Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
PS Ken, and or Forum-Moderator: could you please ban this annoying person, this time maybe even for good? Pretty please with loads of sugar on top?

WILL NOT HAPPEN EVER.

I find it fascinating that the submission hasn't been retracted, which only goes to show that Skippy is knowingly submitting bad data into the database.

Wow.

I noticed that too.

Checked to see if the submission was retracted after this shiitake mushroom hit the fan last night, and shocker of all shocks... it's still up for approval. Meaning exactly what you've said: He's knowingly submitting bad data into the database (and lying about it in his contribution notes as well). Someone who 100% knowingly submits incorrect and bad data into the system should absolutely, at the VERY least, have their contribution privileges suspended for a good chunk of time (and really, how are you supposed to trust that person ever again?) I'm all for giving second chances if someone makes a mistake. We've all done it. You fix it, withdraw it, move on, whatever. But to continue to keep the incorrect contribution up for approval after it's PROVEN incorrect to prove some kind of point is ridiculous and obviously that person can't be trusted to submit information into the system.

The contribution has now disappeared.

It was declined by the screeners.  Thank goodness!

Most importantly, we have correct data.

Something you obviously do not care about.  You're more concerned about contribution notes than the data itself.  I find that rather twisted.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Most importantly, we have correct data.

Something you obviously do not care about.  You're more concerned about contribution notes than the data itself.  I find that rather twisted.

No, you don't hal. Only in your own addled mind is it correct. it is undocumented and therefore NOT correct.

Are you talking about yourself again, hal? Bottom line here is that we have no Rules any longer, I am only interested in hearing what Ken has to say in defending and indefensible position. So, Ken, we have Rules or we do not...which is it. You also permit personal insults and attacks on some users, while not on others, your system displays only inequity.and failure to ab9ide by the Rules

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The contribution has now disappeared.

It was declined by the screeners.  Thank goodness!

 

BTW hal, since you are so free with the slanderous comments. The only liar here is you since you completely ignored the Rules and voted yes to a Contribution with inadequate documentation and you are still trying to spin your incorrect vote as correct.

Hardly, pal. But  appreciate your looking. As I said those notes were OLD, and I didn't look to see where they came from because it wasn't relevant. My only concern was that the existing data was not properly documented at all, if it's correct all well and good but the fact remains that the data has not been properly documented relative to the user's notes, had he properly documented it I would have happily voted yes. Nor did i bring the subject here, a user did who ignored the Rules and voted yes to undocumented data, the keyword being undocumented, meaning in this case not supported by any evidence other than the user's own claim. As I said earlier had the OP or Hal or anyone else wanted to replace the data I submitted with a data change and proper documentation 5then I would vote yes, As I said had the OP or Hal replaced my data with proper documentation then I would have voted yes, but the prior Contribution contained no supporting documentation only eSSENTIALLY "IT IS BECAUSE i SAY IT IS". I cannot and will not ever vote yes to undocumented data. it's in the Rules, very simply and because someone manages to get improperly documented data approved does not make it correct, it remains undocumented data, which may or may not be correct. All I want is to see the documentation not some users claim, that's why we have the Rules and if we aren't going to follow them then we have a near worthless system.

Kathy had requested that I come off the bench, so I did and also got slammed for doing so by her. So I will happily sit back down on the bench and go back to not Contributing especially when we the users and the screeners are permitted to ignore the Rules. I have zero tolerance for it and simply will not support it and I am very curious what Ken has to say, if anything, on the matter.