Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
...fat chance.

Yes, indeed.

Martin:

Where is written that yu are allowed to be funnier than me.

Skip            

I personally think Skip starts these threads simply to create tension. But that's just me. I usually avoid them but since I was the cause on this one I thought I would respond.

I guess I could also say that if it were anyone else who made the comment he would have left it alone but nnnnnoooooooooo.... Rick said something so it had to be wrong. (wait.... now I sound like someone else  )


For the record I did send the submitter a PM explaining what he could do in the future to help all of us. As I understand it he also received a PM that was not so nice.  Once again, it is a release date for a pre-release title. You said it is not the 1st time I have done this, you are correct. I can assure you it will not be the last.  You want to teach, that's fine. I've had some experienca in that field and always found people are more receptive to what someone has to say and to learning when they are treated with respect and treated nicely. 

One more time, with feeling this time:
It was a release date, on a pre-release title, from a new person to the community on his (her?) 2nd contribution. I'm fairly sure my yes vote with comment as well as the PM that followed will do a lot more to foster good feelings and a sense of being part of the community than your no vote and not so nice PM did. 

It's a hobby, not a way of life. Geesh....

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Martin:

That is not what it says. It EMPHASIZES, cast and crew

"For all contributions, indicate the source of the data,

Hal, with all due respect I have to disagree. As I said, what I know is NOT RELEVANT, this is about providing adequate and proper information for ALL users. To vote yes to incomplete notes or not proper documentation is simply irresponsible. I am sure you have seen some the discussions, we have had lately over release dates for 8 or 9 year old titles. How much easier would that have been had we had proper notes and documentation 8 or 9 years ago. So why do we want to continue this problem, i don't want to have that discussion about this or any other title in 5 years, I should be able to point at the notes and say right there is your documentation that the data is CORRECT. All we have to do as Contributors and voters is to follow the Rules and it is clearly spelled out to provide the surce for your data.


Skip

Your goal is unachievable.

If you expect someone to provide sources for every single field in a "new" profile so that we can go back 8 years from now to verify what was contributed, then I think you're in for a huge disappointment.  It will never happen.

I believe that the Rules state that it is against the Rules to vote "no" to data that corrects wrong data! 

Quoting The Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.

 


In this case, the contributor was correcting wrong data, therefore a "no" vote actually violates the Rules!

Like I said, if you don't know if the data is right or wrong, vote "neutral".

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
FYI, the user responded to my PM, so the attacks of m. cellophane and lyonsden5 were totally unnecessary, all they had to do was follow the Rules that Ken and Gerri have spelled out, instead of deliberately trying to subvert them. Angry, yes, I am. At the personal insult hurled by lyonsdsen5 and the less personal insult by m. cellophane, not to mention their attempts to rationalize deliberate violation of the Rules. Sorry, guys, if you are upse..., not half as much as I am.

All I needed was his documentation to change the vote to YES.

Case closed

Skip

"case closded"     

I thought this was a "disturbing trend"

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I have seen a disturbing trend in the past where a Contributor will make change to Profile but does not provide documentation.  Some users will vote yes and provide support for the contributor, please stop this. ...

Apparently it was just about this one profile (as I guessed). It looks more and more like I am correct that you start these types of threads to create tension.

Make up your mind, disturbing trend that warrants a discussion and it's own thread or just another case of you protecting the db from us evildoers*

*evildoers phase actually coined by "W" and used without permission

on the other side, you do your research on the changes you are propossing, so it's only a small step to document your changes with the source. This is very easily done:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=136607&PageNum=LAST
or this one
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=174815&PageNum=LAST

Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
It also says "be sure to provide explanations where needed", so a user does not have to source his/her changes, with the exception of cast and crew, if he/she thinks it's not necessary.

it is marked in RED: "For all contributions, indicate the source of data, especially cast and crew additions."
I don't see anywhere an exeption where you should not comply to this. Additional you should provide explanations where needed. this is how i understand this.

The meaning of that sentence in the Rules is not very clear, to say the least.
"Especially" seems to contradict "all", unless you read it to mean that longer explanations are needed for Cast and Crew but some documentation is necessary for all data anyway.
It seems to me that the Screeners are strict on the documentation of Cast and Crew but not on other fields, so I guess that is the (sort of) "official" interpretation.
While I personally like well-documented contributions and try to do so myself, I don't see the Screeners ask users to document *everything*.
Again, I would love if all contributions were fully documented in every detail, but I also think a compromise is necessary if we want a large number of users to contribute and new users start contributing. Maybe that is not a concern for R1, where there are many contributors anyway, but it is a concern in other regions, where I see many empty profiles and few contributors.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I do, Hal, I spell out where all of my data comes from on New Releases, but this was NOT a "New" release. Data was there and was being changed to an existing profile.

Skip

Yes, I understand all of that, however, your "goal" is to be able to "verify the data from the contribution Notes" 8 years from now.

Unless sources are provided for every field for every contribution (which personally I think is an onerous requirement that would elimintae most contributors) then your goal is unachieveable.

Hal:

You are making some very easy way too hard, ASSUMING we are talking about an initila entry, which we are not. But accepting that premise.

Then itb is very simple for an initial Contribution
New title and Cover Art(maybe)
All data for pre-release taken from (source: whatever you used)

That is HARD? Why is that so hard.

It achieves the desired objective  and documents where every piece of data came from.

Skip

That's not documentation!

And I wasn't talking about a pre-release.

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
It also says "be sure to provide explanations where needed", so a user does not have to source his/her changes, with the exception of cast and crew, if he/she thinks it's not necessary.

Wrong Martin, the portion advising to provide explanation where needed refers to the aforementioned section demanding sources of data for ALL contributions.

Only if the source in itself might need explanation, providing such is advised.

By adding the second phrase, the first demand is not denied.