Only those with new birth years. Ken recently announced:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Going forward, all submissions which include a completely new birth year will automatically be promoted to 2nd level Invelos review.

So they will get processed, just not at the same time as "regular" contributions. It usually takes a while longer - the "2nd level reviews" aren't done every day.

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Not even every week, even every 10 days?

Currently, the oldest "2nd level" one that I still have pending is from August 10... As of yet, they've always been processed sooner or later.

I just had two decline due to "new BY submissions must be documented".  I did not touch the cast or any BY.  I simply removed the quotes from the titles in the dividers.  I even documented that the BY were already in the database. 

I PM'd Ken for clarification.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
Not even every week, even every 10 days?

Currently, the oldest "2nd level" one that I still have pending is from August 10... As of yet, they've always been processed sooner or later.

You're right, all of 'em are today "released".

I understand what you are saying Tim.  Again my point was the only change I made was removing the quotes from the dividers as per the rules. 

The contribution was for Dexter Season 1 and 2. 

Ken already indicated to resubmitt.

But if he resubmits without checking the box, it will remove the birth years from that profile. So he is either forced to remove valid data or to document the birth years 

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
But if he resubmits without checking the box, it will remove the birth years from that profile. So he is either forced to remove valid data or to document the birth years 

Except that it's not established whether it's "valid data" or not. The fact that the checkbox appears, means that Ken doesn't think so. If he can supply the necessary documentation, then fine, but as of yet, it's not "valid data" yet. There are, for instance, literally hundreds of profiles with birth years for the likes of Bruce Willis, John Cleese and Samuel L. Jackson - all of those are not valid, and all of them need to be removed by following this exact method: contributing to those profiles and *not* checking the box.

I do understand that it seems somewhat unfortunate that we're forced to deal with this, even when you've never even looked at the birth years before. So leo1963 can't even fix a divider without having to deal with this. But, again, looking at the examples I just gave, this method WILL ensure they'll get cleaned up. If we're not forced to deal with them, then those invalid birth years will remain in the database indefinitely.

And it's really not that bad: if you can't document it, or even if you just don't feel like doing the work, you just don't tick the box. I'm inclined to think that the screeners will ignore any no-votes because of this. In cases where I've have had to this, I merely added the following to my contribution notes: "The contribution screen asked me to document the need for the birth year for XXX - but I couldn't. It's not listed in the forum's pinned BY-thread either. So I didn't check the box for it's inclusion." As of yet, I haven't had any problems with that - they all went through just fine, and nobody ever protested.

I recently removed a couple of those "invalid" birth years from The Matrix and I didn't have to check any boxes. Simply removing the BYs and contribute was all that was needed and it was approved.