Help / Forums / Voting & Checking Information
|
Requests for votes on other users submissionsChamleon wrote:
could pls some 2-3 voters give a correct vote in the submission of the last page. during a wrong vote (NMaC) status is still NMiC
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
thanks Chamleon edited this message about 1 year ago. Internaut wrote:
Anyone want to help out here: Mistři České Hudby ?
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Internaut wrote:
For some fun, see the last comment here: The Live Pink Floyd.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
muntz wrote:
are these updates OK?
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=786953#latest http://www.discogs.com/history?release=121149#latest his argument isn't appropriate, even if we could leave the Balanescu Quartet as the only main artist. dsmith wrote:
 muntzare these updates OK? http://www.discogs.com/history?release=786953#latest http://www.discogs.com/history?release=121149#latest his argument isn't appropriate, even if we could leave the Balanescu Quartet as the only main artist. On the spine of the second one, I only see "The Balanescu Quartet, The - Possessed". The sticker is a bit small (if it is a sticker), but unless it says Play ... on the release, then Kraftwerk, etc. shouldn't be there as main artists. 8m2stereo wrote:
"It's written on records. "
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
.. i went at the http://www.discogs.com/artist/Version thingy, being experienced with 'dem Jamaics via extensive touring .. raginpocket : "Hi my youth contact before add comment like that",
well, i sent him 'dem bigtime friendly PM wit'dem links to 'dem rules here .. raginpocket :
"I respected all rules on your discogs database but i will not modify my realase. I copied all data on my records (FACE A / FACE B) Face A Artist - Title Face B Version - Riddim or Version It's written on records. If moderator are not agree with my Jamaican Press Data, please feel free to delete all my realase & my account. Sorry for my english but i'm french." (just in case: Riddim stands for "instrumental version", and, ähm, Version stands for, well, another "version" (mixdown, alternate lyrics ect.) of the track on side A ..) bless up yourself .. 8m2stereo wrote:
uups.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
8m2stereo edited this message about 1 year ago. jweijde wrote:
raginpocketIf moderator are not agree with my Jamaican Press Data, please feel free to delete all my realase & my account. Sorry for my english but i'm french." Well, bye bye then. jweijde edited this message about 1 year ago. DriesBosma wrote:
Please have a look at the submissions of
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
maurydj. Especially his older ones.
He'll be delighted to receive your remarks and comments. (He thinks that there's no limit to do bad submissions, but doesn't like to to receive a lot of feedback on it - fills up his mailbox and stuff..) nik wrote:
korba
bogdan607
pro100
korba banned early 2008 for abuse. Came back as bogdan607 and caused problems with submissions again, on and off the CIP, created new pro100 account to circumvent the CIP, more arguments etc etc, banned again today. 8m2stereo wrote:
aargh ..
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
tried to help him along the way .. now he's blown a fuse. maurydj Removal Pending I'll remove everything since there are too many idiots who think to be pros.
Bye Bye Jayfive wrote:
Sorry for the second post in a short space of time, but this needs addressing, partyl caused by
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
maurydj:
http://www.discogs.com/artist/%2F Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. Jayfive wrote:
8m2stereoIf moderator are not agree with my Jamaican Press Data, please feel free to delete all my realase & my account. Sorry for my english but i'm french." And a few hours later he changed 95% of them so that 'Version' isnt listed as an artist any more. But didnt do the last 3. Odd. 8m2stereo wrote:
yessiah, seen, i gave him some guidance, maybe he fell asleep,
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
you wanna give it a second go ? also needs some checking for duplicates i feel, runout numbers would be nice too, if there are any .. thank you. Chalooby wrote:
Are
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
maurydj's subs to stay or go? It looks like it will need votes on all 118 pendings, or 199 if they are really determined. Jayfive wrote:
Unless they are duplicates or dont exist, they stay according to the guidelines. Under v4 at present, the original submitter doesnt have any real say in whether the submission stays in the database anymore than someone voting on it. If the submission is beyond rescue without the submitter helping, maybe it should go. If its stuff that can be corrected, i suppose it can stay. Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. julesparis wrote:
removal of entries has been requested by submitter cause you guys have been real meanies with them!
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/submiss...item=release/1500128 and so on i rather doubt we will ever get confirmation those are (were) duplicates or genuinely unique entries 8m2stereo wrote:
well, jules, i hope you're joking, at least a bit ..
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
i've spent, like, half a day on the last 2 guys i tried to coach, hardest measure being 2 or 3 inevitable I.E.s to preserve "Notes" info they had randomly deleted, even if it don't belong there, before it vanishes completely in the next edit .. next time i'll maybe leave it to other mods after a couple of comments/votes, hoping the next passer-by will also have a stab at it .. just wondering how many votes are needed to instantly stop someone like them .. julesparis wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
nik wrote:
Dear maurydj,
I see that you have tried to remove all your submissions from the database today, en mass, for the stated reason that; "I'll remove everything since there are too many idiots who think to be pros. Bye Bye". This is totally unacceptable. You can't just remove things on a whim. Maybe someone else has this release in their collection or wantlist now. Maybe someone didn't submit this because you did first. Some of the things you tried to remove have been worked on by many users and have been in the database for months. Many users tried to help you get things correct, but unfortunately you got angry and tried to remove everything. This is a disrespect both to the database integrity as a whole, and to the individuals who were trying to help you get your submissions correct. For this reason, to stop any further abuse to the database, I have suspended your ability to add, update, or remove releases. If you feel that you have calmed down, and would like to move onto a more positive outcome, please contact me and we can see if this suspension can be lifted. Yours sincerely, Nik - Discogs Database manager. julesparisi rather doubt we will ever get confirmation those are (were) duplicates or genuinely unique entries I agree, but they are in the minority of those releases selected for removal. The ones that are probably duplicates should be removed now, but the rest of those removal requests are out of order, and should be NO voted. Haze wrote:
Saw that one too earlier today. Subs with titles in caps lock always catch my attention. I also like the cat#s look like on all those labels, especially on Paolo del Prete julesparis wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
_kerry wrote:
It's so good that even though it's in his collection - he wants another one!!! Got to get my hands on that =) sickboy101 wrote:
Could somebody check this for me? and vote..?
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/release/1510667 I really don't see anything wrong with it anymore. Much appreciated, Iestyn julesparis wrote:
hmmm, actually after checking this guy's space those subs look 100% legit http://www.myspace.com/diegogarciadj - i mean he IS the jonas brothers #1 friend
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
ps.: label = RapidShare julesparis edited this message about 1 year ago. rassel wrote:
_kerryIt's so good that even though it's in his collection - he wants another one!!! Got to get my hands on that =) Oh, c'mon, he's modest. He really rates himself Time's Go By: The Greatest Remixed just two points. I mean, I like people who are able to reflect their work in a critical manner. :) fleshmeatdoll wrote:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1516583#latest
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
this user is updating a release i submitted with the romanization in brackets after the title. i explained to no effect that the "as per release" rule applies. can somebody express his opinion and/or vote, please. DisembowelMe wrote:
I need comments on the Ask The Slave one(I'm somewhat confused by it), the rest seem to be okay, please vote accordingly. :)
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
pawlick wrote:
This one appears to be ok:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/release/1332887 8m2stereo wrote:
i'm pretty sure these all need to go,
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
on his profile he's also announcing forthcoming releases until 2017 : http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=DjDiegoGarcia http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=DiegoGarcia "Ask Diego García who was waiting to turn into an admirer with his first autoqualified CD and "each one" will not say. But this is with the precision that he presents. I inhale the people of my age, he says of 17 years." from http://www.myspace.com/diegogarciadj Jayfive wrote:
For a kick-off hes got duplicate accounts, tell
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
nik
OK, lets cut to the chase. This guy's some teenage bedroom producer or a complete joker - either way hes screwing up the database big time. For a start he's submitting stuff to Independiente which is a UK indie-rock label. His submissions are a disaster and quite frankly they should all be put up for removal until such time as the submitter can show where these cds exist and where they are available. Minor changes votes are not enough, this guy needs dealing with. After a further bit of investigation - I have a strong suspicion that this is another case of Croatian Trance (anyone whos been here more than 2 years knows what I mean). See: http://deletionpedia.dbatley.c...8_Apr_2008_at_00:07) Notice the only links are this fool's myspace and youtube pages. Dont take my word for it - google any of the labels this guy claims to be on - you wont find anything of substance except the discogs pages and deleted wiki entries. He's a complete fantasist. Get rid of his releases. Bring me the head of Diego Garcia! XD Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. DriesBosma wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Internaut wrote:
If someone has some spare time,
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
rik120s submissions could need some attention.DriesBosma wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
8m2stereo wrote:
please decide for Y or N:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=sickboy101 & http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1216653 "Release by an independant and private label which does not even have an official name. There is no official distribution for the label hence as it is limited to 'private pressings' only with no official catalogue numbers and the manufacturing of each copy is undertaken by a small company. Details of this company are also unknown" %-) Jayfive wrote:
Ive called those submissions of sickboy101 for removal. No doubt i'll get a load of abuse from hm for it.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
But if the only place to get those items is a fileshare download then i am 100% sure they are not valid. ForkMe wrote:
_kerryIt's so good that even though it's in his collection - he wants another one!!! Got to get my hands on that =) Actually, I have a disc in my wantlist that's also in my collection. My copy is badly warped! 8m2stereo wrote:
i have tried to coach
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
zwaszrut, some time ago,
& today finding someone helping out by contacting him in his, Polish, language. i have also some time ago "warned" him about possible troubles for his marketplace activities here, as he once sold me a nice release with friendly communication and all. unfortunately this was the feedback: "I've PM zwaszrut and got an answer... He knows english but as he wrote he is to lazy to read guideliness ...just because he is lazy (as he wrote me) and as I see he is even not thinking about correcting his subs." ".. as I understood if he will submit new stuff he will do exactly like guideliness says but those which are allready submitted he will not do. Well maybe he doesn't believe they might be removed... " sorry, but i did my best, thanks for having a look. jweijde wrote:
I think
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
shakal can use a hand too:
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=shakal But unfortunately I'm afraid he won't listen because he keeps adding incorrect information after I voted EI. jweijde edited this message about 1 year ago. schtel wrote:
Can someone have a look at this sub: http://www.discogs.com/release/1414852
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
The release has two formats, AAC and MPEG-4. But the user refuses to put MPEG-4 in the format because it's not in the formats list. I made a request for this format about a month ago in the formats thread, but no news on any decision yet. http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...topic/169033#2205649 Regardless, I feel the FTF should be made use of until this format has been formally acknowledged. Thanks in advance. jweijde wrote:
Well, I must say I'm fine with that release as it is now.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
We do not add the format of video files to the format of enhanced CD releases either, so why do it here? It's mentioned in the notes and that is fine for now. It can be updated once the format is available. schtel wrote:
jweijdeWe do not add the format of video files to the format of enhanced CD releases either, so why do it here? No, we don't add the format for the files on a CD release either, and I'm not suggesting we should. There are two separate formats on that release AAC MPEG-4 Can you tell me again why that format should not be included? Also there are some releases on the database that are just video MPEG-4, are you suggesting that the format should not be added at all? KrissO wrote:
I have voting access myself, but sometimes submitters can be stubborn :P I need help to clear up a couple of things.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Here are two examples that I have already made some comments in: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=115149 Can credits under circumstances like these be added if it's 100% obvious what / who the credit is, although it's not written on the release? If yes, I assume they must be added as uncredited? http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1506222 Back to the copy to draft issue again, *sigh*. While copying credits internally from release to release is not allowed, the copy to draft method seems to be accepted...(?). I've seen discussion about 12" retail --> 12" promo of the same release. In this case it's 12" retail --> cdr (also the same release). What is the correct action in cases like this one? Should the submission guidelines be followed with no exception, or can the credits be used? jweijde wrote:
I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm just offering a temporary solution until MPEG4 is available in the format dropdown. schtelAlso there are some releases on the database that are just video MPEG-4, are you suggesting that the format should not be added at all? Maybe one should just put those submissions in Draft until the format is available? schtel wrote:
Oh, ok. Valid points. :)
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
I've started a discussion on MPEG-4 8m2stereo wrote:
i would like to suggest to give
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/user/Internaut some positive attention and votes, a lot of his submissions being classical or (japanese) re-issues, he is mostly online and reacts to comments swiftly, in my eyes a very precicse submitter & well to be trusted. he has also very friendly helped me with my edits. you could also ask him for labels/artists needing votes, as he additionaly then does good artist profile research and linking, which is what i mostly vote on for him. thanks for your attention, and have a nice weekend. Goad wrote:
He is. Just click on revert on the original edit you did. I'll cast a vote. Cheers. Internaut wrote:
Some voting/guiding is needed here:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
MusicMan1962Marana wrote:
can someone check my submissions.. been adding alot infos lately
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Jayfive wrote:
Put that up for removal. Submitter/seller would benefit from starting all over again.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. Mr.Mystery wrote:
This guy could use some guidance. 280 pendings and none of them seem to have remix credits (or much of any other credits for that matter).
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
jweijde wrote:
Not really a submission, but a removal request:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1268638#latest Our good old "Removal feature"-classic is up for removal again. Please vote 'No'. DriesBosma wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
DriesBosma wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Mr.Mystery wrote:
What the hell? I was gonna ask what was so wrong about it until I took a look at the history. I see NOXIOUSPRICK is really living up to his name. Sad thing is the original submitter is trying to get it deleted now when it should just be reverted. TechElec wrote:
Mr.MysteryWhat the hell? I was gonna ask what was so wrong about it until I took a look at the history. I see NOXIOUSPRICK is really living up to his name. Sad thing is the original submitter is trying to get it deleted now when it should just be reverted. He has 615 pending subs. God help us all. Edit: and looking through them, they're starting to look a LOT like web subs. TechElec edited this message about 1 year ago. Mr.Mystery wrote:
Just noticed he edited that to be a dupe too. Reverted back.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Marana wrote:
http://www.discogs.com/release/69522
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
this cat# needs to be checked.. WE739 might be wea records distribution code jweijde wrote:
Can someone give an opinion on the following release?
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1509949#latest In my opinion this is a duplicate because the one that is already in had an obvious mistake in the catalog number, which I fixed. To me it was clear there was one '2' too many in the catalog number because BMG cat# almost always have the XXXXX XXXXXX X format. Also searching for the catalog number with the extra 2 yielded no results on google, while without it I got many results. Also no owners commented or disagreed with me on the cat# change. Last but not least, I own a copy of this release which I used for verification (I already have it in my collection for a few years). Internaut wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Internaut edited this message about 1 year ago. md wrote:
Someone wanna get stuck into this mess: http://www.discogs.com/label/S...Kong+Distro+(SKD%3D)
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
choenyi wrote:
difficult not to bulk remove these "perfect submissions"
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Jayfive wrote:
@choenyi - ive voted for removals but i dont like the look of that schlongwhateveritis guy, be wary we might have another benito on our hands.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. Jayfive wrote:
In relation to this, this guy's subs might need a run-through, its stuff in a similar vein: http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=the_rev Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. jweijde wrote:
Fake label if you ask me. Their website has links to Discogs and surely can't be taken seriously. nik wrote:
The guy is banned from the site now, http://www.discogs.com/history?artist=Stevie+Hayes
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Jayfive wrote:
I thinks its a real label, a bedroom one, but real nontheless.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
What im concerned about is the submitter is making lots of mistakes and...ahem...doesnt respond well to criticism or advice. Edit: wow, that was something of an understatement. Talk about a persecution complex. Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. 8m2stereo wrote:
same user? & "schlongGuy"-related i suspect:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/user/Rev333 http://www.discogs.com/user/the_rev Jayfive wrote:
8m2stereosame user? & "schlongGuy"-related i suspect: http://www.discogs.com/user/Rev333 http://www.discogs.com/user/the_rev NO! What the blue arse are you doing? Those submission are fine! Theres never been any question of them being real labels, the only reason the others were removed was because they were parts of box set. FFS dont go removing release based on a vague suspicion - at least show some actual evidence. This isnt the same user, this isnt a hoax, it is a real (if small scale) label. A cursory look at the label website confirms that (although I advise to be not eating while you do so) Now, go and do the decent thing and correct the errors on those users submissions. Be careful who you decry as not a label, it'll come back and bite you in the arse Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. Jayfive wrote:
Anyway, the reason I came here:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=vvmo Wrong artists, wrong labels, all sort of self-released stuff and flannel writ large in the release notes. Give the chap a hand, i think he's keen to learn :) Jayfive edited this message about 1 year ago. 8m2stereo wrote:
ok, &
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Sorry for getting started on a "vague suspicion", Jayfive, but the PM answer i got on asking him about suspected multiple accounts shows i wasn't all too wrong about that: sent by the_rev on 16-Nov-08 01:25 AM: ".. Oh I run 3 different labels. I did them under different names. Sorry I did not know I could not do that. I run Alarming Echo Beats. Third Position Recordings, and Fecal-Matter Discorporated." so, feel welcome to cleanup any "Fecal-Matter" releated stuff, i'll keep away from it now .. i apologize again for any inconvenience caused, possibly by my lack of "humor" .. likewise to the nazi stuff that got me going the other day. 8m2stereo wrote:
ps/
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
sent by the_rev on 16-Nov-08 03:38 AM " .. Thats also why I signed up different names so it would not be corresponding to the labels." Se-BusT-eL wrote:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1185548#latest
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
NMiC missing anvs on track 3: Smokin Beats & Beverly T and all entries from http://www.discogs.com/artist/...otman?anv=Beverley+T should go to: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Beverly+T?anv=Beverley+T DriesBosma wrote:
Please some more votes on this one.
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
User is active, but doesn't seem to care about this one. http://www.discogs.com/release/1301631 Maybe some NMC will draw his attention. Thanks. Mr.Mystery wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
DriesBosma wrote:
Enough NMC votes will draw the attention of any active user..
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Chamleon wrote:
Could this be correct?
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
CD's with release year: Paris/ 1980 (Quality Rating: Correct) Best Of The Blues Brothers / 1981 1982's 38 pieces 1983's 209 pieces Internaut wrote:
ChamleonCould this be correct? CD's with release year: Paris/ 1980 (Quality Rating: Correct) Best Of The Blues Brothers / 1981 1982's 38 pieces 1983's 209 pieces According to Wikipedia (using this as a source: http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-20/h5.html ): "The first album to be actually released on CD was Billy Joel's 52nd Street, that reached the market alongside Sony's CD player CDP-101 on October 1, 1982 in Japan." Mr.Mystery wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
Chalooby wrote:
His comments are a bit strange "No further Inforamtion" and so on... why can he never any more info about the release? I wonder if he can give the etchings? Looking at this one http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1538583#latest - apart from the obvious, I think "slemming" is actually "slamming" which seems to be more from a store description than anything on the vinyl (see decks.de link below). It appears to be a 3 track vinyl too and so is missing the other 2 mixes too - http://www.recessrecords.nl/vi...ure-2009-mylo/37093/ http://www.decks.de/decks-sess...sure001-vinyl/bry-07 http://www.4djsonly.com/4DJ/in...nt=/productID=195386 http://www.htfr.com/more-info/MR284132 DriesBosma wrote:
edit
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
DriesBosma edited this message about 1 year ago. Mr.Mystery wrote:
DJMaximus3000 could use some help. I don't think there's a single correct sub and some of the artist/alias updates are getting quite confusing...Haze wrote:
ULTRA RARE MICHAEL JACKSON “KING OF POP” IPOD NANO-CHROMATIC 16GB | Included With 122 Classic MJ Tracks & "KING OF POP" Album
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
lol @ Style - Since it's a release from Jacko it must be J-Pop legumes-SALES wrote:
posted about 1 year ago. (
permalink |
report
)
|