Quoting Jubal:

Quote:

I just love when people try to dredge up silly side issues which have absolutely no relevance to the discussion, kind of reminds me your belief that STIV was a comedy, not simply a Sci-Fi, Action, Adventure with Comedic elements.

Skip

For any n00bs out there who don't know what he's talking about, I believe this happened in 2003.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:

However....

Quote:
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of 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.

People should bear in mind the above. Ken has ruled very clearly that voting no against such contributions will be ignored and is wrong.

That is not what Ken's statement means...at least not in my opinion.  Ken said that 'general' demands for specific documentation, outside the use of the CLT, would be disregarded.  What we have here is a 'specific' request on.

If someone votes no, simply because documentation wasn't provided, that should be disregarded.
If someone votes no because the names don't seem to refer to the same person, that should be looked at a little closer.

I think your first post is what I can agree about 100 % on, Unicus, we dont need documentation for everything, some things are obvious as you stated too and Ken is also sayinmg the same.

But with the examples you gave, I agree, we could use some detailed documentation.

Skip, keep it civil please

cheers
Donnie

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:

However....

Quote:
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of 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.

People should bear in mind the above. Ken has ruled very clearly that voting no against such contributions will be ignored and is wrong.

That is not what Ken's statement means...at least not in my opinion.  Ken said that 'general' demands for specific documentation, outside the use of the CLT, would be disregarded.  What we have here is a 'specific' request on.

If someone votes no, simply because documentation wasn't provided, that should be disregarded.
If someone votes no because the names don't seem to refer to the same person, that should be looked at a little closer.

Sorry, didn't make myself very clear. That is what I meant Unicus.

However, there will be some people who will vote NO because 'Frank Montano' and 'Frank A. Montano' are not the same person simply to force the documentation issue. They will see it as a loophole to be able to get people to document what Ken has already stated is not necessary.

Just my opinion. I really pray this is made opt-in or local only!

And just to clarify my stand. If you will not provide  at the minimum CLT results instead of stating that you checked the CLT, then I will NEVER vote yes. If you make a claim that you have done extensive research, then show the results iof that research. Stop expecting me to vote Yes just because you say it is so, I am not buying such tripe. Nor will such data ever be allowed anywhere near my own database because i can't rely on it without sources. And for those that like to make global changes based on A copy that they own, my DVDs will one day come out of storage and that dat will be re-verified by me and i WILL without a doubt find errors and those will be very pointedly called out when the time comes. Those doing this are not doing the database nor the Community any favors, they are behaving in a very selfish and egotistical manner.

Skip