Quoting OmegaX01:

Quote:
So why then should someone read the credits over again and make new notes on something that they already know is correct?

Do you know the source credits are correct?  How?

I've created new profiles from existing ones (it's a simple copy paste to transfer the Cast/Crew) then ran the new disc to verify the credits against those i'm submitting.  Sometimes the credits are good as is, sometimes they require minor tweaks, sometimes the credits are an abomination and need to be completely redone.

If the credits are as good as you say then great, your effort will be minimal.  All anyone wants is for them to be double checked for accuracy before submitting.

Quoting nimrod85:

Quote:
I've contributed a correct cast and crew and wrote in the contr. note that the EXISTING DATA is from IMDB and the new one from the Movie credits and it was declined because:

"An invalid source, such as a third party database, was listed in the contribution notes. Use of a third party database is not allowed per the contribution rules."

Is it so hard to understand that the existing cast and crew is from IMDB and not the new one ?

ouch

Mistakes can & do happen. I'd resubmit it & emphasise that your submission is from the credits.

Quoting nimrod85:

Quote:
I've contributed a correct cast and crew and wrote in the contr. note that the EXISTING DATA is from IMDB and the new one from the Movie credits and it was declined because:

"An invalid source, such as a third party database, was listed in the contribution notes. Use of a third party database is not allowed per the contribution rules."

Is it so hard to understand that the existing cast and crew is from IMDB and not the new one ?

ouch

Shouldn't happen, but it can happen. We're all just humans after all.
Recontribute and leave out the IMDB remark, that should do it.

No idea..

was there any no votes?

What did you put in your notes?

All I can think of is it was a mistake then. Mistakes do happen. I would just try again.

... and/or "Corrected cropping back cover".

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
I do not think it was an error.

Sure it was. The notes were clear enough, and far more coherent than the most contribution notes I see in non-English-speaking localities - many times those notes are entirely inexplicable, and still the screeners generally seem to make the right decision. Here, regardless of the exact wording of the notes, a quick glance at the evaluation screen should have told the screener everything he needed to know. As such, it has to be a simple mistake. Nimrod85 should just try again, and I'm confident that it'll be approved then.

Whilst removing the white space is a good thing, a rescan would be better.

Due to the size restrictions, the original image was reduced to 443x500. Just removing the white space makes the image 443x310 - way below the usual 700x500 size.