Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Wrong.  Somebody has already mentioned John Hughes uses this alias.  Knowing that going in made it fairly easy for you find that is correct apparently.  But what if somebody doesn't know that?  Like me, for example.  I'm a Hughes fan, but I didn't know about the alias until this thread came up.  Should my (or anybody else's) profile be nixed by somebody that DID know, as if I've made a mistake?  I don't think so.  Like I said, enter what you know for sure, leave alone what you don't - whatever it is.  If somebody else is so wound up about it, they can submit a change with proof!

The only person I saw wound up was Skip.  Going by the rules, James had a valid 'no' vote AND his comment was quite polite.  He explained the error and politely asked that it be changed...he even said please.

To be clear, I did not know the information going in.  I learned about it in this thread same as you did.  However, if I had made the same contribution and gotten the same 'no' vote I would have done the same exact search that I mentioned earlier.  I would have made the correction and thanked, in this case James, for pointing it out.

If, for whatever reason, I didn't want to change it well, as Ken pointed out, a 'no' vote isn't the end of the world.  It's not like James came here and tried to convince everyone to change their votes.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Wrong.  Somebody has already mentioned John Hughes uses this alias.  Knowing that going in made it fairly easy for you find that is correct apparently.  But what if somebody doesn't know that?  Like me, for example.  I'm a Hughes fan, but I didn't know about the alias until this thread came up.  Should my (or anybody else's) profile be nixed by somebody that DID know, as if I've made a mistake?  I don't think so.  Like I said, enter what you know for sure, leave alone what you don't - whatever it is.  If somebody else is so wound up about it, they can submit a change with proof!

The only person I saw wound up was Skip.  Going by the rules, James had a valid 'no' vote AND his comment was quite polite.  He explained the error and politely asked that it be changed...he even said please.

To be clear, I did not know the information going in.  I learned about it in this thread same as you did.  However, if I had made the same contribution and gotten the same 'no' vote I would have done the same exact search that I mentioned earlier.  I would have made the correction and thanked, in this case James, for pointing it out.

If, for whatever reason, I didn't want to change it well, as Ken pointed out, a 'no' vote isn't the end of the world.  It's not like James came here and tried to convince everyone to change their votes.

Well, like I already said, it seemed to me that the comment made had a factor of expectation to it that seemed rather officious.  Don't know if you've ever been in the military, but I've run across plenty of officers who would say things in just the same manner, with please even, but there was no doubt in my military mind that it was do as he said, or else.

That said, I still have to say I'm uncomfortable with a contributor being subject to second guessing and having to make modifications to an contribution when he has not actually made any errors.  Skip didn't make any errors, and he isn't under any obligation to 'correct' that correct profile once submitted just because somebody else says so.

It's done with, Rifter, let it lie.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rick:

You are missing the point entirely. And I agree with what you are saying, BTW. The point is that we have two users who are, in my book, abusing their voting privilege in an attempt to place additional demads of time spent on another user so that THEY can get the data formatted as they want it to be. That way they don't have to go back later and modify it themselves. They don't have the right to make that demand, and that is what constitutes abuse of their voting. I have the right to say I will not go beyond this point and spend the extra time.

I have suggested a method whereby they might achieve their desired goal and as yet yhey have not chosen to consider it. So as far as I am concerned it is up to them.

Am I angry, you bet, Rick. I think I have every right to be. The only reason I mentioned the time at all is to illustrate that I spend enough time, more than enough to put up with someone demanding MORE.  If they want to stand their ground, then let THEM invest THEIR time making whatever change they feel is needed.

Skip

You could have gone in and fixed it 10 times over in the amount of time you have spent BSing in this thread! 

At the risk of belaboring this just a bit more, here's a better example of how we are dealing with a different situation now with DVDP 3.0:

For DVDP 2.4/2.5, there was only 1 name field and the only data that could go there was the 'as credited' name, hence:
Existing Profile:
John Hughes <-- Incorrect

Contributed Profile:
Edmund Dantes <-- Correct

For DVDP 3.0, there are 2 pieces of information for each name, even though we only see 1 when they are the same. But to break it out:

Existing Profile:
Name: John Hughes <-- Correct
Credited as: John Hughes <--Incorrect

Contributed Profile #1:
Name: Edmund Dantes <--Incorrect
Credited as: Edmund Dantes <--Correct

Contributed Profile #2:
Name: John Hughes <--Correct
Credited as: Edmund Dantes <--Correct

In order to manage linking and 'as credited', both pieces need to be 'correct'.

Nice post James.  We all have to understand that there are new fields with new rules in 3.0.  We all have to be open to the fact that someone might call us on it when we forget about the new fields.

I thought I'd weigh in on this one.

I, too, did not know this was John Hughes.  I also know I will have to rely heavily on other people to supply the 'credited as' information.
In many cases I won't know the information....but, more importantly, I don't have the time or inclination to find it.

Having said that, if someone drops me a PM giving me the information I will happily correct it to ensure the linking feature works.

So, while Skip is technically correct with his contribution, I have to agree with the majority who say he should change it know the information has been supplied.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
how about we be allowed to add comments to a neutral vote and neutral votes show up in the list?
That way we can still post a message to the contributor and other voters without fear of causing offence.

I don't know about anyone else, but I will admit that I don't go back and look at a contribution UNLESS there are 'no' votes.  I don't see any reason to.  So if this had been my contribution, and James had left his comment with a 'yes' vote, I never would have seen it.

The purpose of a 'no' vote, at least for me, is to let the contributor know that you don't agree with the change and why.