Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, default is KEEP.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an attempt to build consistent guidelines for articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] 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)

[edit] Romantic moments section

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)

[edit] 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)