullet point, it's about it not floating in the middle of the page. I have screen caps, but I don't know how to add them. IrishLass (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

After some thought I went and looked at the article via IE and that seems to be the issue. I've moved the picture down and it is now flush right but there is no space on either IE or Firefox. I think it was simply a matter of moving the picture down and not inline with such a long bullet point. How does it look now to you, RadiantButterfly?IrishLass (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked and it is fine now, thank you. I use Firefox at home but IE at work and I usually check Wiki from work. Radiantbutterfly (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

It appears that this article may have been the target of editing by one editor using multiple accounts over the last year, in a way that might be considered a violation of Wikipedia's policy on alternate accounts. I would appreciate if someone familiar with the editing history of this article could weigh in at the investigation page, to offer assistance in determining how many accounts may have been involved. Thanks, Elonka 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) The User:KellyAna and User:IrishLass0128 accounts were determined to be likely sockpuppets. The KellyAna account has been permanently blocked from Wikipedia, and the IrishLass0128 account has been blocked for two weeks. If there were any previous discussions about how to handle this article that depended on opinions from those accounts, the two accounts (possibly three including Antigone28) should be regarded as a single editor. FYI, --Elonka 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to clean this up.

I'm new here and I am trying to clean up some articles about Days Of Our Lives and I started with this article. I removed statements like this- To be compared to such a power couple 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. That is a POV statement. The Soap Opera Weekly magazine did not state this. Since the magazine did not state that, I am guessing that a fan, while well intended, wrote it. Problem is, it is not a neutral statement. I am trying to make this, and other Days articles not be full of fan cruft like the above statement, and for the article to have a neutral POV.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are User:c, I want to point out that removing all information about the rape controversy because you don't like it is not how Wikipedia works. Not only was that material properly sourced, it is about the only thing that makes this couple WP:Notable. You could have removed the fluff without removing that material. It doesn't matter if something is the POV of the magazine. You credit the magazine, its editor, or both, and leave the material in. This article has no chance of remaining on Wikipedia without that information. So you either need to add it back, without all the fluff, or I will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the material back (without the unsourced commentary),[1] per my statements above. It's a big part of the couple's critical reception, and the only thing making this topic notable...if anything at all does. For you to have removed all of this material, while leaving most of the positive information in, makes me think that you are more of a fan (of the couple) than anything else. If a fictional couple is controversial, and that fictional couple has a Wikipedia article, that should controversy should be in their Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: KronoKrista replied about the removal here, where I replied in turn. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady → EJ DiMera and Sami Brady – Obviously, she is often referred as "Sami" more than "Samantha". Can we keep the surnames or scrap them into EJ and Sami? --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the last names, per other fictional couple/supercouple articles. If they were as well known as Luke and Laura, just as "Luke and Laura," then I'd be fine with scrapping the last names. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What about "Sami" vs. "Samantha"? --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't comment on that because I don't have an opinion on it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

---

EJ DiMera and Sami Brady → Sami Brady and EJ DiMera – Sami has been a major character, and EJ just came along. Although EJ is given major storylines, Sami is the love of his life and has been through other lovers, like Brandon and Lucas. --George Ho (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sami Brady and EJ DiMera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116014522/http://www.greyempires.com/index.php to http://www.greyempires.com/index.php/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)