I have noticed many times the type of example below and can never figure out exactly what I am looking at.  Sure there are changes on the bottom row here .. But what exactly got changed on the top example?  they both appear to be exactly the same. same name same colors same description, but why the Box around the examples??

I've seen this before as well.

My only guess has been that the contributer may have directly clicked on those particular cast entries while they were editing their local profile but ultimately didn't actually modify them.  However, the entries get flagged as having been changed in some way and that flagging is why those fields will show up as 'changed' on the voting screens.

Just a guess - I think only Ken could confirm.

I think it's spaces. Either adding superfluous ones, or removing them.

In any case, this contribution deserves a "no"-vote: the change from Richard Gilbert-Hill [Richard Gilbert Hill] to just "Richard Gilbert Hill" is blatantly incorrect (CLT shows 64 "Gilbert-Gill" titles vs. only 6 "Gilbert Hill" ones). The Wendel Meldurm change seems to be wrong, too.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
I will say that the bottom two however, as noted in the Contribution Notes were Common name usage which had NEVER been DOCUMENTED by anybody nor even mentioned in anyone's notes, so I was merely returning them to AS CREDITED status, pending somebody actually documenting them as correct usage.

I guessed as much... People: WATCH OUT FOR THIS!!! This is not allowed and should be voted down immediately. Again, here's Ken's stance on the level of documentation needed for common names:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. [...] Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

Now, these were added, seemingly by user marcelb7, whose notes include the phrase: "Found common names with the credit lookup tool." Ken doesn't require any more than that, and as such, they were approved by voters and screeners alike. Again: their addition is fully correct per the rules. Now, if you truly felt that these are in error, you are of course free to submit a contribution explaining why you feel that way. But you don't: you know as well as I do that they're absolutely correct. You "merely returning them to AS CREDITED status" is nothing else than willfull destruction of good data, which deserves a no-vote every single time. 

It's good to see that you've withdrawn this particular contribution, but I sure hope that any other cases where you're doing the same thing are swiftly voted down.

Gotta agree with the Greatest American Hero ^ You can't remove valid information like this without documenting it as being wrong.

I would vote no as well

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Tim:

Do you know how to READ? I guess not so let me make it CLEAR FOR YOU.

The previous Contribution Notes included absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND, NOT even a comment that it was done. They just appeared. Probably was approved based on some idiot voter leaving a comment which included information but, of course that information does not exist. Unlike you and your sloppy notes and general work quality, I do believe that UNDOCUMENTED changes shouklr remain part of the database. Tis is not IMDb, please Tim stop using Profiler and corrupting the database with your horrendous workmanship and go use IMDb where you can do whatever you want and don't need to document anything.

You really are a piece of work, chum.

Skip

The bottom line is it IS approved and it is also correct! Why do you want to remove correct data?  That just doesn't make sense. You say the database is a mess yet you want to change correct data into wrong data.

bizarre.... 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Quoting marcelb7:

Quote:
Found common names with the credit lookup tool.

Thanks for posting that. Without knowing the title you can't look.

Skip, you said " NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND". That's a flat out lie! Please stop.

You talk about my credibility. I'm not contributing. You are again. Every time you get caught in a lie people look harder and harder at your contributions. Just as you do when you find people not telling the truth. You're digging a nice hole here since you've started contributing again. It's a shame too cause you can add a lot to the DB if you would just stop all the crap and submit good changes.

Got to agree with Tim and the others here Skip (and up to a point with you too)
Any change needs documentation, so simply putting it back to "as credited" is incorrect.

In this case it was up to you to provide the necessary documentation why the common name usage might have been incorrect. If it wasn't incorrect you should have left them untouched. A big bonus point would have been if, even though you didn't change the common names, you would have provided the missing documentation for the crosslinks.