Question for all, I am a little bit confused as I seem to be under a bit of attack for some no votes I've cast.
This was left in contribution notes for me after I had to vote no on a 2nd occasion on same contribution;
"Overview edited for italics
Thank you, richie, but it is time for you to stop casting NO votes which are in violation of the Rules, PATIAL Contributions are ALLOWED per Ken and Gerri, a PM requesting additional modification beyond what I said in my notes is appropriate, NO votes are NOT!!!!!! But Thank you."

In the last few weeks I have found myself continually having to vote no on 1 users contributions for overviews, legitimately in my opinion as I find many mistakes. My no vote is accompanied by details of  the error, up to a point as you can only fit in so many in the space allowed.
The contributors claim is that if he is only changing italics in an overview, it is a partial contribution and thus my no vote is illegal. He may be right?
My thoughts were if you were going to the trouble of changing italics/bold, then a quick check over the text to ensure it matches back cover was not a lot to ask?


I'm sure submitter feels this is a personal vendetta, but I vote as I see regardless of contributor, and it is a coincidence I have found over 80% of errors in this particular users latest submissions.

I'll go with the voting majority as this is not a big deal for me.

Rich

If it is a minor mistake and the contribution is otherwise useful, then I tend to point out the mistake and vote yes.
But if the contribution is just about the overview, and it has mistakes, then I think a no vote is in order. I am not convinced contributors read the comments if they get just yes votes. Sometimes it gets accepted with the error, and then another update is needed.

I would probably vote yes with an extra note for the the mistakes. I will correct the mistakes myself when the contributor hasn't change the mistakes. When the contributor contributes mistakes that weren't there already, than I would vote NO of course!

I think it's cutting the definition of a partial contribution a bit thin to only look at italics on an overview and not the content.  I have to believe the if you are reviewing it for formatting, the actual words will probably be there too.

I see this like fixing the capitalization of a word, but not the spelling... just seems too connected to be done separately.

Whether this is an illegal vote can only be decided by Ken, but I would consider it a valid No vote.

I tend to only vote no if the submission introduces new errors. I'll vote yes with comments if it doesn't fix existing ones.

Just because ken and gerri say it is OK to do something, that does not necessarily mean we SHOULD do it

I am not interested in a flaming war over the internet, I always find electronic insults rather pathetic and a waste of time. There is no 'vendetta or agenda'. Every single one of my no votes have been because submissions have had errors in them - that is a fact.
Put simply the votes (so far) concur with my initial thoughts, that if a user is duplicating mistakes in an overview in a new submission, I should vote no and point out the mistakes.
Of course there is no obligation to fix the continual errors, it is just a no vote, and I will not insist the contributor fixes them.
If I am 'abusing my voting priveleges' then I am sure Ken or Gerri will contact me accordingly, and I would listen to them as they are the only 2 legitimate voices of Invelos.

I am obsessive about spelling errors. If I make one, I'd like it pointed out to me, as firmly as possible. Repeating a spelling error while you add correct italics is like rubbing a sore shoulder without removing the bullet lodged within it. Overviews were correct without the italics at one time, but this one was already in the database incorrectly due to spelling errors. If you wish to fix the italics, I believe it is not an abuse of the no vote to call the submitter on repeating the spelling error. It needs fixing -- why correct italics on a bad overview?

If you are sooooooo touchy about your submissions that a PM is the only way (without offending you) to correct errors, then perhaps you are too thin skinned to be putting your ideas up for a vote.