As a courtesy to you, Skip I will explain - despite the fact that I don't feel I have to justify myself.

Partly stubborness and partly disorganisation and partly the principal of the thing.

A. I've done the hard part. I've updated the profile in FULL. Not just the dribs and drabs that many other users do. Therefore, I don't think it's much to ask that IF YOU DOUBT my work then check for yourself. I'm not saying just take my word for it. I'm saying that IF you feel that my work is unrealiable then check it. I don't think there are any people who can say that my work is unreliable or full or rubbish.

B. When I'm updating I get very focused on what I'm doing. I have a routine of how I do things and I don't tend to deviate from that. It's part of my OCD. I honestly do not even THINK about making a note of sites I visit - I'm on autopilot. More importanly the frequency with which I bother using Credited As is very low so, once again, I tend not to think about it. This may be a lame excuse - but at least it's the truth.

C. Lastly because no one in this forum has the right to dictate to me (or anyone else) how I follow the rules - as long as I am following them. No one has the right to 'make up' rules that they feel should be implemented. The rules committee forum is to discuss such matters and then present them to Ken for consideration. It seems to me that people forget that and simply enforce these so-called rules. When it comes down to it...you may not like how I handle this ONE issue in my contributions; but you do not have the right to condemn me for it. I am following the rules as I always do - despite what you and other people here seem to think. You all seem to think you can criticise and condemn me for following the rules. Well you can't, because you have no power over me.

As far as I am concerned that is the end of this discussion. Ken has made a ruling. That's the end of it. I don't need to justify following the rules to anyone.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Quote:
You people making up rules because you think you've got the right are the ones in the wrong.

Another snide remark. 

Sorry I wasn't being snide I was being accusatory.

I didn't have to document the data the way you want it. I was interpreting the rules correctly so stop accusing me of doing something wrong. I tend to get annoyed when I'm accused of doing something I haven't done.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore... but I now feel the need to.

I felt from that very first PM you sent me that you were being snide with me. Blaming me that your contribution got declined.... when I was only 1 single no vote along with about 3 or 4 yes votes. 

And then assuming I allowed the bad info into the database in the first place.... when there was no way to know when I got those dvds... if I had them before or after the contribution... or if I even seen it to vote on or what have you.

And then there was putting the work I do for the database into question... basically making me feel like (at least in your opinion) my work don't matter as much as yours since I don't do full audits (since I don't do crew data)

And I can also tell you my voting did not come from a made up rule from the forum... I am one of the ones to always tell people that ideas and polls and such here do not make them rules till we get Ken to agree to them.

I believed that I was voting per Ken's wishes... as I took what I seen from the rules (about notes having full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make.) and what he had elsewhere on the site (Contribution page saying to be sure to source everything [paraphrasing]). So when I read those 2 things common sense told me reading that means I was voting for what Ken meant.

Yes I was mistaken... but that is all it was. As soon as Ken clarified it I said I would follow it... and I have... as I voted yes to your new contribution.

And between the fact that I believed I was doing the correct thing... and the way you made me feel on how you talked to me through-out the entire situation is why you didn't get an apology. By that time I had already lost all the respect I had for you.

OK... I said what I had to say. I will now drop this once again.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore... but I now feel the need to.

I felt from that very first PM you sent me that you were being snide with me. Blaming me that your contribution got declined.... when I was only 1 single no vote along with about 3 or 4 yes votes. 

And then assuming I allowed the bad info into the database in the first place.... when there was no way to know when I got those dvds... if I had them before or after the contribution... or if I even seen it to vote on or what have you.

And then there was putting the work I do for the database into question... basically making me feel like (at least in your opinion) my work don't matter as much as yours since I don't do full audits (since I don't do crew data)

And I can also tell you my voting did not come from a made up rule from the forum... I am one of the ones to always tell people that ideas and polls and such here do not make them rules till we get Ken to agree to them.

I believed that I was voting per Ken's wishes... as I took what I seen from the rules (about notes having full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make.) and what he had elsewhere on the site (Contribution page saying to be sure to source everything [paraphrasing]). So when I read those 2 things common sense told me reading that means I was voting for what Ken meant.

Yes I was mistaken... but that is all it was. As soon as Ken clarified it I said I would follow it... and I have... as I voted yes to your new contribution.

And between the fact that I believed I was doing the correct thing... and the way you made me feel on how you talked to me through-out the entire situation is why you didn't get an apology. By that time I had already lost all the respect I had for you.

OK... I said what I had to say. I will now drop this once again.

Well...I am quite happy to apologise for making you feel that way.

I'm sorry - that was not my intention.

I guess I did blame you. I felt you were voting unfairly and based on an unsubstantiated interpretation of the rules. I also felt you were being incredibly blinkered by voting no to a profile which was a full audit as opposed to simply making the cast changes you didn't agree with. I took out my frustration on you which was unfair.

However, I would like to think that you could see how this has made me feel. In effect I was being told that I was totally in the wrong to be doing what I was doing.
Not only that but it was implied (however unintentionally) that the rest of my work was irrelevant and untrustworthy when compared to this supposed indiscretion.

Unfortunately for you, Pete, I took out my frustration on you. Frustration which is actually levelled at the people in this forum who DO try to impose their rules on others.

I obviously handled the situation with you in a terrible manner for you to feel as you have stated.
I am truly sorry.

Thank You... That is very much appreciated.

And I do apologize that my no vote made you feel that way... it was never and would never be meant personally. So I am sorry about that.

Please never take any no vote from me (or anyone else) personally. As I have stated on this forum before... I do not believe in voting yes with reason as I know for a fact that not everyone looks at the votes if they are all yes votes.

A no vote to a contribution never... ever means everything you done is in question and there isn't some level of trust. (can't have complete trust over the internet... that is for sure!) And also remember that Ken said himself it is completely valid to vote no on small problems... even if it is for a bigger contribution.

See...
Quoteing Ken Cole

Quote:
The Invelos evaluators' standing policy is to accept profiles that add significant value.  They do not have to be complete, nor even completely accurate.  If you're submitting 50 painstakingly correct cast entries but get the production year wrong, the profile should be accepted and corrected later.

"No" votes are equally valid in this case, however.  They allow the contributor a chance to correct their submission if they choose, and save someone the effort of the correction later on.

I've sent out a notes reiterating this policy to the evaluators.

see the part I put in bold.

And once again... Thank you for the above post. You have definitely earned back some respect.

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
There seems to be a select few who have taken it upon themselves to 'police' contributions.
Perhaps if they spent more time contributing and less looking for a reason to negatively vote or condemn others work, then they may better appreciate the heavy workload other generous users such as Neil put in to improving the online database.
If we scare away all those most productive contributers, then the online db will be the victim.

I can't speak for others, but when I vote "no" on a contribution it is not because I am "looking for a reason to negatively vote or condemn others work".

I vote "no" when I see something wrong.  It's really quite that simple.

I would not argue, however, that some folks use the voting system to enforce their own standards on the on-line database which is often far and away higher than that of Invelos.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT.  If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.  However, in most cases it is not required.

I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.

Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

I'm getting 'no' votes in my contributions, even from users who have responded in this thread to your comments. It would be nice to get your clarification into the actual rules.

I can understand people not wanting to vote Yes in certain cases, even where the Rules agree with the contributor.
However, nobody seems to think of the option not to vote on the contribution at all...

Can't we stop the fighting and go back to contributing to the best of our ability?

Quote:
If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.

If I vote no, then I dispute that they are the same person. Ergo, documentation may be needed...?