Whether I agree or disagree is beside the point. There's a rule for this issue: "The inclusion of CLT results in contribution notes is strongly desired but not required."

Fortunately the contribution will be declined. Addressing the point raised stress the word desired and what does that say about a user who will not supply desired information because it is not required. To this user it does not say very much positive about such a fellow user. It tells me that user is lazy and of course makes me wonder if it was really checked. It is because I say it is so doesn't wash. I didnt include specific info so I didn't get accused of throwing rocks at somebody. In this case the user in question completely ignored the basic AS CREDITED rule and wanted to substitute his own credit using the actual credit as the most commonly credited name, which is wrong.

Yes I expect proper doc. Were I contributing I would provide CLT results it takes a few more key strokes to provide the desired data, big deal. What's your problem? Sorry I don't understand those users who lean so hard on the idea of "I don't care it is desired data, I don't HAVE to provide it so I won't. That is si,p;y arrogant and selfish nehavior and displays no consideration for any other user.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Fortunately the contribution will be declined.

Based on what? Again we can't check, since you don't give us enough information. We just have to take your word which isn't much.

Quote:
what does that say about a user who will not supply desired information.

Not much. Maybe he doesn't give a rat's behind what you desire?

Quote:
because it is not required.

Bingo, now you are getting closer to understanding the rules. IT IS NOT REQUIRED.

Quote:
It tells me that user is lazy and of course makes me wonder if it was really checked.

Please check yourself. Could you please stop calling people lazy when they contribute by the rules.

Quote:
It is because I say it is so doesn't wash.

If I understood correctly in this case he has told that his source is CLT and that's enough per rules.

Quote:
I didnt include specific info so I didn't get accused of throwing rocks at somebody

You shouldn't have started this whining again at all.

Quote:
In this case the user in question completely ignored the basic AS CREDITED rule and wanted to substitute his own credit using the actual credit as the most commonly credited name, which is wrong.

If you actually know that he's lying in his contribution notes, that's another story. Just vote no and open support ticket agains him if you wish and get over it. 

Quote:
Yes I expect proper doc.

Who cares what you expect. Invelos is not your company.

Quote:
Were I contributing I would provide CLT results it takes a few more key strokes to provide the desired data, big deal.

I do that also, but it's my choice. It's not mandatory.

Quote:
What's your problem?

Can you please stop mocking contributors who contribute by the rules, but doesn't meet your documentational standards. You on the other hand have been caught lying in your contribution notes.

Quote:
Sorry I don't understand those users who lean so hard on the idea of "I don't care it is desired data, I don't HAVE to provide it so I won't.

Again, maybe he/she doesn't care what you desire.

Before the ranting continues:

If I understood Skip correctly his point is not only the lack of documentation, but that the contributor lied in his/her notes when he/she stated that the changes were based on CLT results where in fact the CLT didn't support this.

So yes, the rules (sadly) don't require to give the CLT results at the moment of the contribution. But at least the contribution should be correct AND according to the given sources.

The only detail I am willing to provide is the credit should read Teri (Terri) not Terri (Teri)

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
The only detail I am willing to provide is the credit should read Teri (Terri) not Terri (Teri)

And now we should take your word? Source please. Which movie? Which release. UPC?
Talking about double standards

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

While I agree with you that there's no good reason to leave out the CLT results if the contributor has bothered to look that information up, this problem could be easily resolved by a slight re-wording of the rule.

I agree. Correct place for rule change requests is Contribution Rules Committee forum.

Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:
Before the ranting continues:

If I understood Skip correctly his point is not only the lack of documentation, but that the contributor lied in his/her notes when he/she stated that the changes were based on CLT results where in fact the CLT didn't support this.

Can you please show me exactly where you see this in Skip's post?

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
For those of you who do not believe in providing documentation, especially for things such as CLT results we have a currently pending Contribution, which will be declined because the user clearly used his own preference to using the tool and provided no documentation of any kind. PLEASE people when you are using Most Commonly Credited Name and the CLT provide the results, don't give NO doc or just a simple I checked the CLT and this is the answer. I know the CLT is a moving target but the data ius what it is at the time you make the Contribution, please end the arrogant gamer of I checked and that's it, for one thing this particular user doesn't believe any user that says "I checked and it's right, I am not going to provide any support to back it up, but I checked."

Because, I have re-read this several times and I do not see where Skip says the contributor has lied. Nor has Skip said that he has checked the CLT results.

As far as I can tell the entire post is a rant against the contribributor because they do not supply the CLT results.

The ironic part is Skip's outrage over the contributor not supplying detailed information in their contribution notes while at the same time Skip refusing to suppy any details about the DVD in question.

I do not believe my posts to be "ranting". I am expressing my opinion on the contribution in question based on the information provided in the initial post.

I do however believe that insulting comments and calling people who politely disagree "arrogant", "lazy", "selfish" or "pathetic" is.