"Your contribution has been declined. We have been unable to verify your contribution."

@SoCalGrace​ Okay. Four points. 

1 - You said: make sure you check its 'provide explanation' choice so you can write out your explanation. 
1 - Did you not read my entire first paragraph? What did you think that text was? That's the text I used for the explanation part. I always provide a detailed explanation. Again, what did you think that was?

2 - You said: Be very clear that Serling's name should be deleted because he played no part in this episode, either as a character or host.
2 - My explanation says "Serling does not appear anywhere in this episode, nor is he credited." And, later: "He doesn't appear. And he is not credited." Is that not very clear? Again, my explanation said "Serling does not appear anywhere in this episode, nor is he credited." Honestly, I'm at a lost to figure out how that could be clearer. Really. I read it and re-read it and it seems pretty clear to me. He's not in the episode. He's just not there. Anywhere, anyhow. 

3 - You said: are you *sure* Serling wasn't just routinely credited? 
3 - Am I sure? You seriously mean that you think I could be watching this show and not notice Rod Serling or his credit? How is that even possible? Also, in that first paragraph of mine, I explained at length that "scenes from this episode were later edited into an episode a different series called Night Gallery which Serling hosted. But that was years later and has no connection with this series". Did you read that part? Again, I'm confused as how to impart this information in a clearer way. And even if you think I'm too stupid to understand whether or not Rod Serling is in an episode I've just watched, there is the matter of those reference books I mentioned in my post. I pointed out that "this information is available in several references books. The Tim Brooks/Earle Marsh Prime Time books, or Alex McNeil's Total Television. The Vincent Terrace books." I own copies of all those books. And there's a clear distinction in all of them between the two shows. Once with Rod Serling, and one without Rod Serling. Maybe those authors, like me, are easily befuddled and Rod Serling actually was in the show and they just didn't notice it somehow. 

4 - You said. "When that happens to me, I just re-submit it and try again."
4 - That's not the point, is it? Fixing glaring errors on the site shouldn't be a 50/50 roll of the dice affair. It should be consistent. Instead, I find that when I resubmit things they sometimes get accepted. Even though my submission is basically the same. Unlike you, I always provide a detail explanation. Always, always, always. Whether it works some of the time is not the point. There is a problem with the site if you have to do it this way. Why would you settle for less? You obviously care about accuracy and have yourself taken the time to make updates. That is great. Your contribution is vital. And as a regular user of the site I am so grateful to you (and people like you) for taking the time to do that. I value you. But IMDb clearly doesn't. Why doesn't that bother you more?