nik wrote:

This thread is to request other users submissions are reviewed and voted on.

Rules:

* You don't need to use this thread to request votes on others submissions - if you think it warrants it, you are welcome to make a new thread regarding voting on a certain user etc

* There is no request limit.

* Please keep on topic - requests for votes and acknowledgments only. If further discussion is needed, please start a thread and post the link in here - thanks!

Haze wrote:

massiv4 needs massive help

jweijde wrote:

Hmm, after reading it a few times I now understand it. But it surely is confusing at first look, if you compare it to the first line of your post:

DriesBosma wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1398985

Is that really correct and complete?

Internaut wrote:

Web-sub?: Himmelblå - Sangene Fra Serien

SmotheredHope wrote:

Of course, never mind who performs the other 4 tracks right?

SmotheredHope wrote:

Nice score

Average Vote Received: Needs Major Changes (0.00, 0 votes)

DriesBosma wrote:

The submission of massiv4 that surprises me the most is this one:
http://www.discogs.com/submiss...item=release/1480264

He made one track on it, but credits himself for the whole release.
He also includes a picture with many artists noted on it, including 'U.V.A', what I guess means something like: and many others. And then it is a 4 track 12"? :-S

SmotheredHope wrote:

I think it's called ego. :)

Internaut wrote:

This user adds/changes a lot with this standard comment: " I once owned the cd and kept the credits...".....

For example:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=330796

rassel wrote:

I am not allowed to say anything about classical releases: let that decide someone who's familiar with Classical releases... .

I'm a dumb Soul-Funk-Disco-House idiot.

brajoapau wrote:

This user is only after ranks points, nothing more or less.
Clever standard comment, but does this user believes we would agree with such a poor comment?

savageone wrote:

i still need help with some of my add releases and subs, some of my subs r going past 6 months old now:s

DisembowelMe wrote:

Hm.. how do you vote on submissions? I can't find it.

Oh, and I also need votes on my submissions. :)

schtel wrote:

I think if credits are going to be added like that (3 yr old sub), they would need to be proved. Generally by the use of a picture.

jweijde wrote:

NRGBEATMIXER needs help.

choenyi wrote:

brajoapau wrote:

Websubmitter

DriesBosma wrote:

dj-scribe gives a pretty creative twist to submitting.

marcelrecords wrote:

please help to kick this out, submitter does not want to correct...
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1461808#latest
thx!

dj_rhythmics wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1483463

http://www.discogs.com/release/1420690

Both releases need to be voted. These are legit releases from betancourtmusic.com. Thank you

hmvh wrote:

Both releases need to be updated... the notes aren't exactly what one could call neutral and will certainly be outdated (and therefore incorrect) within a day or so. And man, what a sales pitch!

Besides, the title of this topic is "Requests for votes on other users submissions", not?

Haze wrote:

Funny that this thread turns basically to another "Bad submissions and updates" thread. Let's see when this one will be locked ; )

dj_rhythmics wrote:

Sorry guys, a little new to discogs

Fixed the submissions to be more accurate and neutral. Sorry for not reading the thread title correctly, and sorry for the ignorance :'(

double-happiness wrote:

Is this a good place to mention this Wackdaddies release http://www.discogs.com/release/1172120

Format is now "CD - Vinyl - Vinyl, LP, 2 x LP" - huh?
It *begins* with track 2 - wtf?
And the notes refer to tracks 10 and 11, which, you guessed it, don't exist :O

Some help with this one please

_kerry wrote:

OK - reverted the Wackdaddies entry.

double-happiness wrote:

cheers _kerry

Jayfive wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/submiss...user=Diognes_The_Fox

4500 Pending Submissions and Edits!

Myriad wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1440242

Is this allowed? I'm not sure, maybe someone with more knowledge on MP3 releases might know...

isobrown wrote:

I think there is a major problem with this artis page :
http://www.discogs.com/artist/...t+And+His+Magic+Band
the problèm is the Buddah Records is often credited as realease label (even on correct voted items) but the right label is Buddha Records (2)
can anyone confirm this?

schtel wrote:

scrap what I just said. This is a little confusing. Firstly can we just make sure that these two labels are different and it's not a case of having changed there logos at some point?

Also Buddha+Records+(3) shouldn't exist, the only release on that label matches the cat#s for Buddha Records. I see also that on Buddha Records (2) the Beefheart releases have cat#s that match Buddha Records. Or an I getting confused? :(

This is a little bit of a mess. I can't think straight right now. But...

Buddah Records
Buddha Records - notice slightly different spelling
Buddha Records (2)
Buddha Records (3) needs to be removed.
Buddha Records (4) probably the same here.

^ Look What They Done To My Song Ma. :P

I'll get back to this if someone doesn't update them first.

Internaut wrote:

Here is a user who could need some guidance: sintlaurentius

iamdek wrote:

Duplicate sub.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1188945#latest

Jayfive wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/user/mgmp

2600+ submissions.

schtel wrote:

^ in 4 months! Is that physically possible? Or is he part of a team‽

pawlick wrote:

is ready to be voted :
http://www.discogs.com/release/1294242 (weird thing about cat no. but it is not available, event contacted the label)

schtel wrote:

Any Residents fans? Maybe give this guy a hand with some white labels/unofficial releases.
http://www.discogs.com/user/dr._phibes_02

ForkMe wrote:

Michael_Scofield

Just came across him when looking at the Guana Batz page. He has 57 votes with an average rating of 2.28, but in the last 10 days that's gone down to 1.76!

He still has 118 pending submissions.

I'm going to start ploughing through them now, but he clearly needs help.

Internaut wrote:

he was put on the CIP list 26 days ago.

schtel wrote:

I think there should be an automatic message that appears on a users sub history that he/she is now on the CIP.

Internaut wrote:

Is this OK: The First 7 Albums ?

ForkMe wrote:

Er, no!

rwrackham wrote:

Please can someone look at http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1407251

Basically, I think another moderator should look at this as any vote I give will probably push him over the edge.

You need to read the history, and the forum entry mentioned in the history, but the latest edit is frankly very funny.

SmotheredHope wrote:

Gee, it wasn't long since it was "only" just over 3k! :D

double-happiness wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/257272
http://www.discogs.com/release/1337535

Second one is a duplicate isn't it?
The first one's not a limited edition that I can see... (I have the release)

Some help here please, cheers

pawlick wrote:

I find this ok to be voted:
http://www.discogs.com/release/1108069
All ANV's are okey.

DisembowelMe wrote:

I need votes, got a few releases not in the database. :)

double-happiness wrote:

Yeurgh, check this out:

http://www.discogs.com/artist/...oots+And+The+Maytals

Bob Marley and the Wailers an ANV of Toots and the Maytals? That's a new one on me! It's caused by this release having an incorrect ANV:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1379452

I can't touch it cause I don't have it. Mind you I was tempted to just change it myself...

schtel wrote:

Can someone please vote on these 3 removals to stay on the database? Couple of mix-ups but they are valid to stay know.

So please vote NO

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=Roots_Control

thx

TechElec wrote:

done :)

schtel wrote:

^ thx guys :)

violet wrote:

Since when was this prohibited? Lots and lots of other users do this. Please negate his vote! All info there was added so it can be Correct & Complete votes: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=673579#latest Thanks!

He didn't even wait for a response!

Jayfive wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/submiss...#item=release/147490

Little edit war in progress here.

BeatSensor wants to add 'Metal Case, Cardboard Sleeve' to the format of many of the Fabric mix CDs
aural doesnt want him to and is reversing the update

The correct solution is to add 'Released in a Metal case with a cardboard outer sleeve' in the release notes. This is possibly useful info and should be there, just not in the format section. Ive emailed aural about actually working with BeatSensor, not in opposition to him but it would be grand if some of you guys sorted this little dispute.

Jayfive wrote:

Stuck for something to vote on?

Try this on for size

8m2stereo wrote:

upon PM advice from some friends i'm putting this here,
loads of subs for 1,5 labels, guy claims he's with the label ..
most cd-s/compilation only have entries for 4 tracks,
i requested updates long time ago, nothing ..

i sort of fixed the only one i have here,
but basicly i am not up to date with turkish musicians ANVs ect. ..

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=doublemoon

http://www.discogs.com/label/Pozitif+Records

thanks for any input on these, from köln, 8m2stereo

8m2stereo wrote:

upon PM advice from some friends i'm putting this here,
loads of subs for 1,5 labels, guy claims he's with the label ..
most cd-s/compilation only have entries for 4 tracks,
i requested updates long time ago, nothing ..

i sort of fixed the only one i have here,
but basicly i am not up to date with turkish musicians ANVs ect. ..

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=doublemoon

http://www.discogs.com/label/Pozitif+Records

thanks for any input on these, from köln, 8m2stereo

jweijde wrote:

looking at this user's subs, I think all of them apply for a removal request because of incomplete tracklistings. If the submitters or owners don't care to update ofcourse.

kozmikdj wrote:

O-Kay....

so the 'I think the best method is to actively monitor changes to your collection, items for sale, and artists/labels of interest.' has been scrapped, then ?

Jayfive wrote:

No, its as well as, not instead of.

Also many voters like big chunks of voting/editing to do in one go. So voters give each other 'leads' as it were.

digitalchaos wrote:

user & label owner StoneRecords is submitting his own label releases by the name of Stone Records.

-> http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=StoneRecords

so far so good but on top of probably not having read the submission guidelines/rules he keeps changing the label name from Stone Records to Stone Records Digital just because he is not willing to change Stone Records to Stone Records (4). but since there is already 3x other Stone Record labels in the database it would have to be done imo. the user has e-mailed me a couple of times and i repeatedly pointed him to: http://www.discogs.com/help/su...e-label-catalog.html "For labels that share the same name, a number in parentheses should be used, for example "LabelName", "LabelName (2), "LabelName (3)" etc." and tried to explain how and why ... but no luck. instead the label name has been renamed to something its not ;)

anyone else willing to help out/guide the submitter on this issue?

choenyi wrote:

digitalchaos, this is a weird one - not only because of the label naming convention and adding "Digital":

one of the releases has format CD, for example, but the image is 150x150 straight off cdjshop.com; however, a search for it at that website brings no results. likewise, google searching for the other titles brings results only on discogs - and by specific searching, there is no kain van stone on beatport, juno, cdjshop, archive, etc., just here & myspace.

One of the 12"s subbed has a typical beatport-looking cover (certainly is not a scan of a record) and some of the CDs have covers that just look like myspace bulletin promo banners, not CD covers ... not sure what to think about these Stone Records releases.

choenyi wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1351132#latest
... I cast a "Correct" vote by accident.
please tip it pink ;)

8m2stereo wrote:

please assist here, i chipped at some, but me too tired now ..

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=popoy

thanks.

double-happiness wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1458176

duplicate of

http://www.discogs.com/release/84005 ?

8m2stereo wrote:

some more highly doubted crapSubs, i think should be removed:

http://www.discogs.com/user/ssviking_cmor . . for these 3 "labels":

http://www.discogs.com/label/A...Heritage+Productions

http://www.discogs.com/submiss...iumph+on+the+Horizon

http://www.discogs.com/submiss...Rusted+Nails+Records

thx.

8m2stereo wrote:

add to above post:

there seems to be some interVotings between the above mentioned
and this guy, dead links as well, and submissions, from my point of view,

highly doubtful:

http://www.discogs.com/user/trashritual

thx.

8m2stereo wrote:

sorry, some double posting bug..

nik wrote:

If anyone has some time, can you please help clear ledjfab's submissions, it would be good to know the average standard of the subs, some seem fine to me, but some need reverted as they remove information or just swap stuff about http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/173629 - Thanks!

baalofconfusion wrote:

This guy is making a complete mess of everything he touches: http://www.discogs.com/user/popoy

choenyi wrote:

El_Patisha

schtel wrote:

Can someone pls confirm the format for this guy's release: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1508610#latest
It is an LP, Album with 12". On a sticker, the 12" is referred to as a Single, "This album contains FREE 3-TRACK 12" SINGLE Unavailable Elsewhere."
But if it's a single and "Unavailable Elsewhere", how can it be a single, despite what they call it?" Or is it...?

So choices for format are:

Vinyl, LP, Album
Vinyl, 12", Single
All Media, Gatefold

Vinyl, LP
Vinyl, 12"
All Media, Album, Gatefold

thx :)

choenyi wrote:

don't see a problem w/ it being a single even though packed with ...

choenyi wrote:

^^ an example of this is the EP packed w/ the first copies of Dreams Less Sweet

Internaut wrote:

souled.out: Average Vote Received: Needs Minor Changes (2.95, 21 votes): still not on CIP, what does it take?

DisembowelMe wrote:

Get me out of the CIP please. I've learned my lesson. :)

DriesBosma wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/help/co...ovement-program.html

FAQ section.

Chamleon wrote:

could pls someone with credit knowledge left a comment or vote here: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1423502#latest

tx

Chamleon wrote:

thank you julesparis

schtel wrote:

Can somebody give this an EI and revert it back to the stage it was in before it had 'File' added to the format. Prior to that it was a CD submitted 1 year ago with these updates starting 2 months ago.
It caught my attention 10 days ago because of this ambiguous format, but was one of many I had seen, so just a vote and comment. If I had looked closer I would have seen that the last person to edit added this 'File' tag a couple of months ago and has proced to make other edits with respect of it being a digital releases. Which it isn't, he needs to make another submission. I already voted so can't give it the EI and revert.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=931405#latest

Thanks. :)

meckah wrote:

Done.

schtel wrote:

^ Excellent. :)

How about this one, tracklisting doesn't seem to be correct: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1361604#latest

schtel wrote:

oh meckah's got no pendings, so I can't return the favor. Next person to post will get free votes from me. :D

_kerry wrote:

That's a tricky one schtel... JT_X has a point..

Maybe in this case you use Indexes to divide the 2 releases then use 1,2,3 a1,a2,a3 etc. ????

schtel wrote:

No, you seem to misunderstand.

There is no need for CD and Vinyl in tracklisting. At present it is:

CD-1
CD-2
...etc
CD-8
Vinyl-A1
Vinyl-A2
...etc
vinyl-B4

It just needs to be:

1
2
...etc
8
A1
A2
...etc
B4

_kerry wrote:

No I understand that.

And JT_X has a point if it was a CD + DVD it would show as:

CD-1
CD-2
CD-3
...etc
DVD-1
DVD-2
DVD-3

or here is an example of Indexing it:
http://www.discogs.com/release/1059641

This way the 2 audio pieces are separated and you could use your suggestion of numbering.

schtel wrote:

Sure because CD and DVD share the same trackisting style.
1
2
3
...
But vinyl is
A1
A2
...

so already differentiates itself.

Why are you mentioning Index Tracks? Also that example is wrong and needs to be changed, unless the releases specifically divides it as such:

GL: Index Tracks should only be used only when the release itself divides the tracks into named sections in some way. Index Tracks should not be used for denoting the sides, track positions, or separate media of a release (the track numbers are used for this), or for adding incidental information (e.g. bonus tracks) which belongs in the Release Notes.

_kerry wrote:

Hehe I am not trying to pick a fight schtel.. I've got nuthin but respect for ya..

I am just trying to make a suggestion based on an existing example. If there was any precedence in what to do in this case I think it should be shown.

Peace

schtel wrote:

Unfortunately the existing example is quite wrong and I have requested the changes. :P
But thanks for giving this your time anyway. :)

Chamleon wrote:

if someone have the nerves, pls vote on this user's submissions:
http://www.discogs.com/user/Marana

some of his edits are fine, but somes are...

look to the submission and read the comments

Mr.Mystery wrote:

"I added the info and decided it's not needed."

Good grief.

Chamleon wrote:

more help needed....

schtel wrote:

Can someone pls explain that the to include the format tag within the tracklisting is unnecessary in this particular submission. thx

Mr.Mystery wrote:

I'm starting to think he's beyond help.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

Someone with a lot more patience than me should take a look at this:

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Version

schtel wrote:

^ I may suspect they are websubs, as the few I have looked at only has the info that can be found on the one and only pic. :)

Jayfive wrote:

Am I right in saying that 'Version' in terms of dancehall stuff is the same as 'Remix'?

If so, someone should run through raginpocket's submissions

schtel wrote:

This 'Version' is a D&B artist: http://www.discogs.com/release/251813

Mr.Mystery wrote:

Yeah, that's the only correct release on the entire page.

schtel wrote:

A pm from the user with regards to http://www.discogs.com/release/1510132:

"Face B is the version / run gal run.

All Jamaican press use same principle.

You can google 'flourgon - on foot skank' you will have same info.
Check picture

Bless up "

http://www.cookiejar.be/cart/i...1fcdeefdc9faed4cac73

It would appear that Version isn't an artist, but reference to another version of the A-Side, although where he has taken the track title from I'm not sure.

Chamleon wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1393118#latest