And they shall be nameless. We have users who vote personalities and not rules and try to apply bizarre standards.

We have a well-known user who just two weeks ago tried to APPROVE an image set that did not match the UPC of the porfile, in fact there were two such users who did this. I caught it and ivoted No, but because i voted no...ROFL. These are also users who CLAIM to follow the rules.

We have another user (i won't say whether it is the same one or not) who is trying to block a modification to (uncredited) to break a connection to IMDB, simply modifying 'Joe' to "Joe" and he is trying to hide behind CLT results  for (uncredited), the most idiotioc comment I can imagine, but once again he is voting personality not intelligence. The entire list is a clearly an old clone of IMDb  from years ago, but because there have been some additions to IMDb over the years he is trying to block removal of cloned data.

As I said we have users who simply vote based soley on personality that has nothing to do with anything than their dislike of certain users, at the same time they will use the same weak logic to support a BAD contribution from a user that they like. I have no nor patience with such childish behavior. GROW UP.

How can i call users childish, because they choose to block communication, in other words they are not adult enough to allow themselves to engage in Communication particularly if it does not suit their spin, so they block users they users they aren't intelligent enough to be able to present rational arguments with or someone who can rip their spin to shreds.

I will say this for the benefit of Ken. If such users are to be allowed to continue to run amuck and create havoc and damage the database, then i will have made my final contribution. I think you can see just from the Contributions I have made in recent there are serious errors which need correcting and i have not CORRECTED ALL that I could or perhaps should. But i will not stand by and watch these children detsroy what to this point has been a vast improvement of over where we were 4 years ago, but is getting weaker with each passing day as you pander to these children.

We even have one user who apparently has a different cover from what is Online, at least with a slightly different overview. But instead of following the Online images for the overview, he said in his notes that he took HIS copy out and checked it, maybe he needs to contribute updated images if he thinks the existing images are wrong, instead of claiming that HIS copy is the standard by which we all should go.

This gets more and more hysterically funny in such a ridiculous way that it is truly sad. It is sad to watch a Product that has such potential be allowed to be destroyed by a handful of users.

I am sorry I don't suffer fools and idiots well.

Now to decide whether i want to withdraw the 50 or so Contributions i have recently made.
Skip

There will always be users who don't do things right, I'm sorry to say. All we can do is vote down their contributions. I think only yesterday I saw a contribution changing the data in a profile to a completely different film, which happened to carry the same title. Sigh... 

I won't let that sort of thing stop me contributing though, because - without trying to brag - I don't think it would help the Invelos database in any way If I were to stop submitting the work that I'm already doing anyway.

Not sure if I'm one of those you are refering to but I did vote NO (and was the 1st no vote) For the record though, you have 10 contributions in my que. Of those I voted YES to 9 of them. But since I voted NO to one of them it is because of a personality issue?     

As has been said so many times submitt you stuff, let the users vote, if you don't like the votes change or pull the contribution OR just leave it as is for invelos to decide.

Since you seem to have gotten at least some DVDs out of storage (congrats BTW) I hope that we're not going to have to go through this again everytime you contribute something that "we" (you know - those of us "against you") vote no on. 



EDIT: I see by the permanent contribution notes I was one of those referenced above.  You really gotta stop taking NO votes so personally. I vote on data, per the rules as I know them, nothing else. 

and one more thing for the record...

I am 100% insulted that you called me an Idiot in your thread title. I voted NO to 10% of your contributions, nothing more. GET OVER YOURSELF!




I have never met such a mean hateful person..........................         

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
and one more thing for the record...

I am 100% insulted that you called me an Idiot in your thread title. I voted NO to 10% of your contributions, nothing more. GET OVER YOURSELF!




I have never met such a mean hateful person..........................         

REALLY...look in the mirror.

BTW I named no one, Rick intentionally, I am not responsible for your conclusions right or wrong. But IF THE SHOE FITS...by all means feel free to wear it. I have said repeated, rick that it's a two way street, i have thought you to be very mean-spirited and nasty ( and you aren't alone, we have a number of very nasty and yes even ignorant users but i won't name them) for some time but i wouldn't say that publicly, I guess that probably shows who is right doesn't it.

Skip

Imdb lists 47 uncredited entries. The profile you are changing to break from their standard has 31.  How can anyone claim that is an exact match.

As I said, if you mis-spoke, no problem. Change your notes. Otherwise you are lying when you say in your notes:

Quote:

OK James haveit your way, with the exception of on erecnt addition at another source, this (uncredited) data is an exact clone of IMDb, therefore per Ken's statements I have removed all of the (uncredited). I tried to modify the data, but James doesn't get it, so we will remove the cloned data, this is per Kern Cole

I hardly think anyone here will agree with you that 16 entries count as "an erecnt addition". either you misspoke or are deliberately trying to pull something over on the community - AKA lying. The ball is in your court.


... and the balls on you to call people Idiots then ask for THEM to retract a supposed inflammatory comment. 

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Imdb lists 47 uncredited entries. The profile you are changing to break from their standard has 31.  How can anyone claim that is an exact match.

As I said, if you mis-spoke, no problem. Change your notes. Otherwise you are lying when you say in your notes:

Quote:

OK James haveit your way, with the exception of on erecnt addition at another source, this (uncredited) data is an exact clone of IMDb, therefore per Ken's statements I have removed all of the (uncredited). I tried to modify the data, but James doesn't get it, so we will remove the cloned data, this is per Kern Cole

I hardly think anyone here will agree with you that 16 entries count as "an erecnt addition". either you misspoke or are deliberately trying to pull something over on the community - AKA lying. The ball is in your court.


... and the balls on you to call people Idiots then ask for THEM to retract a supposed inflammatory comment. 

Rick:

You didn't bother to read what i sqaid, you read and responded to what you wanted to. The Rules are four years old, the profile is NINE years old. Look at the data (uncredited) data that we do have, it is an EXACT copy of somebody else. So, somewhere in the last NINE years they added some, big deal. iIt does not change the facts.

Now personally, Rick , I don't want to remove the existing (uncredited), I want to change 'Joe' to "Joe" to break that connection. But you want it both ways. We are talking about (uncredited) here Rick, which is essentially up in the air anyway. You cited CLT, well guess what unless there is movie where his ACTUALLY credited as 'Joe', then all the current data for 'Joe' should be changed to "Joe" to break with that other site. How many of the current 'Joe' listings are ACTUAL film creds and how many are (uncredited), that might be interesting, which would leave you really holding a bag.

Skip

I did read what you wrote, I'm not an idiot after all 


If I understand your point correctly you are now saying we can erase data if it is a clone of a 3rd party database now as well as if it ever was a clone? Even though the supposed cloed data is changed ours has to be deleted because at some point in time it may have been a copy?

That a great rule, if it were the rule. Ken said they had to match identically. He didn't say they had to match identically, or close, or maybe sometime 9 years ago they could have matched.  Get Ken to change his statement to match your wish (and that is all it is, a personal wish) and I will be happy to change my vote.


[wondering just how one can confirm a listing on a website from nine years ago.....  ]