Quote:
The key for me is whether John would vote no if another user subsequently did an audit on the title and used the 'credited as' feature, assuming his original audit is accepted? My understanding of John's position would be that he would vote neutral.
IMO John has not done anything incorrect, the credit was wrong in the database in the first place. He is not removing a 'credited as' listing.
Another user can simply add this 'credited as' listing at a later stage.

Whether there are other reasons in the audit to vote no, that is an entirely different subject.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
All that uncredited stuff is BS and you know it.  It's a goddamn travesty to have 12 cast members that appear in the credits and then hang twice that many uncredited entries on it.  The previous profiles did not document those entries, and the cast list on IMDB is close enough to what I removed that typos could account for the differences.  In any case, it isn't the exact letter by letter, mark by mark stuff that counts, its the layout, the spelling, the order, the phraseology, and so on.  Any reasonable person can see that those entries came straight from IMDB or one of its clones.

Hmmm, not sure that was Ken's take on it... I think it was pretty clear about exact copies. 

But, go ahead and force your personal preference on the database, just like the change of roles names to your preference. And their spelling from another third party source. 

Quote:
All that uncredited stuff is BS and you know it.  It's a goddamn travesty to have 12 cast members that appear in the credits and then hang twice that many uncredited entries on it.  The previous profiles did not document those entries, and the cast list on IMDB is close enough to what I removed that typos could account for the differences.  In any case, it isn't the exact letter by letter, mark by mark stuff that counts, its the layout, the spelling, the order, the phraseology, and so on.  Any reasonable person can see that those entries came straight from IMDB or one of its clones.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That's another damn lie.  I watched the movie and got the names that I didn't remember.  I saw this movie when it was first out and many, many times since then.

What's a "damn lie"? The profile already had role names in there - including surnames, you changed them removing the surnames. How is that not a personal preference thing? Or do you refer to the third party database? You detail it in your notes! 

What difference does it make if you are an old man who saw this when it came out, or that you have seen it many times? It is irrelevant to the contribution system if you have to see and hear things repeatedly before they sink in? 

Quote:
Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That's another damn lie.  I watched the movie and got the names that I didn't remember.  I saw this movie when it was first out and many, many times since then.

What's a "damn lie"? The profile already had role names in there - including surnames, you changed them removing the surnames. How is that not a personal preference thing? Or do you refer to the third party database? You detail it in your notes! 

What difference does it make if you are an old man who saw this when it came out, or that you have seen it many times? It is irrelevant to the contribution system if you have to see and hear things repeatedly before they sink in? 

Listen up, you dumb bastard.  Watching the movie and noting down the names of the characters as they are referred to is NOT personal preference.  Besides, the object is to identify the role, and that was done.  Knowing a surname (which comes from the IMDB list by the way) adds nothing to the movie or the characterization. 

The only reason you are in this at all is to attack me.  You never let an opportunity pass to jump me or Skip about something we've said or done, EVER.

Quote:
I was only talking about "uncredited" and "as credited" specifically in reference to Ken. Not really about yes or no votes per say in this particular post. Your response is correct in reference to my first post in this thread. I jumped the gun a little there.  I would swear that he said something about that it was correct to remove any uncredited actors if there was no documentation for the actors in the previous contribution notes. After Having searched the Ken's posts for this  I was unable to find the post I thought I remembered.  I guess I just feel there should be no issue removing data like this that has not been explained in prior contribution notes. I thought that Rifter's original issue was he should not be required to provide new documentation for old undocumented work by someone else and I agree with him on that point. I think I must be confusing the real issue, sorry. I should have been more clear in my articulation in the second post.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
That's another damn lie... 
Listen up, you dumb bastard...

Rifter, whatever your opinon is, you have the right to express this. But your cadence of insults is hard to tolerate. I do not know whether you are a young boor or an embittered old man. Nevertheless I don't care. But we should all keep a minimum standard of reciprocative respect in these forums. If you are not able to agree to this, please play your games elsewhere and stop your political riots in these forums.

BTW: you cannot insult or flame me; only friends can do that!

SCNR!!