Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
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.

Again, show me where I ignored the rules and voted yes to a bad Contribution. Prove it. I genuinely want to see this.

But, then again, it's obvious you can't be trusted at your word. You are the little boy who cried wolf and it's come time that no one believes you.

Sure, I admit I didn't know that aspect of PowerDVD. Are my feelings hurt? Nope. I can admit I learned something from this thread and I'm better off for it. I even gave greenies to who told me how to do it and I didn't make excuses for my lack of knowledge on the software. That's what adults do. We learn, we thank, we grow.

Perhaps you should look into growing up some. No matter what you say, no matter what you do, no matter how many fingers you point, no matter how many times you cry for Ken (who doesn't care about these forums, FYI), none of it matters. At the end of the day, you have shown who you are. A liar. Plain and simple. You are nothing more than a liar who cannot be trusted.

Good job, buddy.

Alien:

You aren't even worthy of a reply. Now go away before i say something I won't regret. You crossed the line yet again and simply put, since you like to use the word yourself a liar.

Skip,

Thanks for your answer.  There are a couple points I'd like to address.  The contribution that changed it Non-Anamorphic was correct, I understand that you felt that it lacked the necessary documentation but I don't believe that is your responsibility to determine, but the screeners.  You are within your right to vote 'No' but in the end it is up to the screeners to determine whether or not the documentation provided is good enough for the contribution to be accepted.  I can understand your point, but in the end it isn't your call to make.  I might have not had any issue if you tried to change it back if you had not put erroneous data within your notes.  It hurts your credibility within the community if you make statements that are completely fabricated.  To break the rules to enforce the rules does not do any good.  Especially considering the fact that it was quickly proven that the contribution in question was indeed correct. 

The reason the rules are there are to ensure that contributions are accurate.  It seems backwards to me that you seem to be more concerned about the rules than the integrity of the data.  I'd also point out that documentation was provided, and although it might not be up to your standards it was up to the screeners who accepted it and approved the contribution.

I do agree with you that I'd love to hear from Ken and his thoughts on this issue.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
DK yet you assume that some idiot who supplies undocumented data is correct? Please give me a break. I made no judgement of the data, I went and looked at the old notes and simply reversed what was a bad Contribution and was hoping that someone would provide a correctly documented Contribution soon. I don't accept improperly documented data and assume it to be correct, in my book, if you can't provide documentation then your contribution is as likely to wrong as it is right and the prior Contributor provided NO documentation, when he could have easily. You want to assume that undocd data is correct, fine,  will NOT ever make that assumption I see too many errors accepted each and every DAY, I will not accept them locally.

I can tell you that I can see if a movie is anamorphic or not when watching it on my HDTV, and I am sure that other people can do the same. Yes I would trust that person. Those supplied notes that she/he watched it and realized that it wasn't anamorphic is enough and it covers what invelos asked the user to do.

From the rules:

Video Formats
Use the check boxes as follows:
Check Box Film Specification
Pan & Scan Films that were shot at an aspect wider than 1.33:1, and then cropped to 1.33:1 for presentation on the DVD.
Full Frame Films that were filmed at 1.33:1 or Academy Ratio and presented as such.
Films presented in Open Matte and TV series, unless otherwise noted.
Computer generated animation re-rendered to 1.33:1 (even if the original theatrical release was widescreen).
Widescreen Films that are presented in ratio wider than 1.33:1.
16 x 9 Enhanced DVDs with a widescreen presentation that is Anamorphic, often listed as "Enhanced for 16x9 Televisions".

DVD boxes frequently incorrectly list a film as Full Frame when it is actually Pan & Scan (P&S) due to the negative image that P&S has. Please use the correct terminology in DVD Profiler.

Use the Ratio drop down list to enter the aspect ratio of the main feature. In cases where Widescreen and P&S versions are included, list the Widescreen ratio.

Use the Video specified on the DVD Cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Video included on the disc. When contributing accurate, DVD based Video – including P&S in place of Full Frame - include your verification method in your Contribution Notes.

Watching it would be the verification method in my opinion.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
The ONLY person I am interested in a response from is Ken. I thank you DK for keeping our discussion respectful.

I only fire when fired upon first and no shots fired at me so far.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
(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

And you don't have any idea how to get this info without any "basic of tools", which is very easy.

@INVELOS

Please lock this POINTLESS Thread already    

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
I don't think so at all, DK. I have talked for years about what I think of users who say "it is because I say it is". That simply does not provide any support, the user is providing a guess without support and support for this kind of thing is so easy to provide. You say you can spot a letterboxed film, I can too, but i would not say that in my notes, I would always provide some concrete backup, particularly when the back of the box so clearly claims it to be 16X9, this why we need the documentation because we know that cases are in error sometimes. The user provided nothing more than a guess, his guess mat have been correct, but it still remains a guess and that does validate the data change.

Not really since the user wrote that that box states anamorphic but it wasn't when he watched it. Would you be happy if a webpage would be given as a source for his change with a link to that page? That page could disappear the next day making that source useless.

I am still waiting for you to tell me a little more about your notes and what made you fabricate them, clearly you didn't copy those Skip. Tell me what happened.

@8ballMax  I don't see anything wrong with this discussion right now.