I don't deal with personal issues, I deal with data.  Either it is correct or it isn't.  If the roles are correct, but out of order, they should be put back in the proper order, not removed.

I really hate shooting in the dark, any chance we could get a UPC?

No, it's not necessary. I said i would fix it. But as I said, my view of it was that it was a partial and my view remains so. But my view of rick's credibility al;so remains very low, and this did nothing to raise it. I find it fascinating that he does not want to interact, and his public comments generally consist of snide remarks, but he wants to vote and have me take those votes seriously...not gonna happen...when it comes down to a matter of opinion.

BTW, Rick you suggested that I slow down. Why should I...to accomodate your No votes..and to make sure i don't miss them...no thank you sir. I have decided to make Contributions and to put it bluntly I am stunned at the amount of data I have to correct. Some 400 titles so far and i am only into the B's, the Online is a wreck, fortunately I won't call it a total wreck, just a fender bender, but....it's amazing.

Skip

Now you have me confused, Unicus.

I thought we had decided that

Role Name
      Name
      Name
were GROUP Roles

and
Role
Name  Name    Name
Name  Name    Name

were dividers, that is what I have followed since the day Dividers were instituted.

Skip

Rick:

You see, the reason that your credibility is low, but there are those who are lower and i will get into that. Is that since you don't want to interact and your public comments are generally pretty ugly, then my view of your voting on Contributions made by someone who you don't wish to talk to is simply manipulative as often as not.

The only thin which is more manipulative is acouple of users around here who will vote NO and when the issue is addressed, then they do not return with a Yes vote and often times these users are thanked in the new update. That is pure manipulation.

This is one of the reasons i do not block people, Rick. If I have no desire to Communicate, then why should I vote on their Contributions one way or the other, if they screw it up, I follow up with a fix. If it comes down to a matter of opinion, I will never supplant their opinion with mine, unless something else is going on with the Cointribution

For example the Rules do not address exactly how to handle Episode listings and there are a number of possible methods I have seen. Mine is Episodes, others are EPISODES: and so forth. I will not replace theirs with mine soley on that basis, but IF I am making some sort of a correction or change, I won't change mine to theirs. But that's me.

Skip

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Submission fixed. Voted YES. Thanks

For the record I only suggested you slow down cause you said some of your contributions were getting "lost". I don't care how much you or anyone else submitts. The more the merrier I say. 

If it weren't for those who enjoy submitting the rest of us who, for whatever reason don't, wouldn't have the DB we have. I am always happy to see correct submissions and always grateful to those who submit! Doesn't mean I wont or can't vote no if I see something wrong.

As I said, it is your choice and your opinion, but i will tell you that it colors my opinion of your comments. You know if you make statement which is clearly black & white that I will fix it as soon as I see it and hopefully I won't overlook it, a PM is always appreciated. But under the circumstances if it is what i see as a gray area, where you have your opinion and I have mine....you lose, bud, you have no credibility in that regard. I changed it for reasons which I will not divulge, but i will say my opinion has not changed it was a partial Contribution.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
I don't happen to appreciate the tactics used by some with their to use their votes as blackmail to get what they want. Particularly when some of those people vote inconsistently, for example demanding a source of a user while not making the same demand of another user for similar data, or ignoring the Rules completely and voting Yes to images that do not match the Profile, or a variety of other issues that I see and these may or may not involve you. And I'll not discuss it publicly in any thing other than general terms.

Why is it that when someone votes no on your contributions it's blackmail and inconsistent and ignoring the rules and yet you allow yourself to vote no on "principle"    (for example when you vote no due to no CLT results, even though they aren't required by Ken or the rules)?

I voted no to your change to the media company for A Beautiful Mind because you did not provide a source for the change. You cited your personal knowledge of studios but had no source, since the media company name you chose was nowhere to be found on the packaging.

Now another user has thankfully provided a media company from the packaging and you've pulled down your contribution, but not before you littered the contribution notes with all sorts of comments about me that have nothing to do with the contribution.

If I voted yes to an image that was not a match for the UPC, that would be a mistake. If I voted yes to a contribution from another user of a media company that's not found on the packaging, that would be a mistake. But neither would justify you adding a media company that's not found on the packaging without a source other than your personal knowledge...which turned out to be wrong.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
The only thin which is more manipulative is acouple of users around here who will vote NO and when the issue is addressed, then they do not return with a Yes vote and often times these users are thanked in the new update. That is pure manipulation.

I don't vote yes to your contributions because when I vote no, you litter the contribution notes with insults and threats about me. I'm willing to endure your threats and bluster to prevent your errors from entering the db, but I will not condone your behavior.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
This is one of the reasons i do not block people, Rick. If I have no desire to Communicate, then why should I vote on their Contributions one way or the other, if they screw it up, I follow up with a fix.

You are the only person I have blocked because your insults and threats to me are far worse in PMs than in the open forums or in your contribution notes. If you don't want to vote on my contributions as a result, that's fine. I've never had a decline from any of your 'no' votes, so it doesn't matter.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Now you have me confused, Unicus.

I thought we had decided that

Role Name
      Name
      Name
were GROUP Roles

and
Role
Name  Name    Name
Name  Name    Name

were dividers, that is what I have followed since the day Dividers were instituted.

Skip

I will have to go and look it up but, if memory serves, that wasn't the consensus.  What you have listed are just two formats of the same thing...group roles.  If memory serves, cast lists with a heading of a role AND individual roles would get a divider while a single heading would not.  As examples:

New York Police
John Smith  Officer Sams
Jane Doe    Sgt. Sanders
Sally Dean    Captain Dryer

New York Police
John Smith
Jane Doe
Sally Dean

New York Police
John Smith    Jane Doe
Sally Dean

In those examples, only the first would get a divider.  As I said, that is how I remember it, but I will try and find the thread when I have more time.

Now that I can't agree with, Unicus. That is handling essentially the same display in two different ways, you know what I think of that. All that does is generate confusion, as this demonstrates quite graphically. No IF THENS, not EVER, or as little as we can get away with.

Skip

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

I voted no to your change to the media company for A Beautiful Mind because you did not provide a source for the change. You cited your personal knowledge of studios but had no source, since the media company name you chose was nowhere to be found on the packaging.

Now another user has thankfully provided a media company from the packaging and you've pulled down your contribution, but not before you littered the contribution notes with all sorts of comments about me that have nothing to do with the contribution.

I took his word for it (like I do many people) and voted YES. Guess I'll really have to start checking his contributions now. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice......