Surfeur:

I only use you as an example. Sheesh. Chill, pal.

Maybe I should have used martin instead.  

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
I took the information from the end credits as per rules.

It was correct.
Simple as that.

In your opinion.

Not everybody agrees.

Which is why you got 'no' votes.

I am still not sure why such a big fuss was made over this.  As I said before, if it had been me, I would have included her, 'for contribution purposes', then removed her from my local.

No muss, no fuss.

Why the hell should I?

I feel the rules are very clear and, as far as I am concerned, I followed them.

Only after submitting did I find that other people felt I had misread the rules. I disagree with them; as do other users.

Just because they say I am wrong it doesn't mean I should do extra work, mess up my profiles and then have to correct them again just to appease a few NO voters.

I do not think I have misinterpreted the rules. That is the end of it....



Well, almost.....

Problem has been solved.  My partner, very nicely, pointed out that he had purchased Bewitched Season 3 from Play.com's region 1 site....who are Canada based; and supply Canadian DVDs.
What a godsend!!

I changed my locality on the parent and child profiles to Canada and submitted them. They have all been accepted into the online database.

So...what do we learn from this? Either the Screeners felt that the contributions were correct as they stood; or they didn't bother looking at them, just accepted them based on my contribution rating; or they haven't been reading any of this overly-long thread.

Either way, I still feel that the rules for partial contributions, standard and non-standard rules needs some clarification so that this sort of disagreement doesn't happen again in the future.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
To be honest Martin, I would have let the contribution run its course....if it wasn't for the fact that the ONLY votes were from the 3 NO people.

On their initial contribution 5 other people voted YES...but, those 5 people chose to not vote on the re-submission (or voted neutral).

It didn't see that there would be a chance in hell that the contributions would go through with NO votes only; especially considering who the NO votes were from.

I have this complete series, but for some reason, I have not seen these contributions come up for a vote.  I must have a different UPC.

Given you're views in this thread, Hal...that would have simply resulted in another no vote.

Also - the audits I did were on the child profiles, not the parent.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
I took the information from the end credits as per rules.

It was correct.
Simple as that.

In your opinion.

Not everybody agrees.

Which is why you got 'no' votes.

I am still not sure why such a big fuss was made over this.  As I said before, if it had been me, I would have included her, 'for contribution purposes', then removed her from my local.

No muss, no fuss.

Why the hell should I?

I feel the rules are very clear and, as far as I am concerned, I followed them.

Only after submitting did I find that other people felt I had misread the rules. I disagree with them; as do other users.

Just because they say I am wrong it doesn't mean I should do extra work, mess up my profiles and then have to correct them again just to appease a few NO voters.

I do not think I have misinterpreted the rules. That is the end of it....



Well, almost.....

Problem has been solved.  My partner, very nicely, pointed out that he had purchased Bewitched Season 3 from Play.com's region 1 site....who are Canada based; and supply Canadian DVDs.
What a godsend!!

I changed my locality on the parent and child profiles to Canada and submitted them. They have all been accepted into the online database.

So...what do we learn from this? Either the Screeners felt that the contributions were correct as they stood; or they didn't bother looking at them, just accepted them based on my contribution rating; or they haven't been reading any of this overly-long thread.

Either way, I still feel that the rules for partial contributions, standard and non-standard rules needs some clarification so that this sort of disagreement doesn't happen again in the future.

We have learned that one can always find a way to circumvent the Rules if that is what he is determined to do. Such a shame , Neill.

Skip

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
To be honest Martin, I would have let the contribution run its course....if it wasn't for the fact that the ONLY votes were from the 3 NO people.

On their initial contribution 5 other people voted YES...but, those 5 people chose to not vote on the re-submission (or voted neutral).

It didn't see that there would be a chance in hell that the contributions would go through with NO votes only; especially considering who the NO votes were from.

I have this complete series, but for some reason, I have not seen these contributions come up for a vote.  I must have a different UPC.

Given you're views in this thread, Hal...that would have simply resulted in another no vote.

Also - the audits I did were on the child profiles, not the parent.

That explains it.  I don't have the children set up.

And yes, I'm afraid I would have voted no.

Neill:

I never said anything but I found this whole thread to be rather insulting and disappointing, It'a a real shame ...but then as you say I have come to expect nothing less.
What you have demostrated to me with the last few posts, is that you are unwilling to accept the opinions of others if it disagrees with you and that you will embark on what I can only call nefarious means to achieve your objective, that i also find offensive, Neill. I am sorry i call it like I see it and my viewpoint is just as valid as yours, regardless of the little game you played to get your data in the database.

Skip

Personally, if I were Pantheon, I would have kept the submission alive and let the screeners decide.  Contributions have been known to be approved (albeit rarely) with more no votes than yes votes because the screeners decided the data being voted "no" on was minor.

At least if I purchase Bewitched Season 3 all the "heavy work" will already be done as I am in Canada. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Neill:

I never said anything but I found this whole thread to be rather insulting and disappointing, It'a a real shame ...but then as you say I have come to expect nothing less.
What you have demostrated to me with the last few posts, is that you are unwilling to accept the opinions of others if it disagrees with you and that you will embark on what I can only call nefarious means to achieve your objective, that i also find offensive, Neill. I am sorry i call it like I see it and my viewpoint is just as valid as yours, regardless of the little game you played to get your data in the database.

Skip

I find it very sad that this is the stance you take. The fact that you have such a low opinion of me I do not find surprising after recent threads where I have made my opinion about you and your attitude very clear.
If I had employed 'nefarious means' to get these profiles into the database WHY would I have announced this to the forum? WHY would I tell you people if I felt I had done something dishonest or outside the rules? What would I gain from putting myself in the firing line?
The ONLY reason I mentioned what I had done was so that the many people who voiced the same opinion as me could download the Canadian profiles and change them to US locally; so at least THEY could benefit from the work I had done (a lot less selfish that keeping them locally).

However, the fact that you think I would do such things says a lot more about you than it does me. I am truly sorry that you are so cynical.

What you all seem to be forgetting is that normally I do, and have done, EXACTLY what Unicus suggest: I have followed majority rule; adjusted my contributions and resubmitted. Anyone who has known me a long time in these forums (and that should include you Skip and Unicus) knows that.
Usually, in these cases, it is because I bow to other people's superior knowledge on a given subject; or because I have missed a recent discussion/update on the rules.

In the case of Bewitched I did not feel that was the case. I wasn't standing my ground to be difficult. I strongly believe that how I read the rules was correct and I see no gain in letting others dictate my actions. I am not a sheep.
My intention with all my contributions is to improve the online database so ALL users can benefit from it. If that was NOT my intention I would keep my updates local (and given that with every download of updates more than 80% is my own work; not much would get done).

Hopefully, this situation will result in the rules on this subject being overhauled to make them clearer.