Then you vote the way the rules require, James and stop making up the Rules to suit yourself. Or demading Source for one user while letting another slip with nonefor a similar Contribution, that does not necessarily include Tim. I have commented before that you are erratic and inconsistent in your voting but so far you ignore me, that is a very serious observation, james, just as is my observation that you make up the Rules to suit yourself from time to time. My observations are legitimate and they are true.
The one part of this whole thing that do find completely bogus is tha partial Contributions as it relates to Overview are not acceptable. In my book they are or they are not acceptable period. How many of you people that are saying that Partial as it relates to the overview is unaccepptable are the SAME people who will say something is better than nothing even if it is IMDb or just part of a Cast list or just SOME of the crew data. Partial is partial and Ken and Gerri have ruled that partials are acceptable PERIOD, they did not qualify it, who are YOU to put a qualifier on it.I am offended by many of the Contributions I see, especially when they get approved, and it is maybe only a director and a writer, well you are looking at the credits aren't you, then let's get the rest of the data too, I mean really people. Partial Contributions are Partial Contributions and they are OK without qualification, until Ken or Gerri say otherwise, and a No vote to a Partial Contribution is in direct violation of what Ken and Gerri have said to date. Then if you start putting qualifiers on it , what is or is not a partial contribution and who is going to decide this. Sorry guys none of the arguments wash. But we will see, what we will see.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Then you vote the way the rules require, James and stop making up the Rules to suit yourself. Or demading Source for one user while letting another slip with nonefor a similar Contribution, that does not necessarily include Tim. I have commented before that you are erratic and inconsistent in your voting but so far you ignore me, that is a very serious observation, james, just as is my observation that you make up the Rules to suit yourself from time to time. My observations are legitimate and they are true.

I ignore your obvervations because they are self-serving. I'm very pleased with my contribution success rate. The contributions I vote 'yes' on are generally approved and those I vote 'no' on are generally declined. My voting record is just fine, thanks!

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Oh you mean like the Andy griffith Contributions you voted No because you didn't like the Rules and tried to claimn that the Rules allow for numbered episodes when there are no numbers that are part of a printed episode list. is that the kind of No vote you mean, james, that is what i call make the Rules up to suit yourself because the Rules did not support you, your No vote was justifiably ignored. Follow the Rules, James, stop pretending that you do, actuallty do it and don't try apply your own set or your own qualifiers. Now i don't want to discuss any further, James. You are wron to vote No to a Partial Contributiion and you have no right to apply a quaklifier that has not been placed by ken or gerri, in short neither you nor I can determine exactly what a Partial Contribution is or is not, we can only deal with the users notes.

I am not appreciative of your belief that you are both above the Rules, James and that you have the sole ability to interpret them, both of these you have demonstrated repeatedly. I could cite example after example after example, James.

Skip

No, I was referring more to examples such as Antitrust where you tried to change the aspect ratio to match the back cover in spite of the fact that prior contribution notes documented the actual aspect ratio.

Or when you tried to remove correct data from the database because you didn't like the prior documentation.

Or when you tried to make up a media company out of your personal knowledge that wasn't shown on the packaging and you could provide no documentation.

Or when you tried to remove the roles names from several cast members.

Or when you added studio names and didn't say where you got them from.

Or when you made numerous changes to the cast without mentioning anything in your notes.

Or when you put the episode list below the overview even though it's above the overview on the back cover.

Or when you tried to remove uncredited by saying they matched a 3rd party...when they didn't.

Things like that. 

Sadly, I see that an informative post gets turned in a pissing contest with personal remarks by one particular user, yet again. Anyway:

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Back on topic.

Thank-you to most for their constructive comments from both sides of the camp.

I will continue to vote no and leave comments accordingly, unless it is a minor problem within a larger positive contribution, and then it would be fairer for me to vote yes with a comment.

Rich

That's basically what I do. If there's a big contribution and it contains for example a tiny typing error, I tend to vote yes and make a mental note to myself to correct that typing error myself lateron, if the original submitter doesn't.

In all fairness, Unicus is correct in that whenever a contribution contains even the tiniest of errors, it should get a NO vote. However, from a human perspective I can understand that constantly getting NO votes on a huge submission for a tiny, tiny error can discourage some users and that's why I'm a bit more lenient, provided it's not an important error (typo in the overview, I can live with but typo in the credits not)

So far in the few cases this has happened, I vote YES and add a contribution note and the contributor corrected the mistakes.

But again, if we indeed want to apply the rules to the letter, we'd have to follow Unicus' example.

Thanks Ken.  Although I'm flabberghasted that you even had to say anything.

The urge to just say the hell with it and lock my database off is becoming overwhelming.  I don't even want to look at the forums anymore.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If a contribution contains significant value, yet has one or more errors, users are encouraged to point this out to the submitter.  It is valid to do this via a polite PM, or via polite vote comments.

In this kind of a case, it is fully valid to vote Yes, and also fully valid to vote No.  Brief, to-the-point, polite comments are vastly more important than the vote count.

To repeat, in this kind of a case it is not a voting violation to vote No or to vote Yes.

Thanks Ken...now if you could just poke your head into the Multiple cuts in one release thread. 

You couldn't find a nicer guy in these forums that Richie and the treatment he has received at the hands of one user in here is horrendous.

Where's the apology for the numerous 'your are abusing your voting rights' accusations?

Seeing as I sincerely doubt that will be forthcoming.....I'm sorry that you were treated in this way Richie; and carry on with the good work!

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
You couldn't find a nicer guy in these forums that Richie and the treatment he has received at the hands of one user in here is horrendous.

Where's the apology for the numerous 'your are abusing your voting rights' accusations?

Seeing as I sincerely doubt that will be forthcoming.....I'm sorry that you were treated in this way Richie; and carry on with the good work!

No need for apologies Neil, I've got thick skin like a rhino, but thanks for the sentiment.

I think Ken has drawn a line under this thread, and ALL users should be clear what is or isn't acceptable.

Thanks for everyones input.

cheers
Rich