Talk:EJ Wells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Occupation

I added the information box, but I didn't know what to put for E.J.'s occupation. From [1], it lists his occupation as a racecar driver, but I do not know it if it's outdated or not. I'm unclear what is happening with Mythic Communications, so I don't know if he is no longer apart of his company or not. If someone could fix this, I'd appreciate it. --Miss Burkle 06:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soulmate

Can you guys please not put that EJ and Sami are soulmates the wiki page is suppose to remain neutral, not put the incorrect information. Please just give it time these two will be together but be right about the information.Perfecttlovee 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. It's biased and it can't be on this page. Anyone who does it needs to stop! I'm getting tired of switching it around. --Miss Burkle 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well said, Miss Burkle. Flyer22 10:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even EJami fans agree putting "soulmate" is wrong. I agree that that should not be put in the article.75.181.107.214 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Per NBC owner of the character EJ Wells name is EJ. It is not initials, it stands for nothing. It is his name. Please reference http://www.nbc.com/Days_of_our_Lives/features/dimera/ej.shtml where you will see his name as well as here http://iw.rtm.com/daytimefeud/videos.htm (bottom right video description of character name). Please correct from E. J. to EJ per NBC's naming of the character.75.181.107.214 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In the credits as of November 19, 2007, he is credited as EJ DiMera.Perfecttlovee (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AGAIN, not on my version. Common names are what Wikipedia goes by, not what EJami fans want. And, yes, Perfecttlovee, I know you're an EJami fan from an EJami board. CelticGreen (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am, wow you know all my information but yet I don't know anything about you. Thats rather creepy.I am fine with the comment name things, AGAIN I was just pointing out the change in the credits.I get it common names, yes I got it the first time and the next 5 times you mentioned it. I wonder when you are going to get that I was simply pointing something out not changing anything.Perfecttlovee (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Google! Not creepy. It's Google. I have learned to check a lot of people that comment/edit the EJ and Sami pages. You google. You have the same name at the EJami fan site as here. Not hard to learn about you. CelticGreen (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well its nice to know you have your own system of tracking people down. Still very creepy.
But anyways you can't see that information unless you are a memeber very interesting.Perfecttlovee (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Becoming a member isn't hard. But you can find you on google without being a member. And you're assuming Google was the only way I found out the info. We've had quite a troll problem here, of course I would see if there was additional information about someone out there. Check out User:Grant Chuggle you might understand why people would be suspicious. CelticGreen (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I am not a troll, and as you can see I did not change any of the information on this page. I did not edit any of it. All I did was simply state what I saw in the credits and see where it may lead.I haven't been in here recently but the people I usually interact with are very helpful.They are not quick to lecture me, but anywho I really don't care about how you get the info, Im just pleased that obviously I was important enough for you to look me up, and be well aware of my reputation on certain boards.Perfecttlovee (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Credits are independent based on location. The credits shown in Canada look nothing like what the credits in the US on NBC and those look nothing like SoapNet. The name is based on common name and the best source is the official website. Now I'm done repeating myself over this. Lastly, you weren't important enough for me to look you up, I knew you from FL and your stellar reputation is only in your head.CelticGreen (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I get that the credits are different. And for the last time I was not changing anything just pointing it out.Well I had no idea about my "stellar reputation" until you pointed it out in my talk page, otherwise I would have never known.Perfecttlovee (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romance

Please stop putting Bonnie, Chelsea, and Billie as romances. Bonnie and Chelsea grabbed EJ and kissed him, there was no romance. EJ kissed Billie to thank her. That is also not romantic.75.181.107.214 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • again, please stop putting Bonnie, Billie, and Chelsea as significant romances. If every person someone kissed was listed in "significant romances" the charcter pages would go one forever.65.13.237.254 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age

Soap Central is a fan site like any other. They are not prevy to "secret" information and has fan volunteers who create their pages. The birthdate listed at SC is a fan decided date, not one presented by NBC. They have been very vague about how old EJ is because of the SORAS situation and the ire it has created in some fans. At this time EJ's age and birthdate are unknown.65.13.237.254 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the birthdate listed for the character at soapcentral.com is one presented by NBC -- because it's the date that the character was born on-air (20 February 1997). They don't give an age for how old he is supposed to be now, only when the character was initially introduced. Unlike many other fan sites, soapcentral.com is one of the few that is officially sanctioned and has a direct relationship with NBC. Their information regarding characters comes directly from what is presented on-screen, which cannot be said of many fan sites. D'Amico 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, soapcentral.com is not sanctioned by NBC and their information is often inaccurate. They've often called for fans to help update character profiles. A sactioned site would not ask for that and would spell the name the same way NBC spells the name. The date of 1997 is not in dispute by this editor but there is another editor who keeps changing the date to 1979 and assuming the character's age now.CelticGreen 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is sanctioned, but that's an issue for another time. ;) Technically, the site does spell the name the same way that NBC does -- end credits show that he is listed as E.J. Wells. NBC is inconsistent with the way that E.J.'s name is referenced -- he has been listed as both EJ Wells and E.J. Wells. D'Amico 06:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Editted/updated to add: That's the downside of soaps. Even they can't decide who their characters are. ;) D'Amico 12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Use of the word Fictional

As the article starts out with the indication that this is an article about a fictional character it is redundant to use the word again and again in the article. It is clear that this is not a real person and the information in the article is about fictional character. Other pages for characters do not include an over use of the word. I feel it is unnecessary to do so on this page.IrishLass0128 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with IrishLass. Redundancy is not appropriate in a Wikipedia article. This article does make it clear that it is a page for a soap opera and that the characters are fictional.

[edit] Victums

For one, it's victims. Two, EJ has not been charged with any crime so you can not put assumptions. You can only put verifiable information into a Wikipedia articleCelticGreen 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EJ/ nonsense.

Can I have a link to this glorious discussion where EJ was said NOT to be a rapist. Sami said he did, Roman did, Lucas did, the man himself said he did. And I know if I pulled this in real life I would be a rapist. I just have to see the justification and fan wankery on this.70.19.29.65 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

haha, nevermind. I found it. lol. This is fantastic. 70.19.29.65 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"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 former 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.” Wow, and this why I will never officially join wikipedia. Characters say scene is the one thing, the script implies the very same thing, it seems blatantly obvious, the executive producer verifies it and yet because the fans/wikiphiles say it is not so it simply is not so. Thank you Wikipedia for once again proving your worth. 70.19.29.65 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The rape is addressed in the EJ and Sami article, you are free to edit that article. A concensus was reached to not include EJ in the catagory of fictional rapists as there is still question in regards to the incident, the full incident was never shown. ADDITIONALLY, the quote is from a VERY FIRED bitter executive and the new executive is taking the story in a very different direction. CelticGreen 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is that it happened, it was rape. The characters say it was rape! How can it not be? Does he have to hold her at gunpoint? Oh yeah he kinda did that. Knife point? Does he have to jump from the woods? Does it have to occur on Lifetime, where every woman is raped? I don't see why EJ can't be included in "fictional rapists" temporarily until it is proven that he did not do so (or retconned), almost everything implies it was rape from the crying to the testimonials. I have no agenda, I'm just perplexed by Wikipedia. I will retract my statement about the producer if it's true. Off Topic: Consensus? A consensus is used to keep order not determine facts. It seems to me information is decided by popular vote rather than being verifiable. When Jack dies (again lol) he should be listed as deceased, not MIA because we know (more or less) he is coming back and a consensus is reached that Jack is in Hawaii. 70.19.29.65 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue, as I see it, and yes, opinion could be used there, is that EJ has not been convicted of rape, it is hearsay. It's he said/she said. He only said it when pushed. Sami says it in defense but has told GOD that she made a deal. She said she would do it again (most rape victims wouldn't say that) and it wasn't until Celeste said it was rape that Sami started calling it rape. Since Ed Scott started the "r" word has only been said once, unlike under Wyman's control where it was spinkled like candy falling out of pinata. That aside, she did unzip her own shirt, he did not have the gun to her head (btw, I appreciate you acknowledging that he didn't exactly have the gun to her head, most seem to insist he did when in reality it was not in his hand at the time), and she did conscent, even though it was unpleasant. Is he a rapist in the purest sense of the word? Not as I see it. He did give her a choice. Did she really have one? That is one thing I don't think a consensus will ever be reached on. I'm no expert, I understand consensus to mean an agreed upon resolution to a problem. You make an intelligent argument, far more so than some I've encountered. I do see where you are coming from. It's a difficult issue at best. When Jack raped Kayla, we saw it, it was rape. When December 29th happened we were left with a gaping hole as to what really happened. In the end, it's hearsay. Legally, he didn't rape her. Emotionally? I still see it as up in the air. Wyman's words at hand are difficult to accept as they were said as he was on his way out the door. It's also difficult that it was said in SOD a publication wiht a strong bias toward it being rape, (see many Carol Hinsey editorials). He could have not even used the word, but we'll never know.

So, with all that said, I am just going by what others agreed to. But I understand your argument. Thank you for presenting it in an intelligent manner.CelticGreen 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Kate Roberts

"An affair is an affair?" No, an affair is generally thought of as a long time occurrance between two people in love when it comes to soaps. EJ and Kate technically only did it once so techically they are either a one night stand or short lived affair but they are not simply an "affair." The section is to describe a character's relationship and generalized terms do not do that.IrishLass0128 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WELLS

As far as NBC is concerned, he's still Wells [2]. Changing and moving is not based on policy or NBC. KellyAna (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He's also credited here as Wells, and here as Wells. Moving the page goes against policy, WP:Common names, and NBC's own page. KellyAna (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This page has now been fully move-protected for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)