Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Forget it, just checked my old online collection at Intervocative and answered my own question.  Frankly I'm a little irritated.  So far, the only person who won't endorse this just happens to be the same person who pushed these profiles up to the new site...with titles that look nothing like what was last approved at Intervocative. 

"We all voted on this, why must I upset the applecart?"  Nobody voted on this, it was a unilateral decision by the first person who contributed.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just an honest mistake.  In that spirit, I suppose we can just move along with these titles, colon included of course. 

You got it. 

Been there, done that.  Got my replacements already.  At this point, I'm just waiting for my replacements for "More Silly Symphonies." 

Thanks for the "heads up" though.

Midnit:

I will make one more comment to clarify what i was saying earlier. First though allow me to state that my initial Contributions were AUTOs. This is my perception, so don't take it personal or as an insult. You are a relatively new user and are ummm wanting things done, ummmmm, I can only describe it as your way as is apparent from any number of threads. So next week we get a new mdnitoil trying to do the same types of things, at what point is it OK to say, chill out, this is the way things are done here. As I noted elsewhere The Birds for example had already been approved by BOTH voters and screeners, and you come along and poof. Next guy comes along and now we are on a merry-go-round. As I have commented to users and team members we have played that stupid game before, you weren't here for the bad old days. We had one title in particular that used to be changed almost EVERY week for 5 years. Somewhere the game has to end, it's that simple.

Like I said I am not trying to insult you or argue with you. I am explaining what I see and why, and asking a question.

Skip

That's fair enough, skip.  I'm not really going out of my way to cause waves, but I certainly do not have the same historical perspective others have.  In light of the old Intervocative titles on these profiles, I'm sure you'll understand why I just went ahead and submitted them.

I'm not purposely looking for a fight and starting this thread before a solicit was my way to attempt to avoid one.  I think disagreement is impossible to avoid, but there's no reason to be nasty about it.  I think the nastiness comes in because we see these profile submissions come out of left field and then take it as a personal affront.  The thing just sort of blindsides us.  I figured this way, we could all kind of ease into the idea without some sort of voting clock hanging over our heads.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
But as I noted both James and mdnit, the voters and screeners had already had their say on The Birds, but now because someone wanted it differently.....where does it end? Saying to trust the votes and screeners in this case is just silly, they had their say almost a year and a half ago. That is all I really want to know.

Skip

I think we're all a bit more educated on possessory credits after that 25+ page thread.

As for the "Walt Disney Legacy Collection", mdnitoil is just changing them back to the way the voters accepted them back at Intervocative. The only time either here or at Intervocative that these titles included "Walt Disney Legacy Collection" as part of the title were in initial contributions by you which were not seen by the voters in either case.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I understand, James. You aren't answering the basic question. WHERE DOES IT END? Do we have to go through this garbage everytime a new user comes on board and wants to change things to suit HIM.

Skip

All of these issues are ones of correctness and not personal preference. He's correcting data. It ends when the data is correct, which it will be when his contributions are approved.

OK. Pulling back to the big picture, users contribute what they believe to be correct. Sometimes they're wrong and they'll get voted down. Other times, they're right and it gets approved.

I believe that you fear that issues such as these will ping pong, for example, a year from now. But they can't ping pong without support from the voters and screeners. That's a change from when things ping ponged in the past.

As with SRP, it's my opinion that we should not fear ping ponging at the expense of getting the data correct. I think you'll find that voters will not support alternating positions indefinitely.

Quoting Skip

Quote:
here is an example of a suggestion that has been made elsewhere

A suggestion for a rule change

[b]Do not include possessives in the title if they refer to the director, producer, author or similar, unless you can show sources that document that the possessives are meant to be part of the title.
[/b]

And then let screeners and voters decide...

Here was my response

Here is the problem with that. The voters and the screeners had ALREADY decided upon Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. But that wasn't enough for a user who wanted it to be HIS way. So HE decided to Re-Contribute new data. All this would do, in short is allow for ping-ponging of data, in the short run it won't but say....6 months from now somebody elese reverses it and the users and screeners once again approve it. This could go on FOREVER.

This is slightly OT, but since you brought it up, Skip...

1) That was my suggestion, but I was not the one who submitted any profile for The Birds, so why do you lump my suggestion together with the Birds contributon?

2) I suggested a new rule.  You reply that the voters and screeners have already decided. But that decision was against the current rule, so how is that in any way relevant?

As regards the titles mentioned in this thread, I do own them, and I agree with the change. For those who don't own them - you have missed something...