In point of fact, MelbourneStar, you agreed on May 14 on the article's talk page that the information could be added to the article on the basis of the credits serving as a reliable source. I don't know what changed your mind and honestly I don't care. You haven't "tried your very best". You haven't tried at all. As Ive said at least twice before, if having an independent source is of such vital importance to you, then go find one instead of reverting and complaining. In the time it took you to type out the two messages on this page, you could have found a source that met your requirements. So maybe it's you who'd rather argue? 76.204.89.112