a few corrections
220503-105605-971000 - I think this "Title Correction" is declined? It was first released with that title.
220503-213200-653000 - same here? The film had that title originally, it was released in several festivals with that title, it was later renamed. Original title must stay the original one.
220516-210451-872000 - I know this is still pending but I'm expecting it to be declined too, so posting it in advance. All items here should be approved. (edit: at least title correction is approved but 2 useless bad blind duplicates are treated as "god's sending untouchable most sacred thing in the existence that should be protected at all costs" by editors who never have problem with deleting my evidence-supported contributions, I will not accept these two bad items not being deleted here, I will not accept your baseless response that would say "we need to keep it because it's known with that in that region" etc.. no, it's just a blind duplicate of the badly added original title, if the original title was added correctly in japanese from start, that was gonna be the blindly duplicated text, whatever the original title entry was, that was gonna be duplicated blindly, like that bad one which is now corrected duplicated, so no you can't say baseless claims like "it's the title of that region we have to keep it", no, it's not, it was a blind duplicate of whatever there was as original title, which was a bad title in the first place)
This post on another thread probably won't get any response so I'm posting that submission number here: 220506-090844-594000 (bad "as" attribute (Prpfessor) created because of editor not approving submission properly needs to be deleted)
And see the result of the so effective "additional steps", he was able to add fake credits again and again and again when they're deleted, non-stop. That thread is not getting any more attention or response, so I'm posting it here.
I replied your question here, just posting in case it's missed.
This thread did not get any response for 2 months: https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/data-issues-policy-discussions/vandalism/62464c2b79f390095b86b483?commentId=62474b8579f390095b86d650
Now I will complain about having trouble when I report an ineligible title for removal on the help desk. I get canned responses from Arya and John that says "we can't delete it because hey look, there is a release date listed here", she thinks having a release date entry on imdb makes an ineligible title like a song without music video or a stage play without a video/tv release etc.. eligible. Doesn't matter how much you try to explain, they don't listen and they just start to ignore all of your messages. I wish I could always get responses from Merida, she's perfect, she always listens, she's so smart, she understands things without torturing you first, she solves things without torturing you first. But we can't choose who will respond of course.
There is also something here that indicates how inefficient and bad systems imdb have; on one case, reported ineligible song pages were created by someone who already had same ineligible titles deleted from his name page once and staff -supposedly- 'took these mysterious steps' on the name page. So, not only "these steps" did not work and new ineligible titles were created, when it's reported to you again, one would expect: you see the previous actions on name page and say "oh ok, this is not a reliable user, there's not much to think and 'investigate' here" and solve it without hassle but no, that does not happen, instead they try to defend and protect these ineligible titles at all costs no matter what. they make it their life purpose to protect these reported ineligible titles, they do not see previous actions and supposed steps taken, no, that does not happen, instead they doubt my report, the one who's doubted is not the one who added ineligible titles before and had them deleted once already, no, not that user but me, validity of my report is doubted and they make it their life goal to blindly protect these ineligible song titles at all costs.
Anyway these ineligible song pages were finally removed when I was lucky to get response from other than these two, from someone reasonable who can think a release date entry on imdb does not make an ineligible title eligible.
But I'm not lucky enough to get past these two employees for this ineligible title: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13491306/
I explain it's a "theater/art performance", with quotes from its official site listed, but no, they keep throwing "Our aim is to be the most complete" and "hey look there is a release date listed here" and then ignore you. You can't tell them that listed release date is for when it was "performed in theater" because they don't listen.
So I'm thinking, whey they are so stubborn on this one, treating it like it was added by the God himself and nobody can touch it. I look at the title page again, there's a plot byline, most likely it's the byline of the contributor who added the title, I click it and, hmm, 3100+ plots by this byline. So, obviously it was added by a top contributor and that's the reason they don't think anything else, "it's added by this top contributor, it must be valid, no need to think anything else" is the only thing they think, so I start to randomly check some titles from that byline and just immediately finding another ineligible title which was most likely added by him as well: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10644228/
So what is it? Trying to verify it in any way, looking at external links he added. It is a blog post, yes, he created a title page for a blog post. I saw many types of ineligible titles on imdb during years, like for books, songs, websites, companies etc.. but a title page for a BLOG POST? That's new for me.
The release date he added which will be used by your employees to say "hey look we can't delete it because there's a release date listed here" is the date when the blog post was posted: https://habr.com/en/post/436820/
It's a 5 part blog post with some different videos from several different sources embedded here and there. That does not make it eligible to create a title page on imdb lol. That's just ridiculous. I guess runtime he added here (by even indicating 5 part lol) is either total runtime of all the videos embedded in posts or maybe it's the time needed to read the all 5 part post, who knows? :)
Some other observations from random checks: even with eligible titles he adds many invalid data, like for example adding filming dates to release dates sections, let's say there is a video of a concert, he adds where it was filmed as release date with the location as attribute, not when it was released as video (same thing on ineligible title page I'm trying to delete, what he added as release date is when it was 'performed in theater' and attribute is where it was performed), and adding bad attributes to release dates like tv channel names.
He adds subjects of doc-like or bio-like videos to writer section with the attribute (idea), think it like adding Hitler to the writer section of a documentary about Hitler with the (idea) attribute. Invalid arbitrary data additions like these, deleted a few when I stumbled upon.
I even saw a trivia item on a title that was most likely added by him, someone says why the title is ineligible because it's for a event that was not released in video form and how the added director could not possibly direct it because he wouldn't be born in that year. My guess is that user who added that trivia item first tried to delete them but your never-listening employees kept spamming "Our aim is to be the most complete" and "hey look there is a release date listed here" "hey look it's added by this top contributor, it must be valid we don't need to think anything else" and the user then wanted to at least add the info to trivia :)
Telling these so you can see just because someone has added 3100+ plots to the site does not mean they have perfect understanding of the policies or eligibility rules, does not mean everything they added is flawless and perfect and valid and should be protected at all costs without ever thinking on it. All could be honest mistakes of course or it could be they don't care. My point is it should not be treated as sacred just because it's added by someone with a lot of submissions.