Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:

Is it ok with everyone if I recontribute the cast with the documentation even if I don't own the dvd?

I agree with scotthm. As annoying as it might be, you'll now need to verify the names against the documentation.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Of course it's the only thing I want to add by using the 4 pages scan that we had here. I'm probably the most vocal user against the not own contribution, but someone must do it and since it's a boring task I don't think that many would be interested.

I just downloaded the profile and I'll add the info today.

Perhaps you'll find another user helping, so that the work can be split.
Or perhaps there's another profile in the database with the uncredited, so that you can copy and just have to check instead of writting completely new.

I don't agree... while I feel he is free to do the Canadian release that he don't own (as Ken said you don't have to own to contribute) Not you, me or anyone else has the right to tell him he has to do any more then he wants to do.

If he wants to do it... great but that don't mean he has to do any more then that.

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Then to come here and brag about it, well, that was just a huge slap in the face to all of them. 

I didn't see it as bragging, just to let the Community know what the outcome was.

Should it have been withdrawn? Maybe, but it was also down to the Screeners to decide if it was a valid contribution. Rightly, wrongly or otherwise it was accepted.

If people who had their data locked want to resubmit it giving links to the documentation, it's likely to be accepted back in.

Agreed .. I never bragged about anything.. I just let the community know that the Candian locality was approved .. Why?  I dunno I'm not a screener.. 

But it was your contribution!

Quote:
widescreenforever
Posted: January 24, 2010 9:17 PM   

cast appears to be imdb clone / bull fighter Luis Dominguin is not documented as Miguel in credits ..

Profile Contribution Approved Feb  1 2010  8:57AM

Sorry to call you out on it Terry but this was not a case of shooting the messenger like those who have apologized seem to think.

I agree with the opinions expressed earlier. 

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:

He never said that he wasn't the contributor. The point is regardless of whether or not the contribution was wrong, he wasn't bragging about it being accepted. I for one thank him for informing us. If he hadn't, it's possible that it wouldn't have been spotted for some time & no one would've been prepared to submit the data with documentation.

Well he certainly didn't clarify it when  AESP_pres apologized for accusing him of being the contributor

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:

Terry maybe we had misinterpreted your post. I, for one, had understand that you were the one who submit the new approved profiles. So if it isn't the case sorry for the my first reaction and thanks to let us know so someone would correct it. But if my first interpretation was right my point rest that I'm really deceived by your contribution change.

Then he had the cajones to tell AESP_pres that while he was fixing the profile that widescreen just stripped of the data ASEP_pres had the "duty" to fix all the other profiles.

I'm sorry but no matter how you slice it IMNSHO it was (as TheMadMartian put it) bad form! 

My point of all of this is this.. Whether I did contribute or not is not really the issue.. The issue I was raising with you all is , I did contribute.., and I could have gotten negative votes ,, which I didn't, and for that matter AESP didn't  even vote on the issue.. but the fact is - It was voted on,, and approved and I brought this to light with you all.. Don't say I am bringing bad data in  when the whole process of what Invelos is here for,, - failed.. and that is the bigger issue.. The screeners could have known better ....or maybe not.. There has been times when all yes votes still bring a decline and even then for no real reason as some of you would attest to ..
There are flaws and there are multiple accolades for this system.. I was only bringing it to light for you see ..
When you read from page one of the 8 page post of "Uncredited cast gone wild" you get a feeling that only half agree and the other half didn't. 'So someone sat for hours on end and typed in all the names., and others paid money for the program with the names on it.. it still comes down to- " is it credible or not?"  Is it IMDB cloned or not.?. It seemed to be sorted out at the end.. BUT BY that time my contribution had run its course and was accepted .. Blame the screeners not me..
This is why there seems to be so much bad data.. because not everyone has access to all locations and regions , and that is WHERE the bad or good credits go/get  undetected..
That is,, unless I bring it to your attention ..  that is...

Quoting widescreenforever:

Quote:
My point of all of this is this.. Whether I did contribute or not is not really the issue.. The issue I was raising with you all is , I did contribute.., and I could have gotten negative votes ,, which I didn't, and for that matter AESP didn't  even vote on the issue.. but the fact is - It was voted on,, and approved and I brought this to light with you all.. Don't say I am bringing bad data in  when the whole process of what Invelos is here for,, - failed.. and that is the bigger issue.. The screeners could have known better ....or maybe not.. There has been times when all yes votes still bring a decline and even then for no real reason as some of you would attest to ..
There are flaws and there are multiple accolades for this system.. I was only bringing it to light for you see ..
When you read from page one of the 8 page post of "Uncredited cast gone wild" you get a feeling that only half agree and the other half didn't. 'So someone sat for hours on end and typed in all the names., and others paid money for the program with the names on it.. it still comes down to- " is it credible or not?"  Is it IMDB cloned or not.?. It seemed to be sorted out at the end.. BUT BY that time my contribution had run its course and was accepted .. Blame the screeners not me..
This is why there seems to be so much bad data.. because not everyone has access to all locations and regions , and that is WHERE the bad or good credits go/get  undetected..
That is,, unless I bring it to your attention ..  that is...

The system depends on the veracity of the contribution notes. You claimed in your notes that the data was an IMDb clone, which is the trigger phrase needed to remove this kind of data. However, before your contribution was accepted, you knew that documentation was in this thread that proved the data to be accurate. You didn't pull your removal though. You let it run it's course. That's where the objection is. We have no information to suggest that screeners read forum threads. If they don't, they had no idea that your contribution notes were in error. It doesn't seem fair to blame them for that. Nor does it seem right to test for weaknesses in the system by removing data you know to be accurate. We all know that cast and crew data varies across different profiles in the database. That's inherent to the design of the system and we don't need it "brought to light" through dramatic data removals.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
...before your contribution was accepted, you knew that documentation was in this thread that proved the data to be accurate.

I don't think that's quite fair.  The documentation provided in this thread does not exactly match the data in the profile (at least the US locality.)  And there is at least one name among the uncredited "featured players" in our documentation that is in fact credited in the film, so its 'correctness' can be somewhat called into question.

---------------