| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eaglejd: Quote:
Maybe, but are all of them correct? If you don't know the answer to that then why are you removing the data? |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 270 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Bodi: Quote:
Quoting eaglejd:
Quote:
Maybe, but are all of them correct?
If you don't know the answer to that then why are you removing the data? Precisely because I don't know, nothing was documented. | | | Jim
More than I need, but not as many as I want! |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 445 |
| | Posted: | | | | 4 of them have already been documented in this thread. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Bodi: Quote:
4 of them have already been documented in this thread. A lot of people consider this profile as kind of holy. But did eaglejd mention that when cleaning up this mess he had to add three Actors? These three: Leo McCoy as Prison Guard 3 Roberto Rangel as Prison Guard 4 Ronald Tanner as Man in Prison Laundry Btw, of the 9 versions of Derailed I corrected and contributed 8 were approved of, one was declined although it was the same as the others. I contributed more but did withdraw a few since there were NO votes such as "I don't understand your contribution", "Why didn't you use the common name for that actor". |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Its notyour job to documentas a voter and that means nothing...unles the user wants to accept that and use it. You CAN use that documentation to return data you can document in the future. Your documentation is not part of the permanent record Richie, the point remains that the data was NEVER documented which make sit ILLEGAL to have been Contributed and accepted in error. As a voter I don't care about YOUR documentation.; THAT is between you and the Contributor. I wil say, speaking personally that when users have provided this to me, I will verify it and then resubmit with the verified data ONLY.
Skip PROVIDE PROOF!! * Provides links and documentation * THAT MEANS NOTHING!! * Provides screenshot and timestamp * THAT MEANS NOTHING, PROVE THAT IT IS HIM/HER!! * Provides further links and documentation * THAT MEANS NOTHING, WHERE DID THEY GET *THEIR* DOCUMENTATION? -------------------- What a load of f---ing B.S. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And you just filled up your wheelbarrow. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Its notyour job to documentas a voter and that means nothing...unles the user wants to accept that and use it. You CAN use that documentation to return data you can document in the future. Your documentation is not part of the permanent record Richie, the point remains that the data was NEVER documented which make sit ILLEGAL to have been Contributed and accepted in error. As a voter I don't care about YOUR documentation.; THAT is between you and the Contributor. I wil say, speaking personally that when users have provided this to me, I will verify it and then resubmit with the verified data ONLY.
Skip
PROVIDE PROOF!!
* Provides links and documentation *
THAT MEANS NOTHING!!
* Provides screenshot and timestamp *
THAT MEANS NOTHING, PROVE THAT IT IS HIM/HER!!
* Provides further links and documentation *
THAT MEANS NOTHING, WHERE DID THEY GET *THEIR* DOCUMENTATION?
--------------------
What a load of f---ing B.S. Again: Why were these actors not in the profiles since they are CREDITED (you have to shout here) on DISC.................... Leo McCoy as Prison Guard 3 Roberto Rangel as Prison Guard 4 Ronald Tanner as Man in Prison Laundry |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting O'Hara: Quote:
Again: Why were these actors not in the profiles since they are CREDITED (you have to shout here) on
DISC....................
Leo McCoy as Prison Guard 3
Roberto Rangel as Prison Guard 4
Ronald Tanner as Man in Prison Laundry I don't believe that anyone said the profile was perfect and should be touched, so that is a complete red herring. The fact remains that nowhere has Ken stated that undocumented info (so called "illegal" info) can be removed with no documentation. The only things that can be are uncredited lists that match third party database and that are undocumented. Does this fit both criteria?  | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | Very funny! Fejoos and Asok added Cast on March 14-15 of last year and a week before the DVD was released and they didn't document it. Very sloppy job. Also illegal as you well know.
And ach, it's all water under the bridge since almost all my contributions (8) (including several with removed cast AND uncredited Actors) were approved and released this morning and are now in the database. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting O'Hara: Quote:
Also illegal as you well know. Maybe against my reading of the rules, and I'd agree a sloppy job, but not sure which law they were breaking for them to be deemed illegal. Also removing again without documentation is equeally sloppy and against the rules imo. Ultimately the only people who have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is not are the Invelos screeners. Once they accept it, it is valid data unless it can be proven otherwise - that is what the rules say. All changes must be documented. You may not like it, but there is nothing in the rules to support your position of undocumented removal that I can see. Can you quote it? | | | Andy
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lopek: Quote:
Quoting O'Hara:
Quote:
Also illegal as you well know.
Maybe against my reading of the rules, and I'd agree a sloppy job, but not sure which law they were breaking for them to be deemed illegal. Also removing again without documentation is equeally sloppy and against the rules imo.
Ultimately the only people who have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is not are the Invelos screeners. Once they accept it, it is valid data unless it can be proven otherwise - that is what the rules say. All changes must be documented.
You may not like it, but there is nothing in the rules to support your position of undocumented removal that I can see. Can you quote it? I like it, really. The screeners did decide (my English must be absolutely below par or you didn't read my posting). Check these out, f.i.: 796019-787390 796019-797054 7-332421-024284 8-717418-085636 These profiles were more or less the same as that of the infamous 796019-786492 which I re-submitted this morning. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | A bit weird, but try that UPC number again and YOU read the thread  Database tells me this: View contribution notes 796019-787390 Sep 21, 2007 Sep 24, 2007 Yes: 6 No: 0 Released |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Bodi: Quote:
4 of them have already been documented in this thread. That doesn't matter. They were not documented at the time of submission, which makes them illegal. You can't weasel your way around that fact. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Bodi:
Quote:
4 of them have already been documented in this thread.
That doesn't matter. They were not documented at the time of submission, which makes them illegal.
You can't weasel your way around that fact. Not necessarily true. They could all have been fully documented under Invelos but then submitted to the Intervocative database with no documentation (as thousands of profiles were) losing all the previous info (one of the biggest losses in the transfer IMO) ... and FWIW if they were submitted when no documentation was required they are still legal. If you build an extension on your house small enough that doesn't require building permissions then two years later they change the law so that all sizes of extension now require building permissions you don't have to apply retrospectively... | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 105 |
| | Posted: | | | | edit | | | | Last edited: by O'Hara |
|