Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And I am working within the Rules, James. And i am offended that you would suggest otherwise. There is NOTHING in the Rules that says what you believe it to say. You are applying YOUR interpretation, which I might add is a reasonable interpretation and i am applying my interpretation which is also a reasonable i8nterpretation. So kindly stop insulting me.

So saying that something is against the rules is now an insult? 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You are not the Rules God and neither am I, but i am far closer to them than you are.

I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The Rules say NOTHING relative to OWNERSHIP, only that the Actual film credits be used. I am doing that, James, based on a hypothesis which i believe to be accurate within the confines of what I am doing. Do I want to do this....if you think so then you are CRAZY..I spent 4 hours working my way through 40 copies recently, I can think of far more fun things to do. But i recognize the problem and have been working through several possible solutions for months, and it simply came time to act on it. I prefer a different answer, but i am used to seeing the ball on the ground and being the only one willing to pick it up and run. I've done it before and I will do it again.

Perhaps Ken Cole is a Rules God?

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources, including autographs.  The common name is not intended to always reflect the "real name", but the most commonly credited name. 

However, if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.  Better yet, correct the entries, assuming you own the discs in question, thereby correcting the lookup results.

Emphasis mine.

Quote:
And  repeat YOU are not the one to tell me that is against the Rules and i find it highly offensive. Stop it.

My opinion of what is within the rules and against the rules is as valid as any other user's, so I will continue to point out issues as I see them.

And your interpretatio is ALWAYS the correct oine, James, isn't it. How many times have we had this discussion.  Your quote from Ken does not address the PROBLEM...I wish it did.

And yes it is insulting to me, but unlike some user I can get mad as hell and not go running off to throw a Negative to shut someone up. I am not sayoing you do, james, i don't know nor do I care. It is of no import to me.

I am concerned about ONE thing the accuracy of this database, and the IMDb that is rampant internationally does nothing but make a hash of what we are trying to do.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And your interpretatio is ALWAYS the correct oine, James, isn't it. How many times have we had this discussion.

I'm expressing my opinion. And I'm one of those encouraging you to broaden your base so that scrutiny from many users can make this a better plan. I'm not going only with my opinion. I think you are the one who's saying you have a plan and you're sticking to it. That's an exclusive view. Mine is not.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Your quote from Ken does not address the PROBLEM...I wish it did.

It's exactly the situation: He says if you own the discs, you can update them to make the lookup better.

I do own the discs, James. I may not own the UPC/EAN but my hypothesis is that the data on the discs relative to cast and crew are the same. Are you now suggesting that differing disc ids, being a DIFFERENT disc makes a PROFILE uneditable. We now have to setup different profiles for EVERY disc ID to conform with your definition. LOL, James, that;s a road I don't think either one of us wants to go down.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tim:

It might please you to know that i have run into a couple of your in this project and you have not seen a modification...why because NONE was needed. [...] Your work is usually very good and you an will pick nits privately, not here.

That's good to hear. I just don't understand that knowing that, you'd publicly accuse me of the opposite...

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
But you clearly don't understand the Alias system

I beg to differ. I have actively campaigned for something like the "credited as" feature for years: you and I already had big fights over it back at Intervocative when it was all still just an idea, in which you assured me time and time again that something like that would never, ever happen. I'm glad to see that it did, although I agree that it still leaves a lot to be desired. But I'm pretty sure I understand it just fine. However, your repeatedly expressed wish for the program to allow you to have to have co-existing entries for say Don Digirolamo and Don DiGirolamo indicates that you still can't entirely grasp it. I keep coming back to this not to annoy you, but because I'll keep hoping - perhaps against better judgement - that you'll see the light. Don't you see that that having that ability would only make things much worse, not better? Aren't we all striving to have just ONE entry for every single person in the entire Invelos database, as opposed to the two, three, four slightly different spelled, formatted or parsed name variants that now exist for everyone? How is allowing Don Digirolamo and Don DiGirolamo next to each other as separate entries going to help? It's not: it only makes matters worse. You just need to pick the most-credited form - let me help you: it's Don Digirolamo - and you use "credited as" for when he's credited with a capital G. There's the whole "alias system", as you call it, in a nutshell.

Rick:

You have not read what I have said, have you. I have stated a hypothesis, one that I believe is true. I have also stated that I recognize that hypothesis MIGHT not be correct, but I believe it to be true, the ONLY way to find out is by fire, and i have said several times that I want to HEAR about it if there proves to be variations. What is hard about that? I'll tell you what is hard about it, you simply wish to be critical in typical knee-jerk fashion. Skip said something so it falls to you to automatically disagree and be insulting, though you aren't alone. I suggest you study EVERY word I jhhave word I have VERY carefully.

@ Tim:

My friend, all you are doing is demonstrating tht you do not truly understand how the Alias system works and its components. NO we are not tryin to create a single name, we are trying to find the most COMMONL:Y CREDITED name, because the data in the name tabl;e is populated by REAL ON SCREEN credits, not what somebody THINKS is the name.

Back later, gotta run now, for those with the ability I can be rung on the telly.

Skip

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
One of the primary reasons for the decline, could be if you added titles you don't own, such as cast and crew.  The rules state take cast and crew credits from the film credits as credited.  That's rather hard to do if you don't own what your contributing.

If your going to contribute something to the database you should only be contributing what can be verified.

Tracer is absolutely right - you should only contribute the data that you can verify. And if you dont have the DVD, that will limit your information.

So speaketh the Goddess of the Rules.

And no, Skip, my statement does Not require us to set up separate profiles for each disc ID. That's already well covered by the rules.

My statement covers the fact that I cannot take 'as credited' data from my Fox Lorber copy of Breathless and submit it on the Criterion version which is only in my Wish List.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
2nd EDIT: I see James and I are again "Tag Teaming"  @ James - one of us is supposed to fight in the ring at a time. When he gets tired he is supposed to "tag" the other one to take over. Don't you know how it works?!? 

  What can I say, I don't do sports.