Quote:
Quoting Forum Moderator:

Quote:
The finger pointing is not helpful and for some reason seems to be getting worse just as a solution is at hand.

I agree, but Tim is more interested in pretending to represent Invelos instead of providing one crucial piece of infromation.

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Wow...5 pages in 3 hours. 

A few points:

Per Ken, citing the CLT is more than enough to make a change to a common name.

Per Ken, proving that the two name refer to the same person is not required...unless there is some doubt.

Per Ken, the person who has the doubt, must document that doubt.  Simply saying, I have doubts, is not enough.

1) I don't agree with that interpretation of Ken's comment

Ken's statement, from this thread, was, "It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT."

How else can that be interpreted?  The only source necessary is the CLT.

Quote:
2) I never saw Ken make any such comment, that would be silly on its face.

The rest of his statement, "If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.  However, in most cases it is not required."

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."

Granted, it is just my interpretation, but telling the screeners to ignore 'general demands for specific documentation" tells me that the person who is making those demands must give a reason other than 'I don't believe they are the same person'.

Quote:
If every time a member made a declarative statement out of their position we labeled that an impersonation of Invelos, we would be down to very few users.  So, enough accusations along these lines.

Quote:
I do not believe that ken meant to just make the claim without providing the results, Martian. He can type anything. If he USED the CLT then he should just post the results of the CLT usage. Not just claim he did so, that is useless and meaningless, and as I noted some months ago another user caught him misrepresenting that claim, because the CLT results the user posted did not support the claim.

Quote:
Also Martian since you noted it what is the difference between a voter demanding NameA=Name B, because you note says "general demands for specific documentation" tells me that the person who is making those demands must give a reason other than 'I don't believe they are the same person"

Don't you see the disconnect there, the Contributor doesn't have to provide documentation via CLT results, at least. But a user who thinks that something else is required must require documentation. that's a joke, right. The contributor can say "It is because I say it is so" but the voter cannot make the say I don't believe they are the same person without Documentation.