User talk:Radiantbutterfly

Hello
It's good to work with you on the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. However, I must point out that the reason I take out mention of fans being treated to the storyline, and other mentions that go too much into how popular the couple is...is because Wikipedia requires that Wikipedia articles have neutrality. And also, when discussing the storyline, it's more so to focus on the plot, not fan reactions.

I made a mistake in part of the editing that you reversed, but I'll fix that now. See you on the editing side.Flyer22 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to sign my name earlier. Remember, when talking on talk pages, to sign your name using four tildes ~.

Unspecified source for Image:EJami.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EJami.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have updated the page. I hope the information I have provided is sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Thanks! Radiantbutterfly 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EJami.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:EJami.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the license information. It is a publicity still. Please let me know if I am still missing required information. Thank you! Radiantbutterfly 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Helped out image problem

 * Hey, I gather you noticed, but I took care of that image problem you were having with the introduction image of EJ and Sami in the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. Flyer22 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
How do you put a comment after your edit like in your last one you put "removed fan reaction to keep neutrality". How do you do that Antigone28 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

When you edit, there is an "edit summary" box below the edit box where you can put your comment. :) Radiantbutterfly 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiantbutterfly
I'm going to add a Cultural Impact section, in which the controversy will be integrated into. Also, the Fan reaction part can be added into this section, if you want to add it back.

What I'm going for with the EJ and Sami article is something similar to the J.R. and Babe article (in which I created), which was cited by two well-respected, experienced Wikipedian editors as the best a soap couple article can be on Wikipedia. Another similar article to J.R. and Babe's article format is the Zach Slater and Kendall Hart article. I fixed that article up. Your article is going to need more formatting, just like most other soap opera couple articles here at Wikipedia do at this moment until they are fixed up. Also, the two sections about character details that you have within the EJ and Sami article isn't needed. I'm not certain when I'll begin to overhaul the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, but leave primary wording you have within the article, of course, but I wanted to inform you of this first. Flyer22 18:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Knowing the opposing fan base that will cause so many problems. So many, many, MANY problems.  JR and Babe aren't controversial whereas EJ and Sami are and the article has already been attacked.Antigone28 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Flyer22 will take that into account Antigone. We can hopefully all work together to ensure the final article is fair but informative. That is my hope anyway. I think it is important for us to have a neutral party helping with the page - it will help us to see things from a different perspective. The person attempting to edit the page now has an agenda - they want to forward one opinion as fact and given that the EJ and Sami article is the only one they have edited, they registered specifically to mess with this article because as we know, fans of one side of this debate get very upset when the other point of view is presented in an equal way. They want to ensure that any discussion on the issue leans more to one side of the debate than the other and I'm hoping that the veteran Wikipedia editors will help us if this person continues their sabotage/vandalism of the article. Radiantbutterfly 02:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the faith in me, Radiantbutterfly.

And, oh, for the record, J.R. and Babe were hit with controversy, but that's explained in their Cultural impact section, as well as in their Popularity section, though I would say that E.J. and Sami are more controversial. Flyer22 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I do like your JR and Babe page and I am hoping that by the end of this summer, we will have a lot of magazine and poll references to add for EJ and Sami. I would also like to start building a list of references that have been made since last summer. There appears to be a bias with SOD and SOW against EJ and Sami but still, they have been mentioned as a couple in the past few issues even though they aren't together. TV Guide's Daniel Coleridge (sp?) did do an interview with Ali Sweeney where she made some comments about the pairing and up to a point, he did appear to favor the pairing but I'm not sure there is anything we could really reference to add to the article. I'd have to dig it up and check. EJ/Sami did win one published SOD poll last year before "the" scene and in a recent issue, it was about a 50/50 split between EJ and Sami and the other Sami pairing. This probably doesn't mean anything as far as this article is concerned but EJ and Sami garner more votes in a couple of the day vote at a website called Fallin' than many couples from more popular soaps and they even won couple of the day once or twice (I'd have to dig up the references for that as well if that was relevant). Because of internet spamming though, most polls are meaningless - the rival fan base has even admitted to cheating on the Fallin' poll just so EJ and Sami don't win by enlisting help from other fan bases and even from fans who don't watch Days (I've never seen anything like the EJ/Sami/Lucas fan war - it can be really vicious at times). Anyway, based on recent spoilers and rumors, I'm hoping things are going to continue to improve for EJ and Sami on the show so we should see more and more support and more recognition as the months go by. Radiantbutterfly 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
hello radiantbutterfly I just wanted to tell you that I love your EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page and that if you ever need any help editing it or fixing it, I'd be more than grateful to help you. Greetings and salutations form a fellow EJami fan.Perfecttlovee 8:20 June 30 2007.


 * Thanks, yes I try to check the pages often and try to keep them neutral. Especially Sami and EJs indivial pages. I would be more than glad to help.Perfecttlovee

Love the way that you debate
I love the way that you debate, Radiantbutterfly. To see most of the editors debate in a level-headed way within a deletion debate, without throwing out condescending remarks, or getting too riled up in anger just makes me all the more appreciative of debaters like you, especially since I recently have not seen that with another deletion debate I was in.

Anyway, it's apparent that the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article will be judged a keep. Good debating. Flyer22 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I apologize for not trying to alert you to this myself, if you felt that I should have tried. It's all explained in that link. Flyer22 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:SantoDiMeraPic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SantoDiMeraPic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article more than usually

 * Hey, two editors made different changes to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, mainly in the form of screenshots, but I changed the article back to how it was before, except for one screenshot and a change of side (left or right) for one of the other screenshots. However, an editor has added an image to EJ and Sami's controversy section that you may not like and is most likely to make other changes without consensus that were already agreed upon to remain as they are by you all. So I know that you'll want to head over to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article to check what I speak of out. This message has been delivered to both of the other two editors who have worked hardest on this article as you have. Flyer22 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Flyer. Your attention to this page has been greatly appreciated. I noticed that things calmed down for a few days over the weekend but I guess I need to watch it daily again. I just wish that other fan base would give it up and work on fixing their own couple's page. :( Radiantbutterfly 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't really have a preference on either couple. I think EJ is an interesting character, and I don't think he's beyond redemption, but I think it's wrong when his fans will try to gloss over his past crimes (saying he didn't rape her is just as offensive as the whole "Luke only seduced Laura" fiasco). --Silvestris 14:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly care about your preference - no one is trying to gloss over anything. There are a lot of fans who do not agree that EJ raped Sami for very good and logical reasons whether you agree with them or not and there are many actual rape victims who find it equally offensive that anyone refers to what happened as rape given that Sami consented to sex and EJ did not force himself on her. No one has implied or said that EJ seduced Sami and I doubt anyone ever will. BOTH points of view are presented in this article and unless they change the scene somehow, BOTH points of view will continue to be given equal representation in this article. You must respect that a lot of people do not agree with you on this so pushing your point of view is against Wiki policy and it would be appreciated if you did not attempt to turn this article into a biased article supporting one point of view over another. I don't watch GH so all I know about Luke and Laura is that they are a supercouple and that everyone agrees that Luke raped Laura. Not everyone agrees that EJ raped Sami so the situations are completely different. Radiantbutterfly 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * James Scott thinks it was rape.
 * And regardless of whether it was or wasn't (and notice, my caption for the screenshot said "EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006", not "EJ about to rape Sami"), one screenshot of the incident is relevant for the section discussing said scene. --Silvestris 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And James Scott is entitled to his opinion just like I'm entitled to mine. I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong just that the scene is viewed differently by different people based on what was written and depicted. I get that people feel strongly about this one way or another and that is why the controversy is discussed in this article but this article should not be used to debate the issue. No one's opinion should be promoted in this article. Also, no screenshot of the "incident" actually exists because the show chose not to show what actually happened - Sami's face before or after whatever happened is not relevant to the section and does not belong in the article. Radiantbutterfly 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more than Sami's face; we see EJ putting his hand on her neck and kissing her.
 * And once more; the section discusses the scene. Therefore, a screenshot of the scene is relevant. The caption makes no judgement on the scene; it doesn't say he's raping her. --Silvestris 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the image is of such poor quality that all I see is a darkened version of Sami's face. Sorry but your image adds absolutely nothing to the article. The section is discussing whether or not what happened was rape not whether or not Sami looked like she was enjoying EJ touching her neck. It was discussed and agreed awhile ago that we would not include images in the Cultural Impact section. Please respect that decision. Radiantbutterfly 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone's at it again. If you get back around, you need to go to the page and the discussion page so you can weigh in on the changes and mass quantity attempting to be removed.CelticGreen 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiantbutterfly, I responded to your latest comment about this article on its talk page, of course. Flyer22 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's plot summaries should be in present tense, as is addressed in this link: WikiProject Soap Operas. That's why a little after you first wrote this article, I changed its plot summary to present tense. Okay, okay, I know that link states preferred. But a good (or great) formatting style for Wikipedia is considered to be when an article's plot summary is worded in present tense. Flyer22 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's interesting because it sounds completely wrong and unprofessional to me. All of the plot being described has already happened so I'm curious as to the logic behind the Wikipedia policy. I definitely disagree with it but I guess I have to respect it. Radiantbutterfly 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one of Wikipedia's main reasons for that policy is that "Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read. They exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to 'now'. Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense."

If you haven't read up on that yet, more can be read with this link. I was opposed to it at first as well, but now it seems really right to me, perhaps because I'm used to it now. But having the plot in present tense, with the year in which it happened if it's a soap opera (though years are not usually needed for present tense of film plot summaries), as to clarify that it's not happening now makes a lot of sense, considering that just as if watching a movie, a television show, or a play, it really does seem as though it's happening as you read. I know that you don't like it yet, but you might get used to it as I did. Flyer22 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

File:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:BradyDimeraPromo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)