User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 5

Dexter Episode List Please

Dear Editor. Pardon me, but I like to think that if the thought of added material appearing in one's article upsets one's aesthetic ideal of what constitutes proper "sections", the Editorial thing to do is to offer suggestions about better integrating said new material in a way more aesthetically pleasant- rather than simply reverting it, & thereby disappearing perfectly valid information. For instance, if there was any wild hair- one might just have well have deleted the section header as the list you removed, and retitled the section "Episodes and Plots". WP is after all a group creation. . .or do we see it more as a tug-of-war? "Quick Reverts" are for vandalism, not b/c we are puzzled by a contributor trying to be helpful. I'll thank you to replace any such reverts, or give a reason why the material should not appear in the article. I refer in particular to your removal of List_of_Dexter_episodes from Dexter. Good Morning! Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 23:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit from five days ago then I believe my edit summary was quite clear. If you take a look at List of Dexter episodes you'll see that there is no plot there, it has al been moved to the individual seasonal articles. So saying "go here for the plot" is misleading since there is no plot there. I also found the move of the links towards the seasonal articles to the bottom of the section unconstructive, someone looking for the plot might rather know about this before they start reading the entire section, and hat-notes are usually placed at the top of the page or section rather than the bottom. I wanted to use the {{For}} template but it only allows for three articles. Saying the episode list is orphaned is not the case, if you meant no link on Dexter (TV series) towards it, that's also not the case, it is linked in the infobox. While an extra link in the text would be perfectly fine, I do not believe the Plot section is the place for this since the episode list does not contain plot information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; Do Dexter titles refer to anything but plot?Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They are episode titles, that's not plot, the episode titles are meaningless on their own, someone who wants to know what happens will be nothing with just episode titles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You can do better! Youre stating "objections", & partisan opinions, as if one term inherently excludes others. Where is a reasoned answer to my question: What is the basis of Dexter titles? In some cases Title can tell us the bare outline of Plot most succinctly and relevantly. Other times they allude more to questions to be solved in the story. This is most true of course the earlier back in television history one looks for examples. And though I might agree the information which informs "titles" often refers to detail, a list of the episodes is obviously highest-level info- as your info box shows.

And as far as this list appearing elsewhere in the article: yes, I can make it out, squeezing into that extensive "info box". No doubt you will have your own research concerning comparable articles and target audience; but as a WP reader I typically find the episode information in the text. Would it influence you to know, as someone who lives away from WP &TV Guide that I find WP is by far the easiest way to obtain episode info online? I'm all for redundancy in itty-bitty info box font; but not conforming to general usage and expectation lost this user... & lost perhaps is how I shall leave. Bon chance with your article dear. I'm more comfortable with friendly editors who honestly invite collaborators, not style-fetishists who punish junior contributors b/c a rigid viewpoint gives it's own reasons. Quite enough of that going around in this world. Thank you, and- Au revoir? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 02:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The basis of episode titles can be anything, sometimes they're song titles from a band the creators liked, sometimes it a line said in the episode, sometime it refers to an event in the episode. But I'm at a loss at how someone looking for the Plot will be helped by "Hello, Bandit", "Practically Perfect" and "Beauty and the Beast". It's meaningless on it's own. If I were looking for the plot of a movie and someone gave me just the movie title I would be quite confused, and ask again for the plot.

I give you my opinion, you disagree, so you took it, correctly, more public to the article talk page, so I made my comments there as well so that the other editors would also see my reasoning, as obviously not everyone reeds my talk page. Do my opinions somehow offend you? I honestly have no idea were this is coming from. Normally there is some time to let other people read it and comment, apparently you are not interested in other peoples' comments as you're already taking off. How was I not friendly? How did I punish you? I'm truly at a loss over your reactions. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 02:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Constrastingly

Constrastingly really is incorrect usage in English. In contrast, or by contrast would be appropriate, and conversely is roughly synonymous. On the other hand, if you put contrastingly into the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it comes up as a non-existent word. You might want to check the limits of using the -ly adverbial form, which is not always grammatically correct. Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's weird, because it shows up exactly the same way as conversely does, under its basic form. Conversely has a to strong secondary and in this case wrong meaning, which contrastingly does not have. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it is incorrect. I do this kind of editing all the time. I changed it to "By contrast", which is correct, given your concerns about the incorrect meaning of conversely, although I don't see the difference. The expression "on the other hand" would work, too. (And do take a deep breath before you accuse me of making something up; you have a tendency to take edits a tad too personally.) There are a number of other, similar errors in the article that need fixing, but it will take a bit more time than I have at present. Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you're accusing me of making things personal, while I give you a link (did you even check it for yourself?) from the source you claim to say it shows up as a "non-existent word", and it doesn't. By all mean fix thing, but don't go making up stuff that the source you claim backs that up explicitly doesn't. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. I'm attempting to be helpful, and you're flinging accusations. Clearly, trying to deal with you calmly and reasonably is pointless; the only route to being right is for you to accuse me of making things up. If this is the way you want it, fine. Your choice, and yours alone, but you've made several other grammatical errors that need changing. Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not flinging accusations, that's telling the truth. If you say Merriam-Webster says it's an non-existent word and I check Merriam-Webster, and provide you with the links, and it doesn't say that, then I'm sorry but, you're making stuff up. That's pretty much the definition of making things up. And then you respond by saying I'm erratic and unreasonable… I'm well aware that I'm not perfect, maybe you should realize the same. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. You're not hearing a word I say because you're too busy being angry. As I said, your choice. Drmargi (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Whatever indeed, funny you keep ignoring what I say and the actual evidence and then accuse me of not reading your comments. I'm only trying to show you why I say what I say, be giving you your own references, clearly you are incapable of checking your own source. Please don't respond here again as you're refusing to have a discussion beyond telling me why you are right and I'm wrong without basis. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Nikita episodes

What ended a month ago? Jayy008 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the discussion. My bad. I just saw it show up in my watch-list, did you just make an edit to the page? Jayy008 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but this edit was reverted by Materialscientist, about half a day earlier. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Caprica Episodes: The final 5

A little while back you reverted an edit of mine with an edit summary that simply said "-original-". I decided not to question it at the time, but was curious as to whether you meant that it was original research (due to the nature of the source), or that we should rely on the original airdates, which, for the last five episodes were on Canada's Space. My understanding on the latter was that special mention would be given to airdates not in the country of origin, but would include the country of origin's later airdate as well. It matters because the Futon Critic is now displaying those titles for the airdate in question on their listings. KnownAlias contact 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The marathon is mentioned in the lead, shouldn't be adding multiple dates in the date parameter, especially if it says "Original", which can be only one. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. KnownAlias contact 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars galaxy

lol. Thanks for noticing my mistake on the Star Wars article. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No happy List of Medium episodes (season 7)

I feel like I have to apologize to you guys, but I didn't want this to turn into an actual petition for policy change; left a comment on her talk page to try to explain my own reasoning and distaste. KnownAlias contact 11:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you wanted to seek a compromise. Thanks for pointing that comment out. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Hey. Believe me, I totally understand and share your frustration over the image over at South Park (season 13), as I feel the fair use rationale was appropriate. But I'd really appreciate it if you would refrain from restoring the image as you did here. This article is the culmination of a lot of hard work, not just from me, but from other members of the WikiProject South Park throughout the entirety of the run of the season and afterward. It seems there is nearly universal agreement that the article is ready for FA except for this image issue, and as you yourself said in the last FAC, we "don't want to uphold this nomination based on this rather trivial disagreement". I'm bummed about the image, and I've actually sent out emails to the SP folks to see if they will agree to a license (but don't expect a response for quite some time, if at all). But in the meantime, I'm asking you that if you won't support the FAC, at least please don't start edit wars by readding the image, which will create stability problems and destroy its FA chances. — Hunter Kahn 18:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is highly inappropriate to remove the image when consensus was clear on its inclusion. You said that you respect consensus, but you clearly ignore it. While I think it's sad that the FAR failed, other issues were raised, like FL instead of FA, that caused it to fail. I won't re-add the image myself, but I hope you do and thus respect consensus. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merlin and other characters

Thanks for going over the articles and moving them accordingly. I had picked "(Merlin character)" as a way to maintain the consistency with Merlin (Merlin character), but I guess fixing them up based of the guidelines is even better. Cheers!
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 03:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast

Hello, was it you who told me that countries airing a series have to be notable and a link to the channel isn't enough? (referring to Nikita in your case). Jayy008 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Could have been me. In the case of Nikita, Horkana brought it up at the talk page, looking through the history at Nikita (TV series), I don't remember that I removed it at that specific article, but I have definitely removed such lists for that reason on other articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it was Horkana, thank you! Also, do you know where the guidelines are please? Jayy008 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

More in general WP:NOTABILITY or WP:STATS can apply. But there was a discussion about this a couple of months ago at WP:MOSTV, after the discussion I made a wording proposal. One person has agreed with it, no-one has objected for now, it's just simmering for a while to give others the opportunity to object or make modifications to it. It will most likely be added to WP:MOSTV relatively soon. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information. Jayy008 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

i ♥ muse

I'm a long time fan of Muse and had this urge to go create the article on their remake of Being Human. Much to my surprise the article was already there. I should have known since it is being shown on Syfy (silly name) in the US. Thank you for not being upset about me removing the nationality disambiguation tag from the article title. There are not that many people on Wikipedia who are also serious fans of Muse's shows so it can get complicated when someone (like myself) takes a show on Syfy (silly name) or ABC or ProSieben and adds a "made in Canada; produced by Muse" to the article and shatters the American status of the show. Crusoe (on NBC a couple of years ago) is another such Muse production. If you want to get into some less popular shows there is most of the Muse catalogue to improve from stub class or red link. Where articles exist they mostly say they are American productions for <insert American network/channel> so there is even that to fix. Some of them are good shows. Most are very hard to find even as bootlegs. Being Human is a rare instance of my passion for Canadian indie tv running into a major US cable channel's programming. If by chance you find you like some Canadian indie tv shows then there is also Indian Grove Productions to consider. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

and a belated

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

"The greatest gift they'll get this year is life." ~ Bob Geldof & Midge Ure

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

I was unaware that Being Human was a Canadian show, but then again a lot of shows are made in Canada and by Canadian companies that I don't know/care about, especially those on Syfy (indeed a stupid name). And as usual Syfy is doing like it's their show, just like they pretend that Merlin is their show by calling it "a Syfy original" just because they are the first to air the second season (not even first, which aired on NBC) in the U.S. I know Flashpoint and Lost Girl are all Canadian shows, other than that I don't really follow or care that much were a show comes from, as long as it's good. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Muse makes many shows people don't think have any connexion to Canada, which would help for international distribution. Setting Being Human in the US probably misled many people into believing it is being made there. Not sure it fits with your general preference for cops & the supernatural but if you can find it This Is Wonderland is a brilliantly executed 39 episode show about a new securities lawyer who gets dumped in the criminal court at Old City Hall in Toronto as her firm's token legal aid contribution. It was created by and mostly written by George F. Walker, a rather famous Canadian playwright. Fast paced and quirky; it isn't of the broad appeal that something like Flashpoint would get. If you can find it and you like it then there is 1 season on DVD (seasons 2 & 3 will be harder to find).
In other comments Haven (TV series) is a "Showcase Original" here in Canada but then Showcase also happens to be owned by the same company that produces the show for Syfy (silly name). You probably didn't miss it but the third series of Merlin was transmitted already; Syfy (silly name) will get to it in a few months i do believe. Series 1 was shown on CTV and series 2 was on Space here in Canada. I don't think CTV had the audacity to call it an original series. I add "(silly name)" or a like tag almost every time i write "Syfy" on WP or elsewhere because it deserves it.
Indian Grove has this show that started production a little while ago called King; it stars one of my favourite actors, Gabriel Hogan, whom you might know from the first episode of Flashpoint as the guy promoted (aka written out) when it went to series. There is no WP article for King and it is probably too soon to start one. [1]
I could point out that Warehouse 13 qualifies as CanCon but it is made for Syfy (silly name) by Universal and only recently was picked up by a Canadian network. But there are so many in that category it hardly merits mention. Enjoy Being Human. (silly sentence) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fear of a Bot Planet

Thank you for chiming in! Doniago (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You may (or may not) want to chime in here as well. The editor's claiming that refs don't need to be sourced since they're unlikely to be challenged, apparently overlooking the fact that by tagging or removing them we -are- challenging them. I pointed him to an example article showing that refs generally are or should be sourced, and also noted that my Talk page really isn't the place to talk about it anymore since we won't establish consensus. Your input would be welcome but I'd understand if you don't want to get involved. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Hey Xeworlebi. I was hoping to just encourage you to continue to review the South Park (season 13) article if you can spare the time. So far you've weighed in on the image, and as you can see, the debate has been consumed by the image so far. The FA delegate has made clear it will not pass unless the entire FA criteria is reviewed, so I was hoping would be willing to review it in terms of that entire criteria, and state on the page whether you feel it meets it and why, or whether you feel it doesn't and provide some feedback as to what needs improvement. It doesn't have a chance at passing unless it's reviewed according to the entire FA criteria like this. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Flashpoint ratings, season 1

So i am wondering what your thoughts are on using the BBM pdf of the weekly ratings from a website that was kind enough to keep a copy of them. This is specifically pertaining to the first 7 episodes which either have no reference or for which the link to the BBM site is now dead as they no longer offer the files of that time period. Just to be clear it is not all from archive.org. I went looking for ratings info on the 2003 outside hockey game between Edmonton & Montreal and stumbled into Canadian top 20/30 ratings for almost ever week going back to September 2003 (which i believe is when BBM started releasing the data in .pdf). You have done much with the Flashpoint list of episodes so i thought to ask your opinion. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a problem, I think it would be best to put those in |archiveurl= even when no |URL= is available. {{Cite web}} without an URL, and just an archive works just fine. I'm not sure what the website is or in what way the archives are stored, but as long as you make clear these are archived version I don't think there is a problem regarding sourcing, especially when these are plain copies of the .pdf file. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I might have been too elusive in asking your opinion. Here is the ratings for episode 2; they made a typo in the title of the article and have the wrong week stated but if you go to the links for national, vancouver, quebec, calgary, and toronto ratings they are the .pdf for the week of 14 July 2008. I mention this because to me they are not really archives (by intent though now that BBM killed their own archive this does serve as an archive) but they are not really republishing the data either, simply mirroring it with a prose intro. That kind of makes the field for publisher awkward to fill in for the references; which do you select, BBM or the site hosting the mirror of the BBM content? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television film

I'm curious about this change. This template is a mix of {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox television}}, both of which have the example formatted this way. Besides this, this formatting makes it easier to visually scan the contents when editing with a monospaced font, as it is laid out more like a traditional table in the editing window, with two columns that line up. I also note that your version was initially inserted by you a month ago, replacing the previous version which had the other formatting, which seems to have been stable before that. Why do you feel that this infobox should be treated differently than the other two infoboxes which this is a mix of? --Mepolypse (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I made changes to the template and updated the documentation accordingly, removing all the excess spacing in the process, I did not just go around and change the formatting as you imply I did and as you did. Rows and rows of spaces add nothing but blow up the size of the article. I disagree with you that it makes it easier to scan the contents, in fact the opposite. Also, the space in the beginning is extremely handy when some of the parameters have a lot of text so that it wraps to the next line, a space is always placed at the end of the sentence, making it so that it is much more clearly were the parameters are as they do start with a space, while wrapping lines never do. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt that I accused you of only making whitespace changes in that edit. I did not mean to imply that, and to me it wouldn't have mattered if you did, as the end effect in terms of whitespace was the same. I don't think the article size matters, since these whitespace change are not reflected when viewing the article, or when editing (since modern browsers use gzip compression which will compress runs of spaces). I can see how an initial space can be useful in cases when the edit field line wraps. It rarely does to me, and I'm not sure I find it particularly difficult when it does (since the line normally starts with "| " which I've grown accustomed to visually scan for), but I can see that this may improve legibility when it does wrap (since soft wrapping should never cause secondary lines to start with spaces). I removed the preceding space only to match the other (more widely used) templates. I have no preference regarding preceding space, but would find it useful if there was consistency among these templates. My comment about making it easier to scan was (as I noted above) about ensuring a tabular format, where the extra whitespace before the equals sign make the columns line up. This tabular format makes it (to me at least) easier to read the field keys and values separately, and easier to see which field keys have no values. In the end I think we should try to make the example as easy to use for as many editors as possible. Perhaps this includes using both a preceding space (as in your version) and whitespace to line up columns (as in my version). What do you think? I see no specific reason why this template should differ from {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television film}}, so in the end I think we should also ensure that these all use the same format. --Mepolypse (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Medium

There are only 2 episodes left and David wanted to be known as a guest star. Why does it matter that his name appears on guest stars?Jdcrackers (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The plot section is for the plot only, not trivial content such as tacked on guest stars, music played, opening goodies, chronology info etc. "He requested that his name appear on here" is entirely inappropriate and should have no merit as to wether something is included or not, also you are probably his good friend and he told you that himself? There is one way to implement guests stars into the plot an that is how the other episodes do it, see for example Judy Reyes in episode 124. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you took out the episode summaries in the Season 7 page of the episode sections I edited back in there. I have no idea why you would do that since now they're all blank except for the summary of the section of the 12th episode. It looks horrible and think they should be back there. For the record, often times, some episodes of TV shows often have a "guest star" person listed at the end of the short plot summary. But I don't really care about that. But what's with this concern over "copyright" issues about putting the plot summaries there? I serious don't get it. Jabrona (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See the link I provided in the episode summary, WP:COPYVIO. Copy-pasted material is not allowed for legal reasons. The message on your talk page and the edit summaries should be sufficient explanation, read up on the rules. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're just going to leave the sections blank except for one episode? I'm sorry, but if you're going to post an episode list then the episode summaries themselves should be allowed to be in the list as well. It really doesn't make sense to leave them blank. If it's a word-for-word issue then I find that odd because the information of the episode is coming from a reliable source like the episodes summaries from other seasons are. Jabrona (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can write the episode summaries yourself and add them no-problem, but do not copy-past them from other places, that is a copyright violation. There is no problem with the principle of episode summaries, the contrary in fact, but copied episode summaries are simple not allowed. Just see what a copyright violation is, it has noting to do with reliable sources. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. I'll word them differently. Jabrona (talk) 020:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

ILM filmography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please stop vandalising ILM filmography. The reference you provide is itself unverified. ILM is not billed in the ending or opening credits. It is NOT LISTED on imdb as a BILLED COMPANY FOR ENTHIRAN.

Check lucasfilms website. Lucas Films subsidiaries[of which ilm is part] have a policy of not working on NON ENGLISH films. There have been some fake media articals which have suggested that ilm might have worked on enthiran. These reports are false.

Please PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IF YOU CHANGE THE FILMOGRAPHY AGAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.187.252 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly for you, IMDb is not a reliable source, the ones provided are. Read the Enthiran article, there are two references stating this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

imdb is the sole verifiable information provider which keeps records of only solicited information. Provide substantial evidence like an industry standard news article or a billing and titling source or a filmography entry on an official parent company website or subsidiary company website. The two articles you mention are industry gossip articles. Provide a reliable source like an article in an international publication. This is your final warning. Administrators have been notified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.187.252 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, IMDb is user created, and as such, anything can be added, and stuff can be forgotten to be added. IMDb is anything but a reliable source of information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

though imdb has user interaction, it is solely limited to forum like and user interaction experience. Any company film page on imdb has to be approved by a billing and titling company which in turn must have written records from the production company. Why are you adding falsified entries into the filmography? Publishing falsified billing records[this means filmography] is a serious offence and is liable under slander and defamation laws cease and desist immediately 123.236.187.252 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No it does not, IMDb is user edited and everyone can add anything or remove anything, just like you are removing this information from Wikipedia, for all I know you are the one who removed this information from IMDb in the first place, and use it to back up your vandalism here. Do not make legal threats, such actions will get you blocked. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2 links you provide say "tippet, ILM, cafefx will work in the field of visual effects". See? It says "will" not "have". Please provide links to articles that say "ILM has worked on enthiran" ALSO, you are not allowed to remove warnings from your talk page. Its against wiki policy. And please refrain from making personal accusations. Lets all be professional—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.187.252 (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.