Quote:


2.  I think Flåklypa saying this:

Quote:
No. I don't think he should do anything. I think the ones who votes no should correct the formatting on the other profiles. If not, they should allow this contribution (at least they should not vote no).

Talking especially about the part in the bold. I feel that comment on it's own is completely wrong.

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:


2.  I think Flåklypa saying this:

Quote:
No. I don't think he should do anything. I think the ones who votes no should correct the formatting on the other profiles. If not, they should allow this contribution (at least they should not vote no).

Talking especially about the part in the bold. I feel that comment on it's own is completely wrong.

But, that sentences was not meant to stand alone. You can not just cut out one sentence and call it wrong on it's own. That so typical. You have to read it in context with my other posts.

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:


Again.  I must state.  We are under no obligation to contribute.  We can contribute as much or as little as we choose. 

The only condition to contributing, the changes to the contribution must follow established rules.  (I understand that does not happen a lot)

I can make a change to an overview (perse correcting a spelling mistake, or a capitalization error), and still not change the font formatting (italics or bold). 

As long as the change is within the rules, we are obligated to vote yes (even for small changes).

If the changes do not follow the rules, we are obligated to vote no.

I also understand that there are some grey areas within the rules, and those we must vote upon our interpretation of the rules.

As for the OP's original statement

Since he is contributing a change to the overview, that goes against the rules, the voters (whether or not they contribute) are obligated to vote no.  If the OP wishes to correct the others, to what is displayed on the cover, then the voters are obligated to vote yes.

No. We are not obligated to vote. Where do you have that from?

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:


I see no where that he said we were obliged to vote. Only that if we do vote we are obliged to do so per the rules... not anything else.

This is a comment to you, not to Charlie. He has explained what he meant an I respect that. But you are still going on and on about the same.

I can not see that this has anything to do with my original question about "we are striving to be consistent".

But since you can't see, it's here is bold:

Quote:
Again.  I must state.  We are under no obligation to contribute.  We can contribute as much or as little as we choose. 

The only condition to contributing, the changes to the contribution must follow established rules.  (I understand that does not happen a lot)

I can make a change to an overview (perse correcting a spelling mistake, or a capitalization error), and still not change the font formatting (italics or bold). 

As long as the change is within the rules, we are obligated to vote yes (even for small changes).

If the changes do not follow the rules, we are obligated to vote no.

I also understand that there are some grey areas within the rules, and those we must vote upon our interpretation of the rules.

As for the OP's original statement

Since he is contributing a change to the overview, that goes against the rules, the voters (whether or not they contribute) are obligated to vote no.  If the OP wishes to correct the others, to what is displayed on the cover, then the voters are obligated to vote yes.

So no one is obligated to vote in any circumstances. And if you are voting you can still vote neutral without breaking any rules (even if the contribution is against the rules).

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:


You are correct, no one is obligated to vote. But if you vote neutral or don't vote no on knowingly incorrect data being contributed, to me, you are just as useless as the data being contributed.

But the contributed data is not useless. I see only a change in formatting. If you ask me I would say that the one he wanted to contribute is a bit more useful because it is easier to read (at least for me it is).

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
After reading this... my thoughts on the exchanges...

1. While direct, I seen absolutely nothing wrong with TheMadMartian's reply to the OP. He just answered it in a short and direct manner with correct information.

Back on the subject of the answer to the OP, you see nothing wrong with it, but, indeed, you would not. As an experienced contributor, you know and understand the rules and their intricacies. Over the years, you have read many clarifications offered by Ken Cole and others like you. However, if you were a much less experienced contributor, you would take the comment differently, learning little from it.

Keeping with the teaching analogy, a teacher can be very short and direct when correcting a wrong colleague. When a student is wrong, however, one should thrive to make him learn, by giving explanations, even if these explanations have already been given many times before.

If we as a community want others to contribute (and have fun doing it), we have to develop a more welcoming attitude.

Quote:
... But since you can't see...

Quote:
Back on the subject of the answer to the OP, you see nothing wrong with it, but, indeed, you would not. As an experienced contributor, you know and understand the rules and their intricacies. Over the years, you have read many clarifications offered by Ken Cole and others like you. However, if you were a much less experienced contributor, you would take the comment differently, learning little from it.

Keeping with the teaching analogy, a teacher can be very short and direct when correcting a wrong colleague. When a student is wrong, however, one should thrive to make him learn, by giving explanations, even if these explanations have already been given many times before.