Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
RHFactor-----"Removes previously approved data with no source."

I have a source, the contribution note from InterVocative, showing that there was not any documentation for adding any cast and crew.

Perhaps you are not aware that there will be no documentation for contributions made before the site moved to Invelos.  The documentation would have been at Intervocative and is lost now.  Technically, we'd have to remove all uncredited actors that were added during the Intervocative days.  Personally, I'd see that as a step backwards.

Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
5 names have already been proven to be in the film...the contributor has not provided 1 uncredited name that is not in the film....I'm sorry but this removal of all this data would be getting a 'No' vote from me. When you remove data you gotta prove it's wrong....stating crap like it wasn't documented before or it should never have been accepted is a bunch of BS.

So, basically you're telling Ken to go piss up a rope, to be blunt about it, because he clearly said that if its illegal data it can be removed.  Whether it is good data or not has nothing to do with it.  You either follow the rules or you don't, and apparently you DON'T want to follow them when its convenient for you not to.  How nice of you.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
5 names have already been proven to be in the film...the contributor has not provided 1 uncredited name that is not in the film....I'm sorry but this removal of all this data would be getting a 'No' vote from me. When you remove data you gotta prove it's wrong....stating crap like it wasn't documented before or it should never have been accepted is a bunch of BS.

So, basically you're telling Ken to go piss up a rope, to be blunt about it, because he clearly said that if its illegal data it can be removed.  Whether it is good data or not has nothing to do with it.  You either follow the rules or you don't, and apparently you DON'T want to follow them when its convenient for you not to.  How nice of you.

Nice try Rifter but that isn't going to work.  Yes, Ken clearly said that they 'can' be removed.  He did not, however, say they MUST be removed...which is what your statement implies.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
5 names have already been proven to be in the film...the contributor has not provided 1 uncredited name that is not in the film....I'm sorry but this removal of all this data would be getting a 'No' vote from me. When you remove data you gotta prove it's wrong....stating crap like it wasn't documented before or it should never have been accepted is a bunch of BS.

So, basically you're telling Ken to go piss up a rope, to be blunt about it, because he clearly said that if its illegal data it can be removed.  Whether it is good data or not has nothing to do with it.  You either follow the rules or you don't, and apparently you DON'T want to follow them when its convenient for you not to.  How nice of you.

How is data in the database that is correct, illegal? Can you please explain that to me? You're running around in circles son...prove those people are not in the movie or move on..especially since it has been proven by a user here that 4 or 5 of them are correct and apperently a number of independent databases provided by the contributor indicate that these people are indeed in the movie.

But before you get sidetracked...don't forget to explain how correct data is illegal.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Nice try Rifter but that isn't going to work.  Yes, Ken clearly said that they 'can' be removed.  He did not, however, say they MUST be removed...which is what your statement implies.

I am also not aware of Ken making any statement that so called "illegal" entries "that should never have been accepted in the first place" can be removed any differently to other changes - ie without supporting documentation.

Ken's comments were very directly and only about uncredited entries that match a third party database and that had no documentation. It was not one or the other.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
5 names have already been proven to be in the film...the contributor has not provided 1 uncredited name that is not in the film....I'm sorry but this removal of all this data would be getting a 'No' vote from me. When you remove data you gotta prove it's wrong....stating crap like it wasn't documented before or it should never have been accepted is a bunch of BS.

So, basically you're telling Ken to go piss up a rope, to be blunt about it, because he clearly said that if its illegal data it can be removed.  Whether it is good data or not has nothing to do with it.  You either follow the rules or you don't, and apparently you DON'T want to follow them when its convenient for you not to.  How nice of you.

Nice try Rifter but that isn't going to work.  Yes, Ken clearly said that they 'can' be removed.  He did not, however, say they MUST be removed...which is what your statement implies.

Dammit, Unicus, don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't say MUST BE, I clearly said CAN BE.  I leave it up to the integrity of the person making the decision.  You either follow the rules and contribute data correctly and LEGALLY, or you don't.  For me, its a moral question.  Your mileage may vary.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.  The implication was there in your first sentence where you, basically, put words in Bodi's mouth.  Goose, gander.  Pot, Kettle. 

Nice try with the morality play, btw.  Can't win the logical argument so imply that everyone who doesn't agree with you is imoral. 

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Please clarify exactly what makes data illegal.

Some people seem to believe that if the documentation for an accepted contribution is not sufficient for them, despite it being sufficient for Invelos to accept it, it is then "Illegal" (and apparently can be removed without any documentation that it is actually incorrect).

It is not a position in any way supported by the rules of course... 

These are the approved contribution notes from IVS.

Author                      Submitted                    Message

ljbarnhill                    2/16/2006                      new profile

aquinas30                3/2/2006                        Covers, Running Time, Features, Subs, Audio

Tejoos                      3/13/2006                      Added and corrected some info such as actors subs and studios

ljbarnhill                  3/14/2006                      edit dist trait, front cover states widescreen edition

Asok                          3/15/2006                    Credits and actors updated

abrg923                    4/13/2006                    Unrated Version is not part of the title - however, it DOES belong in the description field, and so it shall go

Grendell                  5/21/2006                    Added disc ID.

cgdej                        5/25/2006                    added overview

http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=178775&PageNum=LAST

No mention of any uncredited cast or documentation.