Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Rho:

That is because chose not to bring it to the forums and communicate with the user in as close to a private manner as possible. I did not do it likely and should Rick recognize his error I will be happ y to rbing the notes back to where they should be.

Skip

You made a post in the CONTRIBUTION NOTES.  How is that private?  The reasons for the 'no' votes go away once the profile is accepted or declined.  Your statements, which violate the rules, are now a permanent record for that profile.  And before you say they weren't against the rules, these are the rules for contribution notes:

When you contribute a changed profile, you are required to include Contribution Notes. Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Make special reference to any changes where:

You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method.

You are making a subtle change that may be hard to spot - for example spelling correction to the overview.

You are removing incorrect information.

Contribution Notes provide an explanation of your changes to other DVD Profiler users and Invelos for voting and deciding whether to accept your contribution, so make your notes useful and descriptive.

Show me where it says you can use them for chastising other users? 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
There is nothing that says any user is required to make ANY specific change, if you want it...be my guest, but stop blackmailing me.

Are you sure this is the stand you want to take?  Think real hard about the path you are about to go down and the repurcussions this first step is going to cause. 

BTW my reaction to lyonsden5's no vote would have been to inform him that I did not add this error and that I'm not willing to correct it for whatever reason by private message. Then if he still would insist in his no vote, I would either leave the decision to the screener risking my contribution to be declined, or I would recontribute without the overview section noting that fact in the contribution notes without any personal remark. But actually I would hope that other voters would vote like me as explained in my first post to this thread.

Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
Second, there is nothing about "title distinction" regarding the single quotes in the Rules. Everything bold or italic must be "single-quoted".

Quoting the Rules

Quote:
Overviews should match the back of the DVD case exactly, including capitalization of words exactly as it is shown on the back of the case. If words are highlighted in italic or bold on the case, then identify them with ‘single quotation’ marks.

Where does it say that one doesn't have to include the single quotes because [he] made a CHOICE not to make a change.  I don't see that this is something that you can choose to do or ignore.  Either the overview is correct or it's not.  If you contribute any change to the overview, you're taking the overview in its entirety as your contribution.  If there is italic or bold text in the overview, it is your responsibility to show it.

When was it decided that a contributor could chose whether or not to follow a rule?  I thought preventing this was why Ken switched from guidelined to rules.  Obviously, I must not understand what a RULE is.

[You guys are typing too fast and letting the issue get beyond what I want to comment on. [whine]

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
BTW my reaction to lyonsden5's no vote would have been to inform him that I did not add this error and that I'm not willing to correct it for whatever reason by private message. Then if he still would insist in his no vote, I would either leave the decision to the screener risking my contribution to be declined, or I would recontribute without the overview section noting that fact in the contribution notes without any personal remark. But actually I would hope that other voters would vote like me as explained in my first post to this thread.

FWIW and for the record I have had Skip's PMs blocked for some time now due to abusive messages. (From there they went to email attacks  so now even his emails go directly to my spam folder)

I do agree though. If you don't want to change it, leave it for the screeners to decide. As Ken has stated in the past, a No vote is not the end of the world.

The other 'issue' is this creates more work for two people. One person to submit a fully compliant overview and one for the screener to accept it.

Personally for a small thing like this I would happily submit a fully compliant overview, then amend locally and lock afterwards.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
There is nothing that says any user is required to make ANY specific change, if you want it...be my guest, but stop blackmailing me.

Are you sure this is the stand you want to take?  Think real hard about the path you are about to go down and the repurcussions this first step is going to cause. 

I think in general skipnet50 is right with this statement. You can't force anybody to contribute full profiles and you can't force anybody to correct existing errors. Have I missed something?

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
FWIW and for the record I have had Skip's PMs blocked for some time now due to abusive messages. (From there they went to email attacks  so now even his emails go directly to my spam folder)

I do agree though. If you don't want to change it, leave it for the screeners to decide. As Ken has stated in the past, a No vote is not the end of the world.

That of course skips the step with the private message. The rest does still apply.

BTW What's the UPC of that profile? I'd like to see the contribution notes.