I'll take your word (and that of the others that have stated this).

After all, my memory is not what it used to be! 

BUT the BY data was not data that transferred from IVS in any way because the BY was NEW to 3.X

Skip

First, even though I will mention people specifically in this post, nothing is meant in a negative manner.

As someone who's followed this thread in its entirety. As well as ruineddaydreams previous thread asking about how to handle this situation (a birth year that is previously accepted by invelos), and also had some of the affected profiles come up in my pending updates list. I feel that all the information needed on this topic has been said.

1) The birth year has been accepted (correct or incorrect) by invelos
2) The birth year is now being propogated (again if it should or not is another story)
3) There is only 1 Scott Rudin (though IMDB has been the only source directly mentioned)
I will add here that I did check the 3 sources for verifying that the birth year is tied to the Scott Rudin in the contributed profiles, as well as a google search, and non of them yielded any results for any other Scott Rudin
4) The birth year most likely came from the Headshot Database
Why? in this thread, someone mentioned that they didn't have a birth year on Mr. Rudin, downloaded the headshot database and then they did have the birth year. Also, unless i'm remembering incorrectly, ruineddaydreams stated in his previous thread (linked above) that he acquired some unnecessary birth years from the database and believed he had cleaned out all the unecessary ones. I've not loaded this database, but I wouldn't blame anyone if they missed a erroneous birth year or two while spending hours cleaning it up.
5) ruineddaydreams previous question was in general, and this is a specific case
6) This topic has moved from a 'is this birth year necessary or not' to 'I'm right, you're wrong, I'm not conceeding' though I can argue it never fully got to the 'Ok, lets establish if the year is needed and then take appropriate action' stage which is where it should have gone, and just stayed, well its ok per the rules because its been previously accepted vs its not ok per the rules because its not needed regardless of it being accepted or not.

So lets try working together, figure out if the birth year is needed to the majority's satisfaction. Supply the screeners with this info (why should they need to prove our case). then propogate or remove the birth year based on what the screeners say.

-Agrare

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Graham:

Give me a break, tell me you don't believe that tripe.

Skip

Yes I do.

The rules say absolutely nothing about differentiating crew.  You can read whatever you want into the rules (but you personally aren't upholding the rules as they are written), but in fact, you or anyone, would be wrong if they voted No to the contribution in question.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That BY was already there and I di nothing with it at that time, I am only occasssionally trying to get cast and Crew data right, i am not going to mess with BY data oer Common name data in such instances Jon. But good try.

You still have not esplained why you are coninuing to propagate data that you now know violates the Rules. Like I said the Rule is CLEAR and Concise and means what it says.

Skip

How come that you are the only entry in the contribution notes? I have only one explanation: this is a legacy profile which has be transferred from Intervocative to Invelos by Ken's import. But this would not explain how there could have been a birth year associated to the profile.

Ken did not "import" any profiles from the Intervocative database into the Invelos database.

Every profile had to be contributed new.

Ken did "import" the Intervocative database into the Invelos database. That is why we have so many profiles that are in the online database that do not have any contributor updates.

I'm almost tempted to dig out the phone books to look up any Scott Rudin's and ask them to sign up.

Graham:

I am speechless, the idea that you would try and make this argument just strikes me as bizarre in the extreme. Would you care to offer an explanantion why you would treat one different from the other.. Further then explain why the BY sentence is in the specifically the Crew/General area of the Credits Rules. Were your logic correct then it only needs to be in the actor section and we further then have NO BY data for Crew data at all.

What you are doing is weakening the system. Absolutely. Because I don;'t think you can create such an argument. And i won't even bother to go into the ultimate end of your argument because that is even more bizarre.

I also have to say EVERY TIME i see somebody play the parsing game to try and poke a hole in the rules i have to wonder what their motive is, and the conclusion I keep reaching is not very complimentary to any member of this community.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I stated that that I did NOT propagate those BYs, I uncheck that data routinely so it will NOT be Contributed unless I HAVE personally verified it.

That's not completely how it works.

I'll use an example of a cast list change, but the same is true for crew (the FUBAR theorem aside for the moment  ). If you have a birth year for James Cromwell in your local db, from whatever source, and you upload a profile that changes, for example, a role name played by John Travolta and the cast also include James Cromwell, you will upload your local birth year automatically without any further action on your part. Period.

WHY?

Because the James Cromwell birth year is already accepted in the database. It bypasses all checkboxes and hits the express lane right to the main db.

This is true for any previously accepted birth year. You cannot make a change to cast or crew without also automatically uploading every accepted birth year from your local db to the main db. It's completely automatic. The only thing you can do is remove the birth year from your local db prior to uploading the contribution.

The checkbox only appears for birth years that are not yet accepted into the main db. For those you have to provide documentation.

That's why I said (what was it on...page 3?) that your battle is not with Scott Rudin or Jon or anyone else you can accuse. The only way to solve this problem is to get Invelos to turn off the "accepted" status for Scott Rudin. That's it.

You get no closer to your goal by trying to convince us that Jon is angry (a laughable accusation) or that Astrakan has tone (same). The only way you will stop the propagation of the Scott Rudin birth year is to convince Invelos that it's not needed.

If you convince them of this, the checkbox will again appear anytime someone tries to upload a Scott Rudin birth year. That will require documentation to propagate it. They won't be able to find it most likely and the propagation will stop.

Until then, every cast and crew that you update, which contains Scott Rudin, unless you remove the birth year from your local db first, it gets sucked into the main db straight away. And that's not only by you but by everyone who has this birth year now, or downloads it in the future. Any time it's uploaded, it's a straight shot to acceptance. No checkbox.

Jon has drawn the attention of Invelos to this thread and he's bringing us closer to resolution than any of your accusations of rule breaking and attitude problems will achieve. For that, he is to be applauded and not derided.