So, now we know the following:

1. Skip submitted a contribution to change the A/R from Non-anamorphic to Anamorphic.  His original notes said, and I  quote:

Quoting Skip:

Quote:
Correcting unsourced change to Video Format. Previous Contributor offered absolutely no support that it is not Anamorphic, just an undocumented claim. One which is not supported by DVDDecrypter, which doe show it as Anamorphic

In reality, Skip just saw an undocumented change, and submitted a contribution to change it back based solely on the fact that it was undocumented.  However, he went one step further, and entered into his notes that DVDDecrypter saw it as anamorphic.  As has been proven, this was a clear falsehood.  While correct that the last contributor did not provide support, if Skip had reviewed all of the contribution notes he would have found that support was offered in previous contributions.

If Skip had simply withdrawn the contribution at this point, this would have never reached the light of day.

2. Alien Redrum voted "no" and started this thread.  Skip updated his notes questioning Alien's "no" vote and then compounded his falsehood by claiming that PowerDVD and DVDShrink also show this film to be anamorphic.

Quoting Skip's updated notes:

Quote:
*Updated Notes*
Correcting unsourced change to Video Format. Previous Contributor offered absolutely no support that it is not Anamorphic, just an undocumented claim. One which is not supported by DVDDecrypter, which doe show it as Anamorphic

Note for Alien Red...HUH? What are you going on about. DvddECRYPTER, dvdsHRIN and POWERDVD all see this as 16X9 anamorphic

3. Discussion in this thread continues, and it is pointed out to Skip that the film really is non-anamorphic and that his contribution notes contain false statements regarding the above mentioned tools.

If Skip had simply withdrawn the contribution at this point, it would have ended the discussion on the first page of this thread.

4. Skip then claims that the notes were copied from an old contribution.  No such notes exist on Invelos, so everyone assumes that the notes Skip refers to must have come from IVS.  In the meantime, Invelos declines the contribution and Skip continues to argue that he was right and we are all wrong.

5. The notes from IVS are posted and guess what, it turns out that Skip compounded his first two falsehoods even further with a third falsehood by claiming that the notes came from an old contribution.


I'll let the rest of you decide for yourselves how trustworthy future contributions and/or statements from this user are.  It seems pretty clear to me.

Hal:

Just take responsibility for yourself and your crap vote that was against the Rules. Thank you. For a change. But I have NEVER yet seen you EVER admit to your own errors, but you do specialize in blaming others and using insulting words, which i won't even bother to repeat.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Blair:

I understand your argument but do not share your conclusion. I cannot and will not vote yes to any data that "is because some user says it is. I expect to see some form of hard documentation, I don't care if it's a link, a tool or whatever but not because "say so." That is not documentation and in my book acceptance of such data is the absolute WORST

The irony in this statement in dumbfounding!!

Skip (who apparently can't read what I'm writing... WHOOO!!!) will not vote yes to any data that is because some user says it is...

Uh... isn't that exactly what he just tried to do here? 

I mean, once you sort through his ever growing list of lies, the only possible reason left for Skip to change the information is simply because he says it should be that (incorrect) way.

Absolutely dumbfounding.

I gotta go with hal on this one. It's up to everyone else at this point to decide how trustworthy Skip is... I know personally... absolutely anything he ever submits again that comes through my local will be sorted through with a fine tooth comb, down to the letter. And that's if he actually should be allowed to submit ever again (and if that makes me a villager with a pitchfork, then hand me a torch too, 'cause I got no problems saying or doing what's gotta be said or done).

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Let me just stop by here again and defend Skip..
Initially in March of 2007 we were all dumping , sight unseen, massive contributions from Intervocative over to Invelos .. Color of Money was one of them  and Skip unfortunately was the hapless contributor .
The data and only data for supporting the anamorphic widescreen was the incorrect data on the rear scan .

So when a contributor submitted non anamorphic over Enhanced widescreen that contributor was brought up on the carpet for questioning - but asking,  What was your sources ? ..
His answer was it didn't look good on his TV ..  and Skip not looking at the material ( his DVD's are always in storage under the house arn't they?) brought his usual wrath of questions and arguments..


When it turned out thru these nine pages of rants that Skip was wrong .. He unfortunately took the high road and was rather discommodious to the the rest of us ....... 

I don"t think you got the full story here. You are missing some important parts.

I think he has it precisely right

Do you still think that skip?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
So, now we know the following:

1. Skip submitted a contribution to change the A/R from Non-anamorphic to Anamorphic.  His original notes said, and I  quote:

Quoting Skip:

Quote:
Correcting unsourced change to Video Format. Previous Contributor offered absolutely no support that it is not Anamorphic, just an undocumented claim. One which is not supported by DVDDecrypter, which doe show it as Anamorphic

In reality, Skip just saw an undocumented change, and submitted a contribution to change it back based solely on the fact that it was undocumented.  However, he went one step further, and entered into his notes that DVDDecrypter saw it as anamorphic.  As has been proven, this was a clear falsehood.  While correct that the last contributor did not provide support, if Skip had reviewed all of the contribution notes he would have found that support was offered in previous contributions.

If Skip had simply withdrawn the contribution at this point, this would have never reached the light of day.

2. Alien Redrum voted "no" and started this thread.  Skip updated his notes questioning Alien's "no" vote and then compounded his falsehood by claiming that PowerDVD and DVDShrink also show this film to be anamorphic.

Quoting Skip's updated notes:

Quote:
*Updated Notes*
Correcting unsourced change to Video Format. Previous Contributor offered absolutely no support that it is not Anamorphic, just an undocumented claim. One which is not supported by DVDDecrypter, which doe show it as Anamorphic

Note for Alien Red...HUH? What are you going on about. DvddECRYPTER, dvdsHRIN and POWERDVD all see this as 16X9 anamorphic

3. Discussion in this thread continues, and it is pointed out to Skip that the film really is non-anamorphic and that his contribution notes contain false statements regarding the above mentioned tools.

If Skip had simply withdrawn the contribution at this point, it would have ended the discussion on the first page of this thread.

4. Skip then claims that the notes were copied from an old contribution.  No such notes exist on Invelos, so everyone assumes that the notes Skip refers to must have come from IVS.  In the meantime, Invelos declines the contribution and Skip continues to argue that he was right and we are all wrong.

5. The notes from IVS are posted and guess what, it turns out that Skip compounded his first two falsehoods even further with a third falsehood by claiming that the notes came from an old contribution.


I'll let the rest of you decide for yourselves how trustworthy future contributions and/or statements from this user are.  It seems pretty clear to me.

I appreciate you consolidating the events in a way that outlines the situation so succinctly. Thank you Hal.

This database is built on trust. Skip has consciously and deliberately violated that trust and is unwilling to accept responsibility for his mistakes.

He has had, as Hal shows, numerous opportunities to fix the situation. Instead, he compounds the problem with lies and lashing out at the community.

Invelos and the community deserves better. No one should be allowed to treat the community and the database in this manner.

I have opened a support ticket notifying invelos of this thread and hope that appropriate action is taken.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
11 pages of this? I have no idea what exactly it is, I gave up when the question was answered clearly on page one.

So much for my theory of the site becoming more reasonable. 11 pages?!?

You should read it. It has some surprising twists and turns in it, but in the end it turns out to be a sad story after all.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
I'll give it a read later, don't think I have 11 pages in me right now and certainly don't have the time right now. Will I laugh and cry like a good movie?

Doble:

My side of the story has been stated, but for you i will repeat. The prior Contributor made a a data change with absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION as required by the Rules. I made no determination as tol accuracy, my purpose was merely to restore the data until someone decided to pst a proper Contribution with documentation, beyond the "it is because i say so", which was the essence of the prior Contribution. Very simple. And for that I have been slandered, libelled, attacked and insulted by many including one younfg lady who fancies herself as the Official Invelos judge and thought cop.

Noiw simply put we either have rules or we don't, apparently we no longer have Rules, or we have Rules that apply to some but not to others, We also have users that are free that make nasty comments without repurcussion and others who can't. I am awaitining a post Ken Cole as to exactly what the state of the rules is. And courtesy of this particular thread and the number of hat4eful and nasty remarks directed at me i will go baxck to keepin ALL of my data to myself, this Community is not worthy of my efforts.

But as I said my purpose was simple. And whether the prior Contribution was correct means NOTHING without documentation. I repeat it means NOTHING, coirrect or NOT, makes no difference. To me data without CONCRETE documentation cannot be called correct by anyone, it is simply undocumented data changes are not allowed per the Rules.