Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
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.

Skip, you say that you wanted to change the data back because it was changed without documentation, but you then tried to change the data without checking what is correct. I think that is against the rules too and also you supplied contribution notes which state that you checked it and you even give the programs you used but your collection is in storage and the contribution you wanted to correct was not wrong, just not documented to your liking. Don't you think you should have checked before making that change and pulling sources for that change out of your behind? Is the documentation more worth than correct data? That can't be, can it?

DK"

Contributions made, voted Yes and accepted are patently against the Rules PERIOD. I made no judgement to accuracy, my concern was only doicumentation. I did look up the intervocative record and included data from there which was probably about FIVE years old I am sorry my friend, I do not accept the claim that the data made by the prior contribyutor was correct, that pure bull crap and spin, there was nothing to support the users claim. Dont' get all wrapped up in those who cannot and will not accept there own failure to follow the Rules and respond merely by pointing the finger at someone else, with deligh5t if that someone happens to me and some like Hal take pleasure in making slanderous remarks. I only judged based on the prior OP with NO supporting documentation, nothing more, nothing less. I cannot currently check my copy, but that is irrelevant since that was not 5the basis , the basis was that the prior Contributor had not pprovided any supporting documentation merely his opinion, and many users voted Yes despite the Rules, and accepted undocumented does not mean it is correct or automatically correct because it was accepted. It merely mEans it that the Rules were thrown out and it was accepted the Rules were disgarded.

As I repeatedly said if someone followed me with a properly documented contribution I would have beeen only too happy to say yes. But instead of making any7 sort of attempt at understanding, it became as usual an all-out attack on Skip. that is unacceptable to me and i will be only too happy to go back to non-contributing status including several hundred titles which are NOT in the database at all. this community, quite frankly, as whole is sadly ignorant and their only interest is launching assaults on me if dare to say a word. I will wait and see if Ken dares to speak up for himself and the inequities that I see in the system, we have Rules or we do not, we have TOS standards that very clearly do not apply to all, particular when some users are free to call another a LIAR, thoise people are not even worth the time of day, yet the local thought cop or the one who fancies herself so also freely permits such behavior while throwing attacks at me.

I'm done and the only thing that can change that right now is ken Cole. He's allowEd a poisonous cesspool to fester in these forums, in which insults are thrown freely and allowed to stand by certain users, while these same users feign their own innocence. Enough is enough. Ken I wait.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
The prior Contributor made a a data change with absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION as required by the Rules.

A clear lie, there was documentation, it just wasn't up to your standards.

Quote:
I made no determination as tol accuracy, my purpose was merely to restore the data

And thereby violating the Contribution-Rules yourself, by making changes without proper documentation.
And no, copying a 5 year old blanket-contribution-notes isn't a valid documentation either.

Quote:
And whether the prior Contribution was correct means NOTHING without documentation. I repeat it means NOTHING, coirrect or NOT, makes no difference.

Again, that is just your opinion, and a rather twisted one in my opinion.

cya, Mithi

Quoting Skip:

Quote:
I cannot currently check my copy...

I don't understand. You can't check your copy, but in your notes you say you did.

Quoting Skip:

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

Which is it?

Sorry Skip but I am not buying it. Your obsession with having perfect contribution notes is way overboard. You are changing good data to bad data because the contribution notes don't meet your standards. Think about that. Does that make sense? Does that make the database better?

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Aloien:How many time do i have to explain that I copied the info from the intervocative.

Skip, how is it possible that you are claiming that you took the notes from the old intervocative profile but the screenshot of those notes does not provide this information? (I can't check the intervocative profile right now since I am at work and I am going by the provided screenshot)

Edit: I just checked the profile. Have a look here: http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=15612&PageNum=LAST

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Sorry Skip but I am not buying it. Your obsession with having perfect contribution notes is way overboard. You are changing good data to bad data because the contribution notes don't meet your standards. Think about that. Does that make sense? Does that make the database better?

Yeah it does, I would not submit such a change without more concrete data. As I said DK I was not judging the data, i want more than it is because some user says it is so, that does NOT constitute any sort of documentation on a technical point. If you tell me you recognize Dub Taylor in a film, that is fine, that is not a technical point, but there are tools galore out there to deal with technical issues, use them.

Alien you got busted for (10ignoring the Rules and voting yes to a bad Contribution (2) not even knowing how to get an answer from one of the simplest most basic of tools and your refusal to be man enough to admit your own error, but instead casting aspoersions and pointing the finger at someone els to cover your own error.

Same old Alien

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
DK:

Try reading those notes again. One of them describes that the data was re-audited using TOOLS, which are used for Runtimes, Audio data and video data.

You don't mention aspect ratio or video data in your notes. If you copy notes from a profile it should be "copy and paste". How can somebody who is about correct documentation assume that the video aspect was checked if your own notes don't confirm it. You didn't copy your notes, you assumed......................and it happened what happens when you assume.....................