|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Friday December 03 00:03:39 2004 What the heck |
| "Well, I *have* seen such a character in the series" And should have added that saw her on official site link from IMDB. Guess back into it now, so here we go..... "haven't seen the scene or have any idea as to the ep." Here, this one she associated with from official site gallery page: ep: "No Man's an Island" (4.6) gs: Danny Cooksey (Hotstreak) Nicholas Guest (Scientist) Kerrigan Mahan (Edwin Alva) "Static and Hotstreak are captured and taken to a mysterious island for scientific experiments. Now they have one goal: to escape the island alive, but can their hatred for one another cause the two to work together, or is there something bigger occurring on the island?" 21-Feb-2004 p Static Shock |
| Jay L |
| Friday December 03 01:54:36 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Jay wrote:
> > Title: SMALLVILLE > > Humourous there kid University in Buffalo. Banned. |
| Brian R |
| Friday December 03 07:16:48 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Jay wrote:
> > Title: SMALLVILLE > > Humourous there kid > > Ignore the previous 8, say goodbye That was this weeks episode. In a hallucination Chloe aproaches a blonde woman in a straight jacket from behind. When she gets to her the woman spins around and it turns out to be herself with a make up job that makes her look like the living dead. Chloe backs away in shock and then relizes she is in a straight jacket. She lets out a scream and runs from the room struggling. Then we see Chloe run down a hallway in reality no longer wearing the straight jacket but still hallucinating that she is and struggling against her imaginary bonds. |
| Mark C |
| Friday December 03 13:09:39 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Mark C wrote:
> Chloe > relizes she is in a straight jacket. If entered properly, there will be no problem. |
| Jay L |
| Friday December 03 14:11:05 2004 [10995] The Almost Perfect Bank Robbery |
| Record number: 10995
Title: The Almost Perfect Bank Robbery Medium: Movie Actress: Brooke Shields Description: Brooke being handcuffed at the end of the movie.No handcuffs shown but you can here the racheting sound of the cuffs being applied. |
| ? |
| Friday December 03 14:23:13 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Jay L wrote:
> Mark C wrote: > > > Chloe > > relizes she is in a straight jacket. > > If entered properly, there will be no problem. I understand it would be better for you and other editors if everyone entered scenes the same way but I don't think every one reads this page.If someone doesn't know you deleted it then it won't get reentered in any format. I thought that was the point of the whole checkbox discussion. As long as scenes are capable of being entered wrong they will be. Sometimes by a slip of the mind, sometimes by newbies and sometimes by trolls but if the database entry form had fields for gags and you had to check cleave, detective/otm, tape, ball, bit, other, or none and similar fields for blindfolds and how hands and feet were tied and the entry could be refused if all fields were not filled out. Then you would no for sure who was a troublemaker and who made a mistake and poor discriptions could easily be fixed instead of deleted. |
| Mark C |
| Friday December 03 14:53:09 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Mark C wrote:
> Then you would no for sure > who was a troublemaker and who made a mistake and poor > discriptions could easily be fixed instead of deleted. > I don't recall my precise proposal some time back ... but the gist was that deficient entries would be placed in purgatory for a week or so, while notice of having done so would be posted here. If the poster doesn't make the necessary corrections (or attempt to) within that time, the entry would be flushed. I don't claim this to be a foolproof system ... but anyone posting an entry should be clueful enough to check here, and would see that he'd erred. The DB isn't a dumping ground for folks to toss badly-formatted data into. Good-faith efforts with minor flaws are one thing ... heedless material entered with the 'tude that "the eds will clean it up" is another. |
| Biff |
| Friday December 03 17:17:48 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
|
> anyone posting an entry should be clueful enough to check > here, and would see that he'd erred. Maybe they should be but that doesn't mean they are. If someone enters a poor but ligitamate entry it may never occur to them to check and see if it was removed. Judging by the limited number of posters I would say that the mojority of the visitors to this site come for the database and vcr alerts and they may seldom or never read the forums. They may have never gotten the message that they arwe doing something wrong. The DB isn't a > dumping ground for folks to toss badly-formatted data > into. Brian posted several times that he would rather have a bad entry than no entry at all. I'm sure he wants to get as many people as possible posting correctly but did he ever change his original statement? Good-faith efforts with minor flaws are one thing > ... heedless material entered with the 'tude that > "the eds will clean it up" is another. OK but how do you tell "tude" from language barriers,poor writers, and people who are unaware of the format reqests that have been made? |
| Friday December 03 17:44:26 2004 Re: Mark C Post |
| "I understand it would be better for you and other editors if everyone entered scenes the same way" Just for the search feature. Not getting paid to line them up here, so don't feel *obligated* to do so. "but I don't think every one reads this page." Collectors with *credibility*, like yourself, do comment on ones "Under Review" I do realise, often comments in emails so can also ask about getting say a German scene we're trying to sort and ID. So understand if fellas not aware of that. "If someone doesn't know you deleted it then it won't get reentered in any format." In General, this one area where Brian and the boy here disagree. He a incredibly generous character, willing to take on the majority of the effort here. It his nature, fair enough. But I figure it should be more of a Team Effort. I don't see reason for half arsed posts, leaving everything for Brian to sort. In this particular case, figure original entry posted and any adult interested can enter it properly. "I thought that was the point of the whole checkbox discussion." Sort of, used to gear complaints over to email, but Brian decided he'd prefer it brought up here. This why geared it back, but there nothing new in that Checkbox Discussion that hasn't been mentioned many times before. Actually, the more popular "Sign In" suggestion wasn't brought up Only reason appear stern now, noticed the young fellas began posting to stir the pot with the easily baited of the Checkbox posters. Realise the young fellas just goofing around, but the sqwacking on Discussion Page got tedious a good while back, agree? |
| Jay L |
| Friday December 03 17:55:00 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Biff wrote:
> deficient entries would be placed in > purgatory for a week or so, while notice of having done > so would be posted here. If the poster doesn't make the > necessary corrections (or attempt to) within that time, > the entry would be flushed. Yes, recall. Since, almost every entry that's been Edited, and all been Deleted are now posted fully on this page. Not exact, but close to your suggestion As told Mark, In this case Brian banned the poster, but someone like Mark with credibility on this page can post it proper. |
| Jay L |
| Friday December 03 20:06:59 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Biff wrote:
> I don't recall my precise proposal some time back ... but > the gist was that deficient entries would be placed in > purgatory for a week or so What would be your purgatory? |
| Brian R |
| Friday December 03 20:14:50 2004 Smallville |
| Should I have banned the guy? Here's the entry in question: Record #10993 Title: SMALLVILLE Medium: TV Series Actress: Allison Mack Description: Episode: "Scare" As part of a toxic spill-induced hallicination, Chloe (Mack) imagines herself in a straitjacket, struggling wildly. Scene lasts about 20 seconds and occurs 13 mintues into the show (with commercials). I guess I'm not sure that it was a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. |
| Brian R |
| Friday December 03 20:49:34 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Brian R wrote:
> Biff wrote: > > the gist was that deficient entries would be placed > in > > purgatory for a week or so > > What would be your purgatory? > I meant that such entries would be taken out of the DB until the problems were resolved ... I thought that was already occurring in some instances. |
| Biff |
| Friday December 03 21:14:28 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Maybe they should be but that doesn't mean they are. If > someone enters a poor but ligitamate entry it may never > occur to them to check and see if it was removed. Judging > by the limited number of posters I would say that the > mojority of the visitors to this site come for the > database and vcr alerts and they may seldom or never read > the forums. They may have never gotten the message that > they arwe doing something wrong. > I don't think anyone who's coming for just those reasons is going to bother adding DB entries ... and if they are, it's pretty much SOP for any DB to read the format rules. The bottom line is that this DB is a collaborative effort ... that means that anyone taking the time to add to it should spend a little more time acquainting himself with the format rules. It ain't rocket science ... and it is common courtesy. > > Brian posted several times that he would rather have a > bad entry than no entry at all. I'm sure he wants to get > as many people as possible posting correctly but did he > ever change his original statement? > I think he was referring to skimpy and/or easily correctable entries ... and so am I. > Good-faith efforts with minor flaws are one thing > > ... heedless material entered with the 'tude that > > "the eds will clean it up" is another. > > OK but how do you tell "tude" from language > barriers,poor writers, and people who are unaware of the > format reqests that have been made? > You err on the side of caution ... but if a language barrier is so great as to render the poster incapable of coming close to getting the format right, he probably shouldn't be attempting an entry. Lord knows I wouldn't try sticking something in anything other than an English-language DB. "Poor writ(ing)" isn't the issue. I don't expect descriptions that would make my old English teachers beam with pride (although in this instance I'd imagine shock would be the more likely response, given the subject matter ... but I might be making ignorant assumptions about their private lives). I do expect something more than "Blonde is bound and gagged" ... and, again, a good-faith effort to follow the format rules. What it comes down to is respecting reasonable rules and the persons who put the time in to make the DB as user-friendly a resource as possible. It's not rocket science. |
| Biff |
| Friday December 03 21:21:17 2004 Re: [10993] SMALLVILLE |
| Biff wrote:
> It ain't rocket science > It's not rocket science. But it is repetitive ... oy. |
| Biff |
| Friday December 03 22:56:50 2004 Re: Should Brian have banned the guy? |
| Why "Adolph here, entered the Country Club" in the first place. Taking only the two previous Allison Mack entries for reference: Record number: 7197 Title: Smallville Medium: TV Series Actress: Kristin Kreuk, Allison Mack Description: Episode: "Obscura" (1.20) Record number: 10796 Title: Smallville Medium: TV Series Actress: Allison Mack Description: Episode: "Gone" (4.02) Record #10993 Title: SMALLVILLE Medium: TV Series Actress: Allison Mack Description: Episode: "Scare" =============================================== Fellas unfamiliar with DB normally miss everything. If CAP the title, then Actress Name CAPPED. It more usual to have all entered in lower case. But they *never* get the quotes on the Episode Title Actress Name= Dead On Episode Title = Also perfect. but the Title off, with multiple previous entries? This unique, a first in all I've had to sort. Admit found humourous, but felt it had to go. ______________________ However, found poster Mark C to be a good guy, whom contributes. So will post with his description, if he already hasn't? |
| Jay L |
|
|