BeatSensor wrote:

Average Vote Received: Needs Major Changes (1.87, 157 votes)

I guess that was a bit too deep - user progmusic70s will never see daylight again.

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

incorrect label updates:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=703388#latest
http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=Grobydj

Internaut wrote:

I have asked this submitter both in PM and in his subs if he owns/have in hand the stuff he is submitting, but I have not got any answer: ladybaccaro . It does look a bit suspicious though..maybe someone Italian-speaking can try to get to him?

8m2stereo wrote:

PM answer to my question From: ladybaccaro
Subject: Re: hi

Hello!
I've the records!

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=703388

C&C please, thanks.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

Here's something to go through for someone who's got the time:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Warner+Brothers+Records

8m2stereo wrote:

went through all and left a note with proper label link,
should be checked later and some votes casted on the non-fixing,

thx.

Vinyllab wrote:

sorry, wrong forum

silverleaf wrote:

I'm still confused over some of the Label issues with this one http://www.discogs.com/history?release=29000

The Double F Double R logo appears twice on the paperwork and once on the disk. The label's name doesn't appear anywhere.
Just the logo. No label name on the spine; only the catalog number, artist, title and barcode are there.

Shouldn't London Records 90 Ltd. also be listed? It doesn't say they relicensed it to anyone.
If Double F Double R is a sub. of London Records it completely defaults to them like that?

8m2stereo wrote:

DAVIDBRUNNER
resubmitted this gem again, right after 2nd removal
(see history), he's now offering this fix:

http://www.discogs.com/Various...2002/release/1433916

very sorry, but atm this is too much for my eyes .. *_*

Haze wrote:

tradclimber
He's updating/adding many Iron Maiden, Metallica, Sepultura etc. releases and seems to be often wrong with 2nd cat#s (dunno if they are legit cat#s, and he never adds a 2nd label), styles, format, trying to add GEMA as a label, etc.

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

8m2stereo wrote:

huh ? like, wrong thread,
& you're telling us how to vote on this ?
(without any explaination on the rather twisted history ..)

sorry, but
please go to http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/172073 ,

thanks.

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

^^^^ as you can see in the history, that isn't my sub anymore.
MUSICLOVER04 did the last edit.

thanks

BeatSensor wrote:

Why don't you vote on that sub yourself?

8m2stereo wrote:

27 quick kicks,

no fix or learning curve in 1 month,
loads of really bad linkings, wrong ANVs, label & cat# messes ect.

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=D-Town_Records

all back to his drafts please.

ps/ sent him an extensive PM, too.

consort wrote:

scribelove

_kerry wrote:

Loved the one track submission.. out it goes

consort wrote:

djgenius

SmotheredHope wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1487310#latest

"Complete & Correct" :D

One more NMaC or two NMiC needed to level out that rating I guess...

pawlick wrote:

I Still hesitate here what to do as the submitter seems to refuse to do any further action:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1722814
It could stay as the major part of artists and credits are ok...
But i still thinkig about taking action to remove it as there are created couple of useless artist entries (most of them already are on the database) which could cause misunderstanding in further submissions.
What do you suggest?
Vote or take any action on this if have any clue what to do.

silverleaf wrote:

pawlick, I just skimmed over it, but I don't see why it shouldn't stay.
A few things you pointed out could make a little neater. If there's no ANV errors or something you know of then I'd say let it go.
You could always do some of that stuff yourself, but you know how that can go. :)
Getting used to how submissions work can be very stressful. With only 2 submissions since 2006 he may not go back to it.

8m2stereo wrote:

someone please take over, he's willing & active right now,
thanks.

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

comkai wrote:

if someone has the nerves to help out MUGGSY1979 aka Johnny "D" De Mairo with some links to the guidelines ...
i don't.

8m2stereo wrote:

√

Chalooby wrote:

Apologies if this is a subject for another thread (and if it has been discussed before) but something I found interesting on their subs -




Seems to happen a lot, label owners and artists could add so much but get frustrated when they try and edit their own releases and don't understand why their edits get rejected.

I don't suppose there is a way that labels and artists that find it hard to submit their information to Discogs could offer 'official info' that could then be made to fit within the guidelines and added on their behalf?

SmotheredHope wrote:

He doesn't get it unfortunately...

consort wrote:

ResDog is breaking apart David Tibet and Current 93 into as many aliases as possible, doing away with long-standing ANVs.

I'm really not sure that's such a good idea, but the amount of edits is slightly daunting, done all within the past few hours, and the original state of things (may not have been perfect) a stretch to get my head around. It may be all unalarming and correct but I would greatly appreciate other eyes on this.

8m2stereo wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=351983#latest

not Correct, needs balancing votes,

also MUGGSY1979 needs to be stopped somehow,
i cast 2 or 3 EI already, the other MiCh won't help,
my 2 PMs to him also didn't help ..

8m2stereo wrote:

just got this PM from him,
if someone wants to work with him i'd be more than happy,
i currently do not have the time ..

From: MUGGSY1979
Subject: UPDATES

if someone would take the time out to tell me what proof they need i would gladly supply it
the artists, remixers, etc all know what i do and have done
discogs should be happy that i am doing this
discogs is great and every producer/remixer i speak to has the same complaint, that people who dont really know act as if they do
i am helping and can help with many more as i am an encyclopedia when it comes to this field
i am taking the time to update my listings and havent even gotten to my production and labels which are also incomplete.


ps/

!!! he's taken up speed again,
nothing can be done to stop him ???

pps/ MAJOR threat issued:

"i am a serious music executive and it is people like myself who will try to take discogs to the next level,
should i do my producer and label updates right now?"

ppps/ someone EI mangeled 122 down to 12 now, reverting them one step of wrongness back after many faulty updates "as per moderation", those luckily got "auto-saved" by voter.

SmotheredHope wrote:

I gave it another try on some of his recent edits... It seems impossible to get him to even glance at the guidelines unfortunately though. He keeps editing despite the fact that someone gave him 100 or something EI votes so most of the edits he's done has been reverted.

8m2stereo wrote:

just for the rec. - i spent 5 hours communicating with him,
close to 20 PMs ..
that was before the others pulled the emergency brake ..

comes this funky "voter":

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=351983#latest
i quote his message:
"If you're talking about Johnny D D'Mairo or whatever his names, you and others were being way too nit-picky, most of his additions looked just fine to me. I've never heard of "human" roles not being acceptable in the Notes field, whatever that means. I went and voted thru a couple dozen of his subs because the info is helpful to have."

consort wrote:

great. /sarc

SmotheredHope wrote:

Some users really shouldn't have voting rights.

I've seen people with as few as a couple of dozen votes in their favour having voting rights, it's really sad to see.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

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

8m2stereo wrote:

funky's flak:

8m2stereo - you've been reported to admin, and I am warning you one last time to cease your abuse and harassment.
For the last time - DO NOT comment on my submissions when you've been repeatedly warned not to.
Quit targeting me with your foolishness, get bent.
People like you are the reason Discogs has the reputation of a nerdy bunch of nit-picking nazis with no lives.

consort wrote:

unintentionally placed a correct vote while only intending to leave a comment :(

user w/ last edit needs no "punishment" by any means but the item is far from correct and I don't have the resources to correct it myself.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

You've got nothing to worry about - he's the only one here taking comments/votes personally and being abusive. I also notice he's had several votes/comments months ago and he's refused to do any changes (or even respond).

Edit:
Seems to me I'm getting the same treatment from him now. A clear problem user.

Paganini1966 wrote:

Could somebody view, check and vote this submission, please:
http://www.discogs.com/release/1704598

Thanks.

Jayfive wrote:

Now thats unfair.

I mean, what does he mean 'reputation'? Thats what we are XD

Yet another submitter not realising that without nerdism and nit-picking they probably wouldnt be using the site in the first place.

8m2stereo wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1641995
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1642016
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1642469
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1241622
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1595880
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1153890

& the already voted on that still need fixing:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1215513#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1242945#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1644022#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1040792#latest
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1581490#latest

he's been warned now by 'admin',
careful though, you might 'get bent' ..

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=85097
cat# tweaking
IE please

BeatSensor wrote:

Again: why don't you vote yourself - are you just being too lazy or is that guy a friend of yours? lol

You're starting to make yourself looking fishy.

SmotheredHope wrote:

Guess you're a little scared now that you've been reported to 'admin' for placing justified votes and leaving useful comments? :D lol

8m2stereo wrote:

REALLY scared now:

someone (with Volksmusik knowledge) please Emergency Assist here,
as per urgent request from 'Modera†ors-Deu†sch':

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

snip/ actually you only need to know the way to CIP !

Haze wrote:

amp.records.mexico

consort wrote:

Haze, your post was personally prescient. bounced here after checking that mess ...

Internaut wrote:

Here is a user who thinks entering tracklistings is a waste of time:

DAVIDBRUNNER

BeatSensor wrote:

I guess that guy hasn't turned on his inbox notifications - no user can be that lazy/unconcerned about negative votes.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

don't know, maybe we have a communication problem on this
sub.

my original comment regarded the label which is very strange considering the timeline of the label's history and its renaming before the release was reissued. but in the meantime it seems we are not getting to the bottom of that problem as of now...

the point i am asking you to comment on is
that the user chose the
box set tag for a single cd with metal box packaging,
i thought box set reffers to multiple cds, lps, etc. packed together, not to a single release in a "box".

please comment.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1355729#latest

schtel wrote:

"Box Set - To note that all media are enclosed in extra packaging."

I would say that the box, in this case, is just part of the packaging, because there is no 'set' for it to be a Box Set.
We don't allow packaging in the format, as yet, unless the same release also exists in different packaging.

IMO, this is an incorrect use of the Box Set tag.

fisonic wrote:

"Box Set" doesn't depend on the number of media contained in the box. A set containing one item is still a set. (A mathematician will tell you, even an empty set is still a set. *wink*)

The point here is the word "extra" in the guidelines.
Meaning: The CD would require to have its own packaging without the box.
It's hard to tell from the photo. I'd assume the disc doesn't have another tray other than the back of the box itself.
If, however, the box contained a complete jewelcase with the disc inside, it would be a Box Set.

rassel wrote:

Set
Definition: A number of things of the same kind, ordinarily used or classed together; a collection of articles which naturally complement each other, and usually go together; an assortment; a suit; as, a set of chairs, of china, of surgical or mathematical instruments, of books, etc.
from http://ardictionary.com/Set/5278
I think a set requires at least "two"?

fisonic wrote:

We'll have to ask higher powers, then - as to what it is meant to be? :)

legumes-SALES wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=904708#latest

jape wrote:

Can someone politely tell this submitter to read the submission guidelines?

vaitiks

consort wrote:

^ Love this cat#: "On an Official License Of Black Hole Recordings"

schtel wrote:

I agree, I forgot to mention that. :)

Whilst the term 'set' may not apply here, is the CD in normal packaging, jewel case/digipak etc, and then in the box? Regardless, it seems the box is used as packaging, and not to contain a set, ie more than one.

We need a packaging field.

SmotheredHope wrote:

Done, plus put 6 out of the 9 submissions up for removal since he submits the same item over and over again. The EI votes will hopefully put him on the CIP.

ApeAstbury wrote:

Yes it does, obviously the disc is inside, with a jewel case.
thanks

8m2stereo wrote:

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

please some more EI votes on most of the latest 30 pendings,
i'm calling nik now to remove him from voting at least ..

Internaut wrote:

^^^ He even added a Rateyourmusic.com link to the profile of Deutsche Grammophon....thats actually pretty funny..

SmotheredHope wrote:

Placed a bunch of NMaC, didn't consider them EI but maybe I'm too much of a nice guy. :)

Does he actually have voting rights??

8m2stereo wrote:

well, umm, sorry, but
EI if i can't at all tell what the release is supposed to be,
man, he's Rank:2843, with 555 subs,
should i groogle the cat# to find out what's on the record ?
he shouldn't be deliberately operating the site while, err, unfit ? that's IE, imho.
and yes,
his own voting was present on one sub there, so i took action.
and yes,
i used to be very much of a too nice guy too,
somewhere pre the last 50+ ogs-débâcles like that size ..
you think i should go on some vacation maybe,
before i throw a fit and become incontinent ?

SmotheredHope wrote:

:D LOL




Nah, I understand where you're coming from. I used to "moderate" (vote) a lot more, and when you do it a lot you (like you, great job by the way) you become quite frustrated with users like that so I understand your EI votes in that respect. And I can't understand why he keeps adding subs without tracklistings, like you say he's got a rank that says he shouldn't be subbing the way he does. I can't understand how you can submit something without a tracklisting, what's the point? Unbelievable.

JVigilante wrote:

Hey everyone,

My submission needs some votes to be valid. Any help would be greatly appreciated. See the link here:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1731258

Thanks everyone!
Jeff

JVigilante wrote:

Okay, so i tried to update this as best i could. I re-read the submission guide and here is what i came up with.

http://www.discogs.com/release/1731258

I seem to be having problems with the Remixer: Marshall... there is like 17 Marshalls already and NONE or the ones who did this remix. What should i do?

Can you all please go vote again. Thanks for those who already did!

Jeff

JVigilante wrote:

Thanks again, any help would be appreciated. I can't seem to get this right!

Jeff

silverleaf wrote:

I posted something there. Hope it helps.

edit: Marshall (14) would seem to be the one.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

wrong vote by myself:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1385419#latest

please vote correct, the track can be found on the myspace of the artist

BeatSensor wrote:

I've sent that DAVIDBRUNNER guy a mail and he just replied "No entiendo". He has no clue what other users (and the guidelines) are trying to tell him.

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1433916#latest

JVigilante wrote:

Okay okay okay... so i THINK i finally got this correct. Much thanks to SILVERLEAF for spotting the correct 'Marhsall' aka Luigi Emanuelle Rocca... awesome thank you so much!

Here is the new link so you all can finally make this thing valid and i can update my profile!

http://www.discogs.com/JVigila...Trip/release/1731258

Thank you all so much again!
Jeff

drcscape wrote:

What to do with a very active user that does not seem to read his/her mail/comments and does not appear to have read the guidelines?

http://www.discogs.com/release...uted?user=fullofhope

Mr.Mystery wrote:

We just have to be full of hope.

JVigilante wrote:

Please stop the madness and torture! haha. This submission process is driving me nuts! LoL. I read and re-read the Credits and Submission Guidelines like 20x and this is the best i can do here. I hope this is right. Here's the link:

http://www.discogs.com/J-Vigil...Trip/release/1731258

Thank you all so much for you input already. I hope i have it right finally.

Thanks again,
Jeff

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

this thread is entitled "Requests for votes on OTHER users submissions"

Jayfive wrote:

For reasons im not altogether clear on hes been posting the same things in this thread and in the 'own submissions' thread:
http://www.discogs.com/help/fo...72073?page=5#2349484

Bizarre.

Internaut wrote:

I've never seen this been done before; direct link to Itunes: Lasse Passage - If You Don't Have Time To Cook, You Don't Have Time To Live. Can't be OK, or?

silverleaf wrote:

Please YES vote this http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1731258#latest
He deserves some positive feedback for a frustrating first sub. Thanks.

8m2stereo wrote:

imho these can't stay:
18 invalid subs without proper tracklisting,
CIP user DAVIDBRUNNER can resubmit from drafts ..

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?mode=removals

thx.

8m2stereo wrote:

21 quick kicks of repeatedly reappearing bogus junk:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Prism+Records+(5)

rassel
thegaydj = thedj2009 = djcarlcox = DJbullshit
:P
NLK
= iamadj1970.

marcelrecords wrote:

just removed the last 2 of these :-{}

8m2stereo wrote:

next time we should send him this guy:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1338497

great record btw.

consort wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/submissions?user=iamadj1970

8m2stereo wrote:

report him, the "Modera†ors: Deu†sch" have been hunting him down for the las to months with 5 different new accounts, submiting the same fantasy junk:

"repeatedly reappearing bogus junk:
this time the made up label was
http://www.discogs.com/label/Prism+Records+(5)

rassel
thegaydj = thedj2009 = djcarlcox = DJbullshit
:P
NLK
= iamadj1970."

consort wrote:

reported promptly before posting above, apparently sorted as the sudden flood of releases on "Discogs Is Gay Records" just as suddenly ceased.

8m2stereo wrote:

here's why, all should know:

nik wrote:
quote selection
User raindance_rob is banned from the database now,
as he was behind the recent and not-so-recent database abuse from sock puppet users such as iamadj1970 and thegaydj.
I think this should be known, because it may affect how his submissions are dealt with.
posted about 2 hours ago.

Se-BusT-eL wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1736248#latest

please drop a vote

8m2stereo wrote:

moodytrax has taken the time to put a lot more of raindanceBob's
highly doubtful white label/promoStickered whatever subs up for removal,
as i went though many of those this morning least i can confirm is that almost all have NO owners ..
cleanout now @ http://www.discogs.com/submissions?mode=removals
here's why:



/snip/ .. seems to be mostly done by now, thx.

Mr.Mystery wrote:

Is this kind of linking necessary (or even allowed)?

http://www.discogs.com/Gainsbo...ever/release/1743453

Internaut wrote:

"The most acceptable current use for HTML is internal Discogs links in the notes field." : http://www.discogs.com/help/su...matting_Unicode_HTML

legumes-SALES wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=842277

I request more mod opinion, reason inside.


(there was a very fast correct vote to an unexplained edit)

MEKA wrote:

Could somebody view, check and vote these submissions, please:

http://www.discogs.com/Arx-Kae...Lake/release/1718934
http://www.discogs.com/Arx-Kae...Lake/release/1718946

thanks

8m2stereo wrote:

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

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

could s.o. please add the same profile info as on "Mercury Records"
to "Epic Records", if applicable, as i'm not 100% into this topic:

Profile: DO NOT USE - The correct Discogs entry is Epic.

(dummy use necessary, imho it should be placed on both pages ..)

savageone wrote:

is it just me, or are these two releases practically the same thing, i mean variations in the paint thats used in vinyl colorings can vary, is one a dupe or are they both ok?


http://www.discogs.com/Cyrus-T...y-Way/release/166814

http://www.discogs.com/Cyrus-T...-Way/release/1089259

consort wrote:

^^^ yeah lol, I'd say probably a difference in opinion on what qualifies as "translucent" ;-)

MUSICLOVER04 wrote:

Can any voter cast a NMC (IMHO) at this release?

http://www.discogs.com/history?release=964589#latest

Thanks.

savageone wrote:

i think i may have removed the image on that one, but im afraid it may stay in the image history forever? under disabled images?:D, is there any more that need fixing?

savageone wrote:

user has also been reported on this end:D

BeatSensor wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/186589