I agree, James and it was just about though not qiuite as rude and unecessary as most of his.

But you won't call him on his and his offensive use of smilies. yes i am accusing you of being selective in such comments. And I know something about it since I am a member of Federal EOA commision, the little-known counter to the EEOC.   

Let me put it this way, James. I find nearly every one of Rick's comments so rude and offensive that he is one of a select few users that I have blocked in the forums so that I no longer have to view his comments.

The Rules are clear, james and even IF there was documentation to support the BY somewhere, there is still ONLKY one Scott Rudin and no need to distinguish him from anyone else. Therefore, the BY should not only NOT be propagated, it should be REMOVED.

Skip    

Presumably, one of those profiles on either this or the old site should contain the documentation justifying the BY in the first place.  Otherwise it obviously slipped past the screeners.

This thread is hillarious... exactly what I wished not to cause... If you see my earlier post on this matter you will see that I am sincere in this desire - I am the submitter, I will address a few things here...


Firstly, Skip - I find it very offensive that you would say that I am "mindless" - I in fact, was very DELIBERATE in my actions - This is a classic example of why you frustrate so many people here. Firstly, I have been a user for over 5 years who has for most times been at least moderately active in the forums, I dont think any of you don't at least recognize me...., secondly, I actually posted a question clarifying this type of submission several days ago, located here, which got a few comments and clarifications, and thirdly... you and I have spoken on numerous occasions and I would like to think you do not make a habbit of talking to people who are mindless... therefore... to reduce to a fire starting post here calling me mindless is just outright offensive.

In the thread linked above this exact scenario was discussed, and it was determined that the correct procedure for this would be to note that you are propagating an already accepted birth year and provide proof that you are linking the correct year to the correct titles... which is exactly what I did.

As I previously stated, this venture started when I noticed birth year differences while accepting contributions, upon double checking the database I found that some of these actors or crew were already accepted into the database, and needed propagation.

THE WAY THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN SET UP BY INVELOS IS TO BE USED EXACTLY HOW I HAVE USED IT


Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The system is designed so you don't need to worry about the accepted birth year entries - they will simply submit automatically.  In parallel, if you have birth years you don't want to worry about submitting, do nothing and leave them unchecked - they will be stripped during submission automatically.  If the entries have no other variants, this is what you'll want to do.  You can even accept your submission locally and your birth years will be preserved, even though the online version does not have them.

The fact is, this birth year has been accepted by Invelos, and what I am doing is not outside the rules at all... In fact, as far as I can see, it is the best way to keep order in the database. Some users citing imdb as a source for stating there is only 1 person by this name, is outright hillarious, considering the general opinion on IMDB around here... as well as users proclaiming "there is only one" - why don't you cite your source... because my source that this item is correct is the Invelos era database...

I also have submissions out for birth years for James Cromwell and Bruce Campbell... which are getting much more positive reaction, however the actual verification method are identical. I have personally never seen any other James Cromwell or Bruce Campbell, and all the titles in my database for these two actors are all for the same birth year... however, Invelos alerted me to the need to propagate these birth years, and that is exactly what I have done in these cases, as well as the Scott Rudin situation... quite frankly I have never even heard of Scott Rudin before catching this.... I typically pay no attention to crew credits past director and writer...

All this being said, I would like to thank Rick and James for bringing some reason to this otherwise pointless thread... kudos for you guys...

and I'll leave it up to Ken and Gerri when these hit the screening process, I will not be withdrawing them.

So you were talking about the "other" user who just submitted a bunch of titles propagating a birth year for Scott Rudin?

You do not get a pass on being out of line because you did not mention me by name...

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
We have a user who is mindlessly propagating Scott Rudin BY because it was previousluy accepted and a bunch of users even more mindlessly accepting it. There is only ONE Scott Rudin the BY should be REMOVED period not propagated.

Please let me know where you were not talking about me... I'd love to hear it...


If this already accepted birth year was put into the database by accident, then I am sure Ken and Gerri will decline my contributions and hopefully seek out and remove the already accepted data... I have already explained my case above, the rule you are quote does not apply to this... that rule is designed for users contribution birth years for the first time... once a birth year is accepted into the database, this is null... because the database already recognizes the differance, just because you only see one Scott Rudin in your personal database, does not mean anything, you could at any time download a new profile that contains a new Scott Rudin - that is how the system is set up, you can see my quote from Ken if you have any questions on that.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I can also see the Rules.

Skip

still waiting for the part where you explained to me why exactly I am mindless and where you said at the outset that you were not talking about me...

further implying that I am not able to read is not getting you anywhere... besides a from me and hopefully other users who find your offensive behavior and absolute inability to discuss something as trivial as the year in which a producer was born in a civilized manner. this is evident from the tone and vocabulary used in the first post in this thread, as well as pretty much all the posts you've made inside the thread.

there is no need for me to further discuss this with you, as you have now contradicted yourself.

I will be open to discussion with anyone who would like to do so as reasonable people...

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I agree, James and it was just about though not qiuite as rude and unecessary as most of his.

But you won't call him on his and his offensive use of smilies. yes i am accusing you of being selective in such comments.

No need to accuse. I admit it. I like Rick more than I like you. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The Rules are clear, james and even IF there was documentation to support the BY somewhere, there is still ONLKY one Scott Rudin and no need to distinguish him from anyone else. Therefore, the BY should not only NOT be propagated, it should be REMOVED.

The problem is not with any of these contributions or with the voters. The problem is that Invelos has categorized this as an accepted birth year. You (or someone) need to focus your energy on getting them to change the status of Scott Rudin on their end. That's the big picture.

Getting Invelos to toggle the status of Scott Rudin's birth year to non-accepted is the only way to go, because then it will force future contributors to provide documentation that there are two of them.

Until you or someone does this, the problem will recur. And it could recur on the 98% of profiles which you don't see in your local db.

Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
After going through all 940 Profiles in the Credit Lookup I found 14 profiles in which the Birth Year is attached.

That's amazing. It's exactly the kind of constructive research we needed. 

Quoting ruineddaydreams:

Quote:
All this being said, I would like to thank Rick and James for bringing some reason to this otherwise pointless thread... kudos for you guys...

You're welcome and thank you. 

Quoting ruineddaydreams:

Quote:
and I'll leave it up to Ken and Gerri when these hit the screening process, I will not be withdrawing them.

Good. Bringing this to their attention is the way to go. It really is their decision.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You are offended? I am offended by your NOW deliberate and flagrant disregard of the Rules.

He's doing exactly what they've asked for when a birth year has already been accepted.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am interested in only one thing and that is documentation on this other Scott Riudin,m which you won't find because he does not exist, at least in Hollywood.

That level of documentation is not required for an accepted birth year.

Stop beating up Jon and everyone else and address the system with Invelos. That's the constructive thing to do. This is bigger than Scott Rudin and bigger than any pending contribution. Provide good research and comments to Invelos and you'll be miles ahead of where things are going in this thread.

I insulted no one specifically and everyone generically (including MYSELF), that was my view this morning and remains my view. I won't give a picturesque view even though I could, let's just say it reminded me of a once popular PC game.

Skip