Talk:EJ DiMera

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 From [1], it lists his occupation as a racecar driver, but I do not know it if it's outdated or not.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)

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)

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)

On the April 10th episode of Days of Our Lives it was revealed that EJ's full name is Elvis Aron DiMera, not EJ Wells DiMera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypada94 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!! Now what you fools got to say? Like me and other users said, it is EJ DiMera. The King Gemini (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not reply down below where you were debating with me as an IP? What I have to say is down there. It is EJ DiMera, you say? Well, it is also EJ Wells...considering that fiction is always happening in the present. Meaning that when a person watches clips of EJ in his early years, he is known as EJ Wells right there for that viewer. Your main problem is that you often treat fictional characters as if they are real.

Your tone in how you respond to people on Wikipedia when upset (or, in this, case trying to gloat), with vile attacks, is highly inappropriate. You have been warned about that before. Keep it up, and you will not be on Wikipedia for much longer (especially if you keep moving articles from their common names). Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On July 12, 2012, John Black referred to EJ as "Elvis John," which of course makes sense given that the man's initials are "E. J." I think maybe the middle name should be removed from the lead, and the information about the conflicting middle names given for the character can be put in the "Backstory" section. Also, is there any source for the "Elvis Aron Banks" name? If the middle name was never used when the character's last name was "Banks," then is this really a valid construction? --DavidK93 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay, now even NBC cites him as E.J. DiMera. He hasn't gone by "Wells" for months and months, when is it going to be okay to move this? --216.141.250.216 (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The character going by a new name for months and months (when it is, after all, only months) does not make that name his or her common name. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What does? NBC crediting him as that? Everyone in the show referring to him as that? We have all that. What else do you need? Seriously, that's ridiculous. It's NBC's word against... yours, that his name is E.J. DiMera. Lucas' page has been changed to Lucas Horton, and he's way more connected to the last name "Roberts" than E.J. is to the last name "Wells". "Wells" is just a stupid fake name he used as a racecar driver so no one would know he was a DiMera. It's a pseudonym. It's not even his name.--99.141.243.137 (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not my word. Look above at Wikipedia policy about common names. The Lucas Roberts article will once again be changed to Lucas Roberts, as it should be.

In some more months, if EJ is still being referred to as EJ DiMera, then it may be okay to move this article to EJ DiMera or EJ Wells DiMera. But he had been known as EJ Wells for 2 years vs. now being known as EJ DiMera. Thus, I do not see how EJ DiMera is yet his common name (as in his most well-known name to the audience). Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been two months since then. He's still called E.J. DiMera on the show, he's still credited as E.J. DiMera in the credits, and the name "E.J. Wells" hasn't been spoken in probably about a year on the show. At what point do we cede the face that the name "E.J. Wells" is apparently dead, and he's E.J. DiMera now? --76.167.247.229 (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, we'll see. No matter that he's EJ DiMera now, he's still been known as EJ Wells longer thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He has? The first suggestion of making this page E.J. DiMera instead of Wells, came over a year ago now, and even by that point he'd been being called DiMera for a while. He's only been on the show since 2006 and it was in 2007 that the name "DiMera" started replacing Wells. And it hasn't been Wells for I don't even know how long. NBC credits him as DiMera, etc. The only place I ever see "Wells" used for him anymore is on Wikipedia. And this is all further exacerbated by the fact that there's apparently an actual "E.J. Wells" musician, who probably deserves to have this page to himself, instead of being relegated to "E.J. Wells (musician)" I just don't see the point in continuing to refer to him on Wikipedia with a name that he simply doesn't go by and hasn't for almost two years. --76.90.29.62 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the discussions above. Obviously...the name Wells had not started being replaced by DiMera that successfully in 2007. It has not been two years since he has gone by Wells, or even almost two years. Almost a year I will give you, sure, but he was still going by it/being referred to by it at some points in 2008. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in looking at this thread is there any but YOU who thinks he should remain Wells? You are the sole person arguing to every comment questioning why this is not changed. I think this is ridiculous and makes this page plain inaccurate. We're calling him something that no one else calls him. Why is that helpful or informative? I think a date should be set (a day in the near future, mind) where if he's not called E.J. Wells again by this time, this article gets moved. It's ridiculous that an actual notable person named "E.J. Wells" gets delegated to "E.J. Wells (musician)" so that someone who's not even called "E.J. Wells" anymore, can get this page. --76.90.25.172 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I go by common name policy, noted above. It is not about me, nor is it ridiculous. If Superman suddenly started calling himself S-Man and was then known as S-Man for a few years with no one calling him Superman anymore, would that mean that we should move his article to S-Man? Of course not. Why? Because Superman is his common name.

As for E.J. Wells (musician), this character had this article first. But this article could have easily been moved to EJ Wells (character) in order to give the "actual notable person" the EJ Wells title. In any case, you got your wish and this article is now titled EJ Dimera. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, are you King Gemini? I find it highly suspect that this article would be moved the same day you comment again about this and point a finger at me being the only one opposed to this move. If you are him, learn to follow Wikipedia common name policy and know that things should not be changed just because you want them to be. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I put it above I will put it down here to, On the April 10th episode of Days of Our Lives it was revealed that his full name is Elvis Aron DiMera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypada94 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic issues of this article

This article lacks real-world context and consists of only storylines, which violates WP:PLOT. Also, there are too many details about this fictional character. Also, currents sources may be unreliable and primarily affiliated with this topic. Reliable sources have yet to be found. I wanted to discuss this in any WikiProject, but any of their talk pages in this talk page appears obscure. --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

i agree it looks like its all unreferenced too. what did you want to discuss?? Bouket (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether I must removed the unsource statements, tag this article with PROD, or something else. Otherwise, first, we must find real-world context from third-party and independent sources to indicate this topic's impact on the media. I haven't been interested with this character, so I don't know what else to say or do. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: I think I cannot find reliable sources or significant coverages in Google to indicate notability for this topic. I barely have enough energy or interest to find sources in libraries. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's unbalanced: it needs the production information about exactly which episodes he appears in and which not, and for reception there's probably something to say about the critical views, though the sources tend to be only borderline reliable. Character articles, however, are essentially articles that tie the plot together: the subparts of our total coverage of the series, and NOT PLOT refers only to total coverage. . Myself, I find that the plot of a series such as this is much much easier to understand by going character by character than episode by episode. Going episode by episode has to deal with the fact the episode are written for suspense, and always leaves something inconclusive, and that series like this have multiple threads running at the same time. Wikipedia writes to be understood, andI think this means the arrangement of the material in a series must be divided up this way, If others think it better other ways, =let them write it the way they want--we're not paper. The wording seems a little diffuse, as is common for plot, and can be tightened by maybe 10%, though it's actually better than most--many need tightening by 50%. As for references, all it has to be referenced to is the original work--plot elements are best sourced from the work itself, except for interpretation. So just add the indication of just what episode the events come in. If I were a scholar of the subject I would want the exact timing for everything, but we usually do not go into such detail. There is, btw, no point tagging with prod, as episode article deletions are not uncontroversial and someone will surely remove the prod tag. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

...I have a tendency to remove all plot, but I can't yet until everyone agrees; unfortunately, everyone favors having fictional element first, which is very bad to begin with. I have tendency to tag it for deletion, but I fear negativity, despite my best intentions. Oh... if this article stays longer, then I won't know the real meaning of Wikipedia. However, this article does not meet the standards of encyclopedia. This character is significant to the DiMera/Brady feud, but no sources have covered him at all. Look at Marlena Evans; non-primary sources signify her notability, despite flaws in that article. Look at Mark Dalton (All My Children); short and stubby, but superior than a plot-only article like EJ article, right? Which one is more encyclopedic: this article or Mark Dalton? --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is desirable to find secondary sources for plot. It's certainly not absolutely necessary, for the work itself is a RS, but it is very helpful/ You assert there are none, but do you mean that there are presently none, or that you have verified that there are none to be had? Or are you actually asserting you can find no secondary sources this, unlike other characters in the series. Even without going further, have you checked the sources listed in the article you rightly like, to see if they cover this character also? DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: "Notability of this character is more important than the plot itself. I couldn't find sources that determine notability of this character. Marlena Evans and Mark Dalton are notable, and their articles resemble the standards of professional encyclopedia articles. This topic is not significantly covered in non-primary sources, and this article consists of only plots. I tried Google, but I found none significant. --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the importance of this character is greater than the plot--it can sometimes be so, but I agree with you it is very unlikely to be so in this case. I meant rather that often presenting the plot character by character is better than episode by episode, or at least complements it, and that we should do both for fiction that is worth the trouble. How they're divided up into articles is not critical; presenting the full information is critical. My objection to character lists is that they rarely present full enough information. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate "character by character" and "plot by plot" please? Do we already have EJ Dimera and Sami Brady? Well, I agree: character lists rarely present info, but they not yet have established notability as itself. There should not be currently list of characters without sources. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing we almost always miss about the rules on referencing is that references are only absolutely required when a fact is likely to be challenged. You don't have to reference that the sky is blue or that 2+2=4. Hence it is not acceptable to blindly remove all unreferenced facts. That said, the article as a whole needs a reasonable number of references in order to demonstrate notability and to provide a basic backbone of checkability. Two references is far too few for anything much bigger than a stub. IMHO, the plot stuff could all be removed - or at the very least, drastically pruned. When that's gone, we have to ask what "meat" is left. I suspect that at the end of that process, this article should probably be deleted - if there is so little written about this character - then it's hardly notable enough to be discussed here. Simply listing the plot points at which he appears does not constitute an encyclopedia article. SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! There is EJ DiMera and Sami Brady. Maybe I must merge/redirect this article into target. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

EJ's Paternity

And already the unsourced edits come claiming Stefano is not EJ's father. But was there a DNA test? This is retconned, and bad story telling in my opinion, as Stefano ENGINEERED EJ to be his son. I say in the infobox section, we don't change anything and add unnecessary parenthicals. Obviously, the show is expecting us to believe yet ANOTHER ill conceived retcon, just like John and Hope being married. But we, the editors of this article, have the right to put in what we want to, as long as we all agree on it. What does everyone think? Rm994 (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well first off, parenthicals are not allowed unless they label (adoptive) or (legal) or even (miscarriage); all others are not to be used. So why people continue to use them is beyond my imagination. Do I believe they're retconning the storyline? Of course! Do I believe Stefano is EJ's father? No. I never believed it actually. It didn't fit at all. I think until we go further into the storyline, we leave Stefano as the father. And DNA tests, in soap operas, really prove nothing. They can be changed months/years down-the-line. It's usually never a set-in-stone idea. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It was infact, revealed today August,21,2012 that Stefano IS EJ's father. Today Ian was holding Stefano and EJ captive in a room, and Ian admitted that he forged the blood work and Alice Horton's letter saying Stefano was not EJ's father. Ian went on to say at the very end of the episode to EJ that they (EJ&Stefano) are father and son in spirit and by blood. I guess whomever wants to verify my statement can watch Tuesdays August 21,2012 episode on the NBC website when they put the episode up for streaming. It's in the last five minutes of the episode. --98.87.91.193 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20130928213254/http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/tv-buzz-blogpost.aspx?post=62d4b39c-e9b3-4911-b476-0cf79e5ab753 to http://social.entertainment.msn.com/tv/blogs/tv-buzz-blogpost.aspx?post=62d4b39c-e9b3-4911-b476-0cf79e5ab753

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)