User talk:HJ Mitchell/Alternate

This page serves as an alternative to my main talk page. I may move lengthy or less urgent conversations here in order to make the orange bar less frequent. This talk page is also unprotected. If you can't post to my main talk page because it is protected, leave your message here. I will reply here and alert you on your own talk page.

Hello there and welcome to HJ's talk page! If you're here because I left a message on your talk page, please reply there and leave {{Tb|"Your Username"|"Name of the section"}} in a new section here but please leave a time stamp (~~~~~) so the bot can archive it! I will endeavour to do the same for you unless you request otherwise, you're here to point me to a discussion elsewhere, or I know you're watching this page but I have been known to forget, so you might want to check back if you don't receive a timely response! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you, if I don't, I'll find out, then we'll have both learned something! Above all, whatever I did, please know that I meant it in good faith and please keep it civil.

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

2,619 pending submissions to update

---

Blocked editor

Hi HJ Mitchell, I noticed you blocked User:PeterRoyce for the infringed images he's uploaded. In case you're interested, I have opened an investigation at WP:CCI about the case. You can communicate to me there or at my talk page, if you need to. Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The case has been closed. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Shinji Nakano article edit

The reason why I blanked out that section is because those results do NOT belong to that driver. The records can be checked on the corresponding pages of the ALMS seasons, the driver in question never raced the Peugeot 908 and never raced it in the ALMS. I was just trying to remove the vandalism from another user, and this also applies to the edits that user made to the page related to the Peugeot 908. 188.24.89.224 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. By all means feel free to re-do it. If you give an informative edit summary, you're much less likely to be accidentally reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Have done so. On second thought, could you please ban the user in question (Cloudfinalfantasy)? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96sterreichring&action=history There was another "incident" where this user added to a motorsport-related article information which was clearly false and misleading. 188.24.91.103 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (I'm used to editing anonymously; different IP is due to dynamic range from the provider)

Somaly Mam article

I was wondering why you reverted my edits? I added an infobox to the article, as well as various sources. I also added additional info to the article. It's not vandalism, so I do not understand why you would revert an edit. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits without giving me a good reason. You're not even looking at what I edit. If you feel that I'm vandalising the article, then please tell me what lies or slander I wrote to the article. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reverts/warnings were purely accidental, it looks like a legitimate edit (adding the infobox) to me. FYI, you may want to create an account if you plan on doing much editing, that'll make it much less likely that your edits will be flagged/misconstrued as vandalism. Also, you'd then be able to drop a message on this person's normal talk page. :) -Kgasso (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the book citation and attach it to another sentence. I didn't change the paragraph or any of the sentences. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your attention to the matter and advice. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of wiki Rathenau Institute

Hello HJ,

You just deleted my (very first) wiki about the Rathenau Institute. You say it is 'inappropriate advertising.' Of course, i don't agree with you. I added the wiki to complement the list of organisations on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_assessment See "Technology assessment institutions around the world"

Other TA-institutes also have their very own wiki, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_technology_Assessment_TA-SWISS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Technology_Assessment

Why was our wiki singled out for deletion?

Regards,

Heleen van Kooij —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeleenvanKooij (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled section

Dear HJ, I would have appreciated it if you had gone through the text edited on Biodiesel more carefully before you had tried to remove it! It was definitely constructive! any way leave it to you. Cheers, Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.170.92 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi HJ, Further to our conversations, please do restore the wiki page for Richard Beck. It's bonafide and stands up. Cheers man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbeck (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of St. Paul Principles page

Your deletion of the St. Paul Principles page for "copyright infringement" was asinine for the following reasons:

1. The St. Paul Principles were an historic set of principles agreed on by activists prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. They were never copyrighted, any more than the Declaration of Independence was copyrighted. They were supposed to be shared freely. They were a PUBLIC STATEMENT. They have been the basis for two subsequent declarations, including the Pittsburgh Principles prior to the 2009 G-20, and were a well known and important public statement in the activist community.

2. The page you gave as the "source" of the content was an OBVIOUS BLOG PAGE that had CLEARLY COPIED the principles with no source from where they were originally posted or perhaps from the MANY E-MAILS SENT OUT telling people what the principles were and ASKING THEM TO SHARE THEM. That page did not OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THEM.

3. The original source of the text of the principles was GIVEN IN ONE OF THE REFERENCES. The archive project at http://rnc08report.org/archive/224.shtml which I maintain, clearly states the source of this historical declaration text. I know the people who constructed the declaration. Ad I also know that all historical declarations are understood to be part of the public trust/copyleft/Creative Commons/free to quote.

4. You made no attempt to engage in the Talk page on the entry, which was just tweaked by two people yesterday. You even deleted that page! Had you attempted to communicate, you would have had the above explained to you. There was no "unambiguous copyright infringement". You were WRONG.

5. I don't know how to restore this page. Please take action to correct your error so as not to frustrate legitimate Wikipedia activity. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010

When an article is deleted, the talk page is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8. The article was deleted because Wikipedia cannot, for legal reasons, accept material that was copied from a copyrighted webpage, as this was. If you own the copyright or can persuade the owner to release it under a free license, then please follow the instructions here. Otherwise, you will have to re-write it in entirely your own words and format and with the permission of Kurykh (talk · contribs), who deleted the article in the first instance, to avoid it being deleted under criterion G4. Finally, you may appeal the deletion at deletion review, however you will be unlikely to succeed unless you can prove that the material is freely licensed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All of that would be fine but in your answer you primarily seem to be intentionally avoiding the fact that this text, from a plain reading of the text, is a public statement specifically intended for quotation. Why would you do that? You're the person who offered a blog's cut and paste of the text as "evidence" of copyright infringement. Where is the evidence that the blog you quoted owns the copyright? By that same bar, people could delete half the content on Wikipedia because it's been reposted on blogs everywhere. Your knowledge of copyright is also lacking. It is acceptable under American copyright law to quote up to 500 words of a text for the purpose of public information, even in a commercial publication. This text was less than 500 words by a long shot.

The text was clearly given in quotation marks on the page. What is the problem? What you have done is set up a number of procedural hoops to jump through to prove the obvious, "that the material is freely licensed". Where is your evidence that the text is not freely licensed, that it was not a public declaration, like the Declaration of Independence.

Looking at your deletion record on Wikipedia and the comments from others above, you seem to regularly delete screeds of pages daily, at a rate that it seems unlikely that you are bothering to verify. In this case, it is abundantly clear that you made no effort to read the text, never mind verify it. What really drives this point home is you saying "you will have to re-write it in entirely your own words and format". It's a DECLARATION, it can't be REWRITTEN. It's a historical statement that was intended for distribution. It is not a copyrighted work.

Once again, here is the history and content of the St. Paul Principles: http://rnc08report.org/archive/224.shtml - as you can see, the "copyright source" that you gave is not one of the many organizational signatories. Next you'll be deleting or asking someone to rewrite the United States Declaration of Independence off Wikipedia because joesblog.blogspot.com posted a copy of it. Why are you saying that user Kirykh deleted it? The log says you did:

# (Deletion log); 00:59 . . HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:St. Paul Principles" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

# (Deletion log); 00:58 . . HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "St. Paul Principles" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://midatlanticua.wordpress.com/st-paul-principals/)

Kirykh scheduled an earlier version of the page for deletion in 2008 or thereabouts. They did not delete.

The page was updated yesterday to be more extensive and in line with Wikipedia standards, well over a year after he had made that determination. Myself and someone else worked on it. Then YOU deleted it. Don't dig your heels in an indefensible position. Do the right thing and fix what you broke. It shouldn't require this much effort or a committee to fix what was deleted in error. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk)

I'm not avoiding anything, intentionally or otherwise. It seems it is your lack of copyright knowledge that is lacking. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the material is appropriately licensed to be used on Wikipedia. An editor established that it had been copied from another webpage and marked it for deletion. As the reviewing administrator, I checked this and confirmed the text matched and that the source page was not available under a license compatible with Wikipedia's and thus deleted it. All text on Wikipedia must be available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, as detailed here. You can't copy material from stricter-licensed websites because you don't have the right to release under such a license. Immediately under the edit box is the following text:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.

The content you submitted was not in compliance with that and was deleted. You can appeal it at WP:DRV, but you'll have little success because the content could potentially cause legal problems for the Wikimedia Foundation, which is why such a hard line is taken on copyright violation. Kirykh did indeed delete it back in 2008, but that was a result of a deletion discussion, where consensus was obtained to delete it. That means you need to discuss it with that administrator before you re-create it or it qualifies under another criterion for speedy deletion. As for my deletion record, over the last 6 months, I've deleted about 4,000 pages. Every such action was in accordance with the deletion policy, so please don't try to imply I'm acting on some kind of whim. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, then appeal the deletion, but you'll be told the same thing I'm trying to explain to you now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I wasn't implying you deleted pages on some kind of whim. I was contending that you were deleting pages without really paying that much attention. If you're deleting an average of 22 pages a day, and God knows you probably aren't doing deletions every day so the deletions per day rate is probably way higher, you can't be doing any researching. In this case you're offering evidence from a web crawler bot that made a mistake, and procedural reasons from a deletion 2 long years ago. That's weak.

Your procedural reason for deletion is that, 2 years ago, someone deleted a page with the same title. This was not for a copyright infringement. The discussion says that it was because it read like a manifesto (cf. it was probably posted as is without context), and its historical worth was in question. Apparently this took place because ONLY the text of the declaration was posted, without any context, and just a month after the original statement was released.

You explain that once something is deleted, you have to ask the deleter for permission to remake a page. Fair enough. But this is two years later and the person that created the page did not know that. Yet you didn't delete it for that reason, nor, given the passage of time, did you attempt to communicate with the people working on the new page. You simply---and incorrectly---deleted it for copyright infringement. Once again, the problem with that was that the page you cited as the copyright holder (which we should note that a bot found and determined to be the case) was not the source page of the original text. It was a blog page that had copied the text from the original source page. The original source page, from the same anarchist/anti-authoritarian and--oh so ironically—-anti-copyright-—group website, is now no longer live but archived on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20080723032041/www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/ - This website was the same group listed as the first signatory to the declaration, the people that drafted the statement. The RNC Welcoming Committee no longer exists as an entity.

The historical import of the St. Paul Principles declaration became clear one year later, when the public statement again became the basis for The Pittsburgh Principles during the 2009 G-20 the following year, and the Toronto G-20 too, earlier this summer in 2010. That declaration, which codified a way that activist groups with different outlooks on what were acceptable protest tactics can relate to each other, heralded a significant change in activist policy in both the United States and Canada, that has been seen over 2 years.

The new version of the page included context and was only one day into being built by a few people. And, 2 years on, the historical importance of the declaration is clear. In a few weeks, on October 25th, 4 of the activists involved in drafting the St. Paul Principles go on trial in federal court for conspiracy, something that hasn't happened since the Vietnam days, since the Chicago 8.

The St. Paul Principles were a statement that was very knowingly released into the public domain by several activist groups and was intended to be disseminated and cited widely. The activist groups that signed it were the RNC Welcoming Committee, The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, The Anti-war Committee, SDS-U of MN, Communities United Against Police Brutality, The Welfare Rights Committee, and Unconventional Action – Chicago. Yet you say that reprinting its 83 words would be a "copyright violation". That remains a ridiculous position, especially when you refer to Wikipedia's copyright policy, because Wikipedia's copyright policy SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE USE OF WORKS RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS LEGITIMATE. And regardless of CC and GNU, any political statement of principles, released for dissemination and citation, is as unambiguously "in the public domain" as anything could be.

Your position therefore---based as it is on a redefinition of what is "public domain", based on an old Wikipedia debate about oranges when we are now clearly talking about apples, and based on an inaccurate identification of a blog as the "copyright holder"---is nothing less than a suppression of popular political speech and popular political history.

The St. Paul Principles are undoubtedly going to be mentioned during the October 25th trial of the RNC 8, yet no one who visits Wikipedia will be any the wiser. Your suggested "solution" is a mockery of free speech and the free exchange of ideas on which Wikipedia is based. How would it be possible to get a copyright release from all of the groups who made this statement 2 years ago? Some don't even exist any more. And, anyway, tell me there is no point in appealing.

Right now, I'd be typing all of this context to this historic statement that is apparently important enough to be part of a $1+ million federal trial in a couple of weeks--but not for Wikipedia--into a Wikipedia page about it but I can't because you deleted it the very same day we began working on it, and are now telling me that in order to make an encyclopedia entry about this historic statement, I'll have to go through some committee process that you are simultaneously telling me won't listen to anything I have to say. This is why I am appealing to you, in the hopes that common sense will reign, because that's exactly what Wikipedia tells us to do. Apparently you are a brick wall and tell me that any attempt to further appeal will be met with further Wikiwalls.

What I have learned from this honest attempt to spend some time helping to provide a footnote to history for fellow Internet browsers———as the subject is likely through current events to get reintroduced wider into public knowledge———is that Wikipedia editors pay too much attention to some very dumb "copyright" web bots, that they don't bother to check the demented auto-ramblings of those badly coded bots, that they ignore the passage of time and the changing context of history, that they don't hold much value for topics being edited that relate to upcoming current events and, the most obvious part of this whole story——that they do not recogize that that disseminated political declarations are intended for the public domain BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION.

Forcing a copyright debate onto a political statement unambiguously issued into the free marketplace of ideas———A.K.A. "the public domain"———is nothing short of a suppression of free speech. If that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, my mistake, mea culpa, but the onus of proof isn't on me. Maybe if I or the other person who restarted the page was posting a poem or a photo. But not when we're posting a political declaration. That's all in your guys' court, which you repeatedly tell me there is absolutely no point in appealing to, regardless of how good our case is. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be very sensitive to potential copyright problems given that it is freely licensed and doesn't have the resources to handle a lawsuit for copyright infringement. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the text of the article isn't copyright. The rationale you provided for the removal of the tag was simply that the bot was in error and an assertion that the text wasn't copyright. The web archive link appears to be dead, so do you have any evidence at all to assert that the text isn't copyright? If you do, that makes things a lot easier. Contrary to the impression you might be getting, I do want to help you, but I have to consider the wider implications as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ for your response. I do understand copyright considerations. I have worked as an editor and a photographer. For political declarations though? That just makes no sense. Their implicit intention is dissemination. Not sure if you've used the Web archive before but it's super unreliable and often stuff comes in and out. The link does work, I just tried it now. But whether it works at the exact time you click on it, that's up to the Internet fairies: http://web.archive.org/web/20080723032041/www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/ Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Beck

Hi HJ, Further to our conversations, please do restore the wiki page for Richard Beck. It's bonafide and stands up. Cheers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbeck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored. It's all yours, my friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Renegade Theatre Experiment

Hey HJ, I was in the process of correcting all the violating materials when you deleted the entry. It was up 5 minutes. Can you please restore? I hadn't copied all the markup, and it would be a pain in the butt to recreate. --Kevjkelly (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

- == Ice Age: Continental Drift == - - I have an idea for the article Ice Age: Continental Drift. I know it is just copied from Ice Age wiki, but I am the one who started the article, and added most of the information to it. - - Here's the article source if you want to use it in the article. You'll have to change it to the correct film template though. - Here's a link to the poster so you can save it to your computer, and upload here: - - Ice Age: Continental Drift poster -

-

   
- {{Infobox film   
- |name= Ice Age: Continental Drift   
- |image=    
- |director=[[Carlos Saldanha]]<br />'''Co-Directors:'''<br>[[Michael Thurmeier]]<br />[[Steve Martino]]   
- |producer=[[Lori Forte]]   
- |writer=[[Michael Berg]] (screenplay)<br />[[Jason Fuchs]] (screenplay)<br />[[Mike Reiss]] (screenplay)   
- |narrator=   
- |starring=   
- |voices=[[Ray Romano]]<br />[[Karen Disher]]<br />[[Queen Latifah]]<br />[[Jennette McCurdy]]<br />[[John Leguizamo]]<br />[[Denis Leary]]<br />[[Chris Wedge]]<br />[[Sean William Scott]]<br />[[Josh Peck]]<br />[[Avril Lavigne]]<br />[[Carlos Saldanha]]   
- |music=[[John Powell]]   
- |cinematography=   
- |editing=[[David Ian Salter]] (film editor)<br />[[James Palumbo]] (co-editor)   
- |distributor=[[20th Century Fox]]   
- |released=July 13, 2012<ref><small>[http://www.screenrush.co.uk/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18497175.html Ice Age 4 Confirmed By Fox] - Screenrush.co.uk</small></ref>   
- |runtime=   
- |country=USA   
- |language=English   
- |budget=   
- |rating=PG   
- |preceded_by=[[Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs]]   
- |followed_by=   
- |imdb_id= 1667889   
- }}   
-    
- '''Ice Age: Continental Drift'''<ref><small>[http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17615 Ice Age 4 Announces Title and Release Date] - WorstPreviews.com</small></ref> (working title, and also known as '''Ice Age 4''') is the upcoming fourth installment in the [[Ice Age (series)|Ice Age series]]. The sequel was announced on May 5<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and is scheduled to be released on July 13<sup>th</sup>, 2012. It will be released in digital 3D where available.   
-    
- The film is being made by [[Blue Sky Studios]] and will be distributed by [[20th Century Fox]].<ref><small>[http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65784 Ice Age: Continental Drift is Coming Summer 2012] - ComingSoon.net</small></ref> This will be the first ''Ice Age'' film to use the new [[20th Century Fox]] logo first seen in 2009's ''Avatar'' and the second Ice Age installment that will use digital 3D. Plot details are yet to be announced. According to IMDB, it is a comedy-romance film.   
-    
- == Cast ==   
-    
- The following cast has been comfirmed as of June 17<sup>th</sup>, 2010 and onward.<ref>[http://toonbarn.com/2010/05/fox-announces-ice-age-4-ice-age-continental-drift-in-3d/ Manny, Ellie, Sid, Diego and Scrat] -Toon Barn</ref><ref name="crew"><small>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1667889/fullcredits Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012) - Full cast and crew] - Internet Movie Database</small></ref>Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary are in negotioations as Manny, Sid and Diego.<small><ref>[http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/03/denis-leary-expendables-louie/ Denis Leary's back!] Popwatch.ew.com</ref></small>   
-    
- {| border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 350px"   
- |'''Character'''   
- |'''Actor'''   
- |-   
- |[[Manny]]   
- |[[Ray Romano]] (in negotiations)   
- |-   
- |[[Scratte]]   
- |[[Karen Disher]]   
- |-   
- |[[Ellie]]   
- |[[Queen Latifah]]   
- |-   
- |[[Peaches]]   
- |[[Jennette McCurdy]] (expected)   
- |-   
- |[[Sid]]   
- |[[John Leguizamo]] (in negotiations)   
- |-   
- |[[Diego]]   
- |[[Denis Leary]] (in negotiations)   
- |-   
- |[[Scrat]]   
- |[[Chris Wedge]]   
- |-   
- |[[Crash and Eddie|Crash]]   
- |[[Sean William Scott]] (expected)   
- |-   
- |[[Crash and Eddie|Eddie]]   
- |[[Josh Peck]]   
- |-   
- |[[Shelly]]   
- |[[Avril Lavigne]] (expected)   
- |-   
- |[[Egbert]] and [[Yoko]]   
- |[[Carlos Saldanha]] (expected)   
- |}   
-    
-    
-    
- [[Peaches]] is seen on the teaser poster as a teenager, so she must going to be in the film, Jennette McCurdy is going to be the voice of the teenage Peaches. [[Crash and Eddie]] are also seen on the teaser poster, so [[Seann William Scott]] is expected to reprise Crash and [[Josh Peck]] will reprise his role.   
-    
- According to the cast at IMDB, Scratte is to return and be voiced by Karen Disher. [[Carlos Saldanha]] is to return as [[Egbert]] and [[Yoko]]. But time will tell if these charaters will make an appearence. According to IMDB, Avril Lavigne is the ''expected'' voice of Shelly.   
-    
- == Development ==   
-    
- The first details of the sequel were reviled on January 10<sup>th</sup> 2010 when The New York Times reported that Blue Sky was working on a fourth film, and was in negotiations with the voice cast.<ref><small>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/media/11bluesky.html Blue Sky Studios Takes Aim at Big Names in Animated Film] - The New York Times</small></ref> Fox later confirmed on May 5<sup>th</sup>, 2010 that ''Ice Age: Continental Drift'' would be released on July 13<sup>th</sup>, 2012.<ref><small>[http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118018829.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Fox sets 3D 'Ice Age' sequel] - Variety</small></ref>   
-    
- [[Carlos Saldanha]] and [[Michael Thurmier]] will return as the directors and [[John Powell]] will once again compose the musical score.<ref name="crew"/> The visual effects are being done by [[Dan Cayer]] who is the compositing supervisor of Blue Sky Studios.<ref name="crew"/> Lori Forte is also returning to produce the film. It was stated [http://www.newsinfilm.com/2010/05/07/fox-announces-ice-age-4-continental-drift/ here] that the Ice Age: Th4w rumor was finally proven false when this movie was announced. Michael Berg, Jason Fuchs and Mike Reiss are the writers of the film. Ari Rubenstein is the lead compositor of the film.   
-    
- Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Denis Leary are now in negotiations as Manny, Sid and Diego. According to IMDB, [[John E. Hurst]] is the story board artist, and story artist. [[Florian Perret]] is the character modeler for the film also according to IMDB. [[Ari Rubenstein]] is also the lead compositor for the film. Nash Dunnigan is now announced as the art-director and James Palumbo is now announced as the co-editor of the film.   
-    
- == References and notes ==   
-    
- {{Reflist}}   
-    
- == External links ==   
-    
- *[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1667889/ Ice Age: Continental Drift] at the Internet Movie Database   
- *[http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/120579-Ice_Age_Continental_Drift.html Ice Age: Continental Drift] at the Big Cartoon Database   
- *[http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=iceage4.htm Ice Age: Continental Drift] at Box Office Mojo   
- 

- - Dose this like a good article for it. Also, since the user that vandilizing the page (I saw the protection reasons) has been blocked, I think the edit protection should be changed to Semi-Protected until it comes out, and fully protected stays for the move until it comes out, then it is dropped to semiprotected permantly. 71.97.187.209 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)