I checked the information on the other Derailed contributions in DVDP, including the dates they were approved by the screeners.

I am not sure why 796019-786492 was contributed with similar deletions/changes, withdrawn, and then resubmitted without giving the screeners an opportunity to settle the matter as they did with the others (which were approved with the deletions/changes).

This data/documentation should have been included in the “infamous 796019-786492” submission. It demonstrates, based on the approval dates that the screeners agree with the “yes” voters. It also provides evidence that the data contained in 796019-786492 is different than others in the database.

Documentation, IMHO, is a requirement for any changes, additions, or deletions. My vote would have been different if this information was included in the submission. It is important that consistency be maintained and, based on my research that is not the case with this Derailed film.

After spending too much time on this contribution, and it’s obvious I need to get a life, I have changed my mind on this matter. I think Behemot has come up with an acceptable compromise: “The best solution to this, IMO, would be to accept the changed profile, and then someone could make a new contribution with uncredited cast, with proper sources.” Since Rich and others have put a lot of effort into researching this data, most of that work is already done.

Of course it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind so...

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
I have tried my best to satisfy both parties, and have submitted contribution that includes all of the creditted cast, and only the uncredited cast that I could identify with documented proof.
The remainder I have removed.

Hopefully this will shut this thread 

I can live with that .

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
I have tried my best to satisfy both parties, and have submitted contribution that includes all of the creditted cast, and only the uncredited cast that I could identify with documented proof.
The remainder I have removed.

Hopefully this will shut this thread 

The link for Ike Ononye does not mention "Derailed"

The link for John Gunnery does not mention "Derailed"

Cast and crew are out of order, as compared to film credits.

There are 15 "Derailed" in the data base, 4 with uncredited actors, 1 with no credits and 10 listings with cast and crew as per film credits.

I still say strip it all back to the film credits and then submit uncredited actors if you can document any.

Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
Quoting richierich:

Quote:
I have tried my best to satisfy both parties, and have submitted contribution that includes all of the creditted cast, and only the uncredited cast that I could identify with documented proof.
The remainder I have removed.

Hopefully this will shut this thread 

The link for Ike Ononye does not mention "Derailed"

The link for John Gunnery does not mention "Derailed"

Cast and crew are out of order, as compared to film credits.

There are 15 "Derailed" in the data base, 4 with uncredited actors, 1 with no credits and 10 listings with cast and crew as per film credits.

I still say strip it all back to the film credits and then submit uncredited actors if you can document any.

Ike Ononye removed, and resubmitted.
John Gunnery is not in the submission - he was removed previously.
Rayn changed to Ryan.

The 'creditted' cast order now fixed by Behemot - thankyou

That no vote is invalid IMHO if that's the only reason.  Ignore it.  I suspect it'll actually count against them in the long run.

Richie:

He is applying standards which I use myself and apply to myself, while I understand and agree with him, I can't hold you or anyone else to my own standards. I can explain what they are, I can hope that other users will adopt them for the benefit of all of us, but I can't impose them..

Skip

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Seems there is no pleasing some people.

I have received a no vote on the final contribution, reason that I didn't provide a timestamp for the uncredited actors. 
I couldn't find where I needed to do this in the rules, and documented the actors which i could verify with web links.

Anyway, I tried to help, glad most members appreciated that.

Rich

Don't worry about it. What you did was great.

It is obvious, based on this thread, that no matter what documentation you provide it will not be good enough for some. They just seem to not want this information in the profile.

You are correct. There is nothing about time stamps in the rules. This is something that a couple of users started throwing around as their new "rule of the week" for tightening up on contributions. Just because a few users want it or say you have to have it doesn't make it true. FWIW I never could figure out how adding a time stamp will confirm who somebody was.  Unless you add a timestamp + the screen capture + a photo ID of the person. 

Let your contribution stand. My guess is it will be approved by both the voters (most of them anyway) and the screeners. 

Nice work. Thanks again.

As usual, Rick you can't leave well enough alone. You just have to make comments about other users which are disparaging and demeaning. I certainly hope that one day....


Skip

A note for Ken, I would like you to take note that it is not enough for Rick to make use of the blocks. he uses them to attempt to mask his totally unacceptable behavior, and continues making nasty, demeaning and derogatory comments about other users and i am NOT referring to those that he throws at me. He further uses his blocks so that he doesn''t have to read when someone responds to his child-like behavior.

This is one of the things that i figured would result from this system.

Skip