Talk:Odex

Video Quality + Legal Action Controversies

This ODEX article on Wikipedia looks like an article which was made by either a head-honcho or an employee from ODEX, especially the part on the Video Quality section. Off the thumbs I could number about at least 5 Singapore-based online forums criticising and lamenting the video quality produced (even for its claims of VCD vs DVD); furthermore its legal action and rights and this article seems to be too heavily biased towards either The Straits Times' or ODEX's POV, and I don't really think that's really healthy for a Wikipedia article. Any takers to edit? Pasonia 12:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the complaints are for the VCD　editions which have lower quality. and since most haven't gotten to get the DVD editions which is alot better on 42" HDTV. which i have, the quality is equal to any other DVDs Tueac 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I purchased the Shakugan no Shana DVD sets and compared to HD fansub releases (of the same title which yes, i DID download.), the quality is quite significantly lower, including the quality of subtitle translations. Admittedly, the dvd did come with a neat poster.. User:Neruintasque 17:38, 8 August 2007

You are comparing a DVD with HD fansub release... I have nothing to say... Tueac 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

HD fansub releases are generally dvdrips. Meaning, they obtain the raws from an unsubbed jp dvd release. Neruintasque 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Tueac's contributions, a vast majority of them seems to be concerned with Odex, and he started editing after the Odex crackdown started. I don't know about you, but it seems a little fishy. --121.6.64.153 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the controvesy part is more about the legal action of Odex, should we merge it with Odex's actions against file-sharing instead? And change the header of "controvesy and critisism" to "Feedback/reaction of Anime community", but will it be not neutral? --Vaktug (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison

About the picture of the comparison used for Fansubs and Odex product is flawed... ODEX did not produced the Show which is Initial D according to what i can see, and ODEX have never release this show... Only Poh Kim or the other producer with a similar packaging have the show in question. And yes i only started editing in January(Not registered) with the licensing list. I only want the article to maintain Neutral. Thats why i didn't bother editing away contents i find viable or is verifiable. And i am not Stephen nor works for Odex. Tueac 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the step you should taken to this approach is to post it on the talk page for discussion and not amending the comment such as "Prove of confused Anime fans confusing other competitor's product and blaming Odex". Am I right to say that? Cocoma 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that because some unregistered author is misleading the people with false content. explanation is needed. Tueac 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The wrong picture is removed, due to the misleading nature of the content.Tueac 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The image has been nominated for deletion. Whether it is to be removed, should be discussed on the appropriate pages as stated. Not removing it and editing it's description because you think its wrong. That is considered vandalism. Cocoma 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm supposed to let flawed information be a stable in Wiki's article... ok I got it. Tueac 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the picture to a fairer comparison, a 2003 ODEX fruit basket VCD release Tueac 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't heed any advices and insist to do what you think is right. Am I correct? Cocoma 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I browsed through a blog with some screenshots made of Shakugan no Shana that was subbed by Odex. Take a look at the link here. IIChrisII 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pricing

The subcategory for Pricing should be merged into the Marketing section. Sources of prices should also be cited otherwise it is just so much hand-waving of numbers. The current pricing subcategory is also written in "rant" style; this is inappropriate for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. While I sympathize with anime downloaders, the lowered prices of $10 for a 13-episode VCD box set and $20 for an anime DVD box set did not seem to have an effect on the anime piracy. If some sort of reasonable economic Study can be found and cited, then perhsps there can be an entry along the lines of "Regardless of how low the price goes, there are many users who will not buy anime unless it is free".AnimeJanai 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Authorized Titles by Odex (Updated 25 May 2007)

Request to revert to the last version as the list of ODEX licensed anime in Singpore should not be the entire AVPAS list; AVPAS members are made up of ODEX and many Japanese Animation and Broadcasting Studios.

Please note the different that this is the page on ODEX and The last list shows the Anime Known licensed by ODEX and is not the list Authorised by AVPAS. If needed, please create a new entry for AVPAS as ODEX and AVPAS is not the same entity. i will now revert the list back to the last very last edition showing ODEX's Licenses and not those authorised by AVPAS. Tueac 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These lists are incredibly long, isn't it better to just make a separate article for them or convert it to a space saving table format. - Dinkybarrel 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it doesn't work to have this list as is. Recommend separate page for list of titles - too much space is taken up in this article with the list.--Parkwells (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed line on pricing (14 Aug 2007)

Removed the line "However, fans who have heard of Odex have criticized Odex for abusing its monopoly power to set prices that are even higher than that of their American or Japanese counterparts." This is clearly untrue since Odex's R3 DVD's are much cheaper than R1 and R2 DVD's. Of course, their quality is another matter. While I detest Odex for their terrorizing lawsuit tactics, let's just stick to fact reporting. User:192.169.41.40 10:42, 14 August 2007

Layout shifting

To better reflect the non-partisan discussion surrouding Odex's latest tactic, the criticisms have been placed under the "Criticisms" category. The "Others" section is moved to the bottom. Animeronin 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to those criticizing Odex that you should stick to facts and try to balance them. This is Wikipedia and NOT a chat forum for venting and sniping. Some facts may be presented about Odex enforcing its copyrights, but NOT too many. Imagine for instance an article that contained only facts about Odex filing copyright suits; while completely factual, its net effect is to attack Odex. In such a case, I or someone else would have to delete most of those facts to bring the article back to content befitting a Wikipedia article. As for those crying unfair, well, Odex ssemed to have waited quite a long time before finally filing suits. They first tried the other benign tactics, and even resorted to lowering prices to a very low level where the anime sales don't really contribute but hoping other related license fees would continue to carry the anime. I wonder why those anime "fans" didn't mention that among the criticism to balance them out; balanced criticism is worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Unbalanced criticism tends to be in the attack category.AnimeJanai 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly why there is an article solely focused on Odex's actions against file sharing. You must understand, Odex is using "piracy" as an excuse for their low sales, which are in fact due to other factors, such as: 1) Taking a long time (Up to a year after initial release in Japan), 2) Low-quality subtitles (Inaccuracies), 3) Low-quality dubbing. You are also reminded to keep your thoughts such as "I wonder why those anime "fans" didn't mention that among the criticism to balance them out; balanced criticism is worthy of being included in Wikipedia." to yourself. Do that on forums. --121.6.64.153 19:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is too much repetition of criticisms - in Controversy section and then again in Criticisms, and they are not adequately sourced. The Controversy section does not deal adequately with the legal actions the company took against file sharing.--Parkwells (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

The article ODEX is bias against ODEX, with many negative,alot misleading points and some completely baseless accusation on ODEX. Especially the Controversy section, with many mistakes and in need of citation of facts. Further more, DVD with quality like youtube without citation is pure defamation! Request remove or edit to maintain neutrality Tueac 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope you aren't an ODEX employee or Stephen Sing himself, you do sound like one. --121.6.64.153 13:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While this is an on-going event, please cool down and discuss on the event on NPOV. Cocoma 13:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

After further reading of this article, I see that references are cited for critism by director of Odex, but not on the rest of the content where references are required as well. Hence, references are required to verify the content and to prove its neutrality. Cocoma 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the controversy section do cite online version of Singapore news articles, some of which make use of quotes from Odex management.

The issue of Odex going after 1000 subscribers is blatantly wrong, there is no proof or facts behind it, request removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.14.88.240 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

17 subscribers from SingNet, 1000+ from Starhub, and another 1000+ from PacificNet, to be exact. Firstly, get your facts right. Secondly, don't argue for the sake of arguing. You claim it is blatantly wrong, prove it. Lastly, sign your comments. --121.6.64.153 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1000 IP ADDRESSES. Not 1000 SUBSCRIBERS. NONE of the ISP in Singapore designate fixed IP addresses. Lastly, how to sign my comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.14.88.240 (talk) 04:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Dude you do know that The Straits Times and The New Paper directly quoted half-truths and blatant lies from Odex, right? You can find two Odex lies by simply looking at the Board of Film Censors (BFC) and Japanese Korean anime booming articles. Quotes and relative figures quoted from the mouths of Odex personnel are often not verified by ST & TNP with other sources and so if they seem to favour Odex, they should only be taken with a pinch of salt. 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is some gound which 1000 subscribers are based. Amount of subscribers reference: PacNet subscribers' fate in the balance via Today Online. Here's a extract of a news article about the number of subscribers that odex was/is going after:

StarHub must give names of illegal anime downloaders By Chua Hian Hou

THE Singapore distributor of popular Japanese animated cartoons called anime has won the right to track down fans who download the programmes illegally using their Starhub Internet accounts.

A Subordinate Court has ordered the telco to disclose the identity of about 1,000 of its subscribers accused of illegally downloading anime. It is believed to be one of the largest crackdowns on illegal Internet downloading by home users in Singapore. The recent hearing was held in a closed chamber session, so few details of the case are available publicly. The action was taken by local anime distributor Odex.

StarHub had initially resisted the company's efforts to get its customer data, said a spokesman for the telco, as it had 'an obligation to protect our customers' information'. But it now has no choice but to comply with the court order, as Odex had 'satisfied the court of its need for the information'. Once Odex obtains the identities of these Internet users from StarHub, it is expected to write to them demanding a settlement of up to $5,000 and a promise to stop further illegal downloading.

In May, Odex went after 17 SingNet subscribers after obtaining a similar court order. It then sent more letters to an undisclosed number of other SingNet subscribers also accused of illegally downloading anime. Odex director Peter Go said a few infringers with financial difficulties were allowed to settle for about $1,000. He added that a number of those who had received the letter had engaged lawyers, but did not contest Odex's case.

Having succeeded in getting SingNet and StarHub customer lists, Odex will now go after customers of another Internet service provider, Pacific Internet (PacNet), in the Subordinate Courts later this week. It is understood Odex has accused about 1,000 PacNet users of illegal downloading. PacNet spokesman Bernard Ho said the firm was 'resisting the application' made by Odex in court.

However, lawyers familiar with such applications say they have a strong track record of success. But information obtained this way is not always useful to the plaintiff. For instance, the user may no longer be in the country.

Popular with both children and adults, the anime industry was worth as much as US$5 billion ($7.5 billion) worldwide, according to a 2004 BusinessWeek report. However, illegal downloads, available online since the late 1990s, have cut deeply into the profits of producers and distributors. Mr Go said the South Korean anime market, once the world's second largest after Japan, collapsed several years ago due to piracy problems. This prompted Japanese studios making anime to band together to mount the crackdown here as they were worried Singapore, although not as big a market, would end up the same way.

A 23-year-old anime fan acknowledged that there was some truth to Mr Go's words:

"At my peak a while ago, I used to download five to 10 gigabytes of anime a week," said the undergraduate, who declined to be named.

Now, he is resigned that his past will catch up with him.

"It's just a matter of time before I get the dreaded Odex letter."

IIChrisII 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I will admit to being anti-Odex. However, with regards to the number of subscribers, I have to point out that it's been stated that Odex obtained about 400 users out of 1000 SingNet IP addresses and sent letters to about 300 with around 107 having reached settlement. Starhub are supposedly to provide their users information in batches so it is unclear how many that would be. Going by pure maths, this could be approximately 1200 users but definitely not the 2000 to 3000 previously thought. -- Somebody How do you guys know what time is it?

Dude you do know that The Straits Times and The New Paper directly quoted half-truths and blatant lies from Odex, right? You can find two Odex lies by simply looking at the Board of Film Censors (BFC) and Japanese Korean anime booming articles. Quotes and relative figures quoted from the mouths of Odex personnel are often not verified by ST & TNP with other sources and so if they seem to favour Odex, they should only be taken with a pinch of salt. 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed several sections of the article which were at best restatements of the file-sharing controversy and at worse (the "General Impressions" section) an angry unsourced rant. Please do not use the ODEX article as a coatrack. Mfko (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article On Singapore court orders Internet company to reveal customers who illegally download videos

Added article from the International Herald Tribune. User:OptimisticPessimist 01:15, 15 August 2007

Seperate AVPAS page

I feel that AVPAS should have a page on its own. The ridiculously long list of anime titles "under" AVPAS is taking too much space in ODEX's page. Though suspected to be the same entity with different names, both ODEX and AVPAS spurred their own controversies. As mentioned, the anime titles listed by AVPAS are not necessary the anime titles that ODEX have license to distribute. User:KurodaTaiki 14:24, 15 August 2007

Stephen Sing's Bragging

Anyone knows how to add in Stephen Sing's bragging about being busy suing people in online forums in a diplomatic way? Details can be found at Tomorrow.sg --121.6.64.153 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Star

Was there any announcement over the licensing of Lucky Star? Someone placed it on the list of anime title as licensed, but not on "the website". The entire target audience of Lucky Star is nearly off the target audience of most Odex products though. --Slayze 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe more citation and proof of the list of animes that odex has needs to be shown, i do not see any links that suggest as to what odex has licensed. Except for the avpas website which does not belong to odex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.18.166 (talk)

ifd: Image Lol odex.jpg for deletion

Just to let you guys know, Image:Lol_odex.jpg is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at its entry on the Images and media for deletion page. Cocoma 17:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the verdict looks to be leaning towards deletion, but User:Tueac has pre-emptively replaced the image with his own comparison.

To be honest, the use of such an image is probably a bad idea. Fansubs vary widely in quality and I wouldn't be surprised if Odex releases do as well. In any comparison of this sort, the creator will cherry-pick the fansub and screen captures used, so that the result suits their own conscious or unconscious bias. -Seventh Holy Scripture 19:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I did go with removing current comparison image also, hows that? Cocoma 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New licensed titles

I have seen a few new titles in the ODEX licensed area on website and not listed on website. especial claymore... Unless its a ODEX internal edit, i don't think it can be trusted without proof Tueac 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of titles that require citation, to prevent any misconception. The page should only display animes that have been proven as authorized by avpas and licensed by odex.Firefreak 15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude wtf. You do know that companies change their websites for PR purposes right? If they did something wrong, they're going to try and cover it up. Why don't you just check the Internet Wayback Machine? zzz 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Firefreak. But again, evidence should be shown on the talk page on what titles are licensed by Odex. Cocoma 16:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will proceed to delete titles that have no proof of license origin, i am basing my actions on avpas website which was updated on 21 August 2007. The not listed section is the most controversial as proof to back them up in not available. Show proof first if anyone wants to undo.Firefreak 16:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't based it on AVPAS's list, its completely different. you can also put The Melancholy Of Haruhi Suzumiya in the list not in website, because NTV7 has the show, and most likely it's from odex. 218.186.10.12 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Melancholy Of Haruhi Suzumiya is listed on AVPAS as a authorized title, as for whether or not it is licensed by odex is unconfirmed the term you use "most likely" cant be used as evidence thus proof and verification would be needed.Firefreak 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In the latest suit (as of 25th August) against Pacific net, the judge stated that "Odex appeared to be the exclusive licensee for just one title, Mobile Suit Gundam Seed." Would this affect the list of titles in any manner? Just asking 'cos I don't know much about terms like "exclusive licensee". Yuri21 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Xysing 2monthsagolo.jpg

Image:Xysing 2monthsagolo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Odex VoD

In the forum, Mr Stephen Sing promised users who downloaded a complete series from their VoD service, a hardcopy (DVD or VCD) of the episodes they download to be delivered to them. Considering that there hasn't been any new episodes released for the first two series they provided (Seto no Hanayome notably stopped at episode 21), is there any official statement from them stating if they would be continuing with their plans for the hardcopy delivery, or if they would be releasing any further episodes even? kirua User:121.7.162.79 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

xxxHoLiC

Does anybody know whether xxxHoLiC has been licensed to ODEX? I recall seeing ODEX-released xxxHoLiC VCDs... ~ryuryu111 10:27pm, 31 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuryu111 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Um..

According to Google's Cache, the Nazi Swastika isn't the logo for ODEX.. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly vandalism. Simply revert the edit. --Farix (Talk) 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitals

While it is titled in lowercase, references in this article call it ODEX instead of Odex, should we possibly move it there? Is this just something in their logos, or also in official documentation? It isn't short for something maybe? Couldn't find any extended name on their site. Tyciol (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Odex and Animax and Takashimaya(and AFA advertisement)

should the Odex article include this as odex is working with animax to license/dub/sub animes and using Takashimaya's name to sell thier so called licensed products. also, the lack of odex logo on advertisement on AFA/anime events AND have their logos appearing all over the event venue suggests that they r doing stealth marketing. i think it will be reasonable if the article has Stealth marketing section as for 2 straight years, i dont see Odex logos on any AFA advertisement, including the AFA homepage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.245 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When Animax screens programs on its channel, there is no mention of the program vendor's name. It is just the title and the Animax. Why should Odex be given special mention? It would seem strange. AFA 2009/anime events in the past had Odex's logo all over its wall posters. Whist they sponsored the posters, it was Takashimaya who entered the event and Odex is just one of its suppliers. How could a supplier overshadow its buyer? This year (2010) Odex entered in AFA X under its own name and actually took up the 2nd largest area and its strong presence could not be missed, being the only booth with all the giant wall posters and biggest quantity of anime apparel and merchandise such as anime scrolls and cushions under its license. There is no stealth marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.251.83 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed unencyclopaedic portions

I have deleted a few chunks of blatantly NPOV sections. "Odex's little farce" and "it is laughable" do not belong in any shape or form in a wiki article. Overmage (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Growth and Market Expansion"?

First of all, there's the issue of NPOV, and its written like an advertisement of sorts. There are also no citations available; there's no proof as to whether everything written in the article is true or not. 116.15.107.60 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are just biased against Odex and turned all its growth and expansion into something dark and henious. Odex is all growth and expansion. How else do you explain that despite all that unhappiness by illegal downloaders on the clampdown, Odex is still able to bring in and screen same day (in fact within an hour of Japan's release) of Gundam 00: A Wakening of the Trailblazer movie. Odex even has its own range of merchandise in Domo-kun and anime apparel and anime cushions. In addition, how do you explain that Odex has grown from the past video content distributor to now working with event organisers through retailers like Takashimaya and Isetan and AFA organisers? Odex is not a retailer, it cannot be selling its products through Takashimaya and Isetan and other smaller retail outlets and tag the prices with its own price labels? As for all its products bearing its name, that is called "taking responsibility". It is not into shady business. How else would it want to have its own name stamping on products?

Neutrality and Citations

Just learnt about this Odex (or Xedo) controvesy thingy from my friend last year. This page has been tagged neutrality is disputed since the 2007 court case and I think this can be a good project for a new Wikipedian like me. Did some research using Newspaper SG for articles, I'll tried to put more citations to this article. Would hope that this page can be like Odex's actions against file sharing, with enough citations and maintain its neutrality, it's even listed as a good article.
So, 1st things 1st, I'll removed statements that are without citations and please let me know if you think the point I removed is important, I'll try and find citation for it. Hope this can make the page better.
Feel free to send me a talk if there's any problem since I'm new here.
P/S: What are those anime titles list under the external links? Should I removed it? --Vaktug (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a work in progress article for you, I will suggest you search for citations first before removing. If citations cannot be found, then remove the statements. While you are searching for citations, other editors may come along and put in the citations. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xaiver0510, thanks for your advice and contributions. For citations, will blog and forums be a good and reliable citations? Or should I just stick to newspaper articles? After shortnening the "legal actions" part, it seems like this article really don't have much references... --Vaktug (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome :) blog and forums, generally no. You can read up here, WP:NEWSBLOG or the whole article WP:V. For SG related resources, try here. It's not about whether an article has a lot or little references, what matters more is a statement stated here is referenced and verifiable, especially controversial statements. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral observer's opinion

I consider myself to be a neutral observer on this subject, since I've never heard of 'Odex', and have never watched Anime (sorry). Anyway, this article does seem more like an attack piece than an "encyclopedic" article.
Here are some observations:

• The sections linked to a See also: page should only be a very brief description without details. For example the lawsuit-thing should only describe the action taken and the result.
• The citations with umpteen citations look silly. Iit looks as if you're saying "Oh look! There have been MANY reports on this!" The quality of sources is important; the quantity is not. Simply cite the most authoritative source, and only include additional sources that add information not contained in the previous source. For example, I'll bet the article on the Apollo 11 moon landing doesn't include every single newspaper and magazine that reported the fact that this was the first time man walked on the moon -- that would be in the 100s of thousands of citations.
• The 'History' section is one giant blob -- breaking it down into paragraphs would make it seem more inviting to read. Perhaps break it down into a chronological timeline?
• Terms like "claimed to have attempted" should either be cited or removed.
• Forums and blogs are not up to WP standards for reliability or verifiability.
• There is much redundancy, for example few (handful) -- and repetition (how many times is 'The Lawsuit' mentioned?).
• terms such as fans of anime are irrelevant, if you are referring to customers then say so; presumably there are fans of anime who aren't customers and could care less about the quality of the fonts.

Good luck, and have fun! ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric F! Thank you so much for your suggestion and advice! I'm still lost in how to make the article more neutral, your advice really helps a lot! So for the citation I just need to use newspaper articles? And for the events, can I include them if I don't have any citations? --Vaktug (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

History

The history was trimmed off here [1].

Do note that Odex was originally a trading firm dabbling in various businesses. Games Mart was once a retail arm which was closed. Source here [2]. It was part of its history and certainly deserve a mention, especially it contrasted that they used to sell illegal game accessories and how they defended copyrights, despite not being fully authorised. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Odex. 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/*/http://www.odex.com.sg/ to http://www.odex.com.sg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.odex.com.sg/ to http://www.odex.com.sg/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avpas.com.sg/AuthorizedTitles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Odex. 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/20080325041914/http://www.avpas.com.sg/AVPAS_Member.html to http://avpas.com.sg/AVPAS_Member.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120909164240/http://www.rajahtann.com/RajahtannCMS/mediarelations.aspx?mid=19&type=1 to http://www.rajahtann.com/RajahtannCMS/mediarelations.aspx?mid=19&type=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221162427/http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054 to http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-southeastasia.asp?parentid=76054
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.odex.com.sg/?p=faq

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) 15:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)