| Message |
Details |
| Yeah, that's why I gave up on this conversation a week or two ago. And stopped trying to influence contributions at that point also. Not sure why cronosmantas still felt the need to seek revenge on my legitimate contribution. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 816 |
 |
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting Kvack:
Quote:
The rules certainly say to follow the Common Name decisions, but they don't actually articulate if legitimate exceptions should occur.
That in itself is your answer. Exceptions don't follow the rules.
---------------
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was thinking that the rules should be updated (and, in my opinion, corrected). | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 816 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
I would just like to point out this from the rules:
Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.
This means that you should vote by the rules (as they are), not by your own preferences, or opinions on what the rules ought to say. I can understand that crediting the director as Anthony M. Dawson in a profile with the title "Antonio Margheriti & The Jungles of Doom" seems odd, but that is what the rules amount to. Bitching about it won't change that.
I thought it was worth having a discussion about the rules, but since nobody else was interested in doing so, I stopped voting on these submissions back in March. The rules certainly say to follow the Common Name decisions, but they don't actually articulate if legitimate exceptions should occur. So, my bad for trying to improve the process. I was just trying to improve the process.
And I didn't bitch and moan when I realized that - just explain my thinking. And I didn't threaten to stop contributing and I certainly didn't start adding no votes to any body's submissions as a revenge tactic. | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 816 |
|
Quoting cronosmantas:
Quote:
And it should be if the the submitted update is incorrect and goes against the rules. HOWEVER if the NO vote is WRONG and obviously goes against the rules and the user only voted no because he's he disagrees with the rules. It's obvious no person is reviewing the submissions and it's only automation as an incorrect wrong vote based on an opinion and not rules is enough to get it declined.
I voted No on several contributions and gave a very specific reason why (as I explained in the common name thread for Antonio Margheriti). I'm not convinced that a single no vote is enough to tank a submission, as I have seen other of my submission pass with a no vote attached. Instead, I believe that the person evaluating my votes felt that I had made a strong enough case in my specific vote (that the rules might need some refining for the case I was specifically referencing) to agree with me.
My theory will be tested with my submission of an update to Disc: EF11-F85F-4179-ECF8 which got a No vote from cronosmantas. The explanation behind his vote is as follows:
"Sucks having people vote 'no' on your submissions you work hard on despite following the rules, doesn't it Kvack? Maybe next time don't vote via personal opinion instead of the rules. GFY" | Posted: Topic Replies: 20, Topic Views: 816 |
|
Quoting greyghost:
Quote:
Do you really want Michael Caine to be replaced with Maurice Micklewhite, or John Wayne with Marion Robert Morrison?
Great examples, which is why I think that this should be discussed further. I'd consider those "stage names" which are different than pseudonyms (in this case adopted for international releases). | Posted: Topic Replies: 61, Topic Views: 18848 |
|
I disagree. Elsewhere, things are decided by consensus, and that would work easily here. The only exceptions we would carve out would be for birth names which differ from pseudonyms.
If this were a tool for tracking books, would we really want Samuel Clemens to disappear in favor of the always used pseudonym "Mark Twain"? | Posted: Topic Replies: 61, Topic Views: 18848 |
|
I believe that the choice of a common name for Anthony M. Dawson (which has been documented in his wiki page, as follows: "Throughout his career, Margheriti almost always signed himself under the pseudonym Anthony M. Dawson." was erroneous).
I feel that the common name should be invoked when a person uses various versions of their actual name "Mike/Michael/Michael S" or when somebody changes their name (possibly because of marriage).
He is professionally known as Margheriti. He even has movie collections under that name. No human being has ever called him Mr. Dawson. | Posted: Topic Replies: 61, Topic Views: 18848 |
|
| I was curious why this happens. Or why it takes so long. | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 859 |
|
What does this status mean? I have an alternate entry, similar to many I have created in the past with no problem, which has been stuck in this status for days. It was stuck in the same status a few weeks ago and I thought it might be a data error, so I resubmitted it. But now the resubmission is stuck in that same status.
Anybody know what is going on? | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 859 |
|