Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Doc:

I am not chastising anyone individually and would not, no matter how much I might be tempted to. Why is not appropriate? I didn't look at the votes I do that AFTER I have voted every time. I initially suspected that this was in error, let's face it Rudin is not a common name, so I ran a quick check to verify my suspicions and then voted. Better to take care with my votre than to allow bad data or data that does not conform to the Rules to be further proagated. If those who blindly voted yes have such a thin skin, then they have a problem, not I. But I am sorry when some of these are users who hold themselves up to be supporters of Rules and knowledgeable about all thing Hollywood vote Yes to such an obvious error, or worse yet then chnage their vote to neutral instead of the appropriate No, then I have great difficulty in respecting those individuals or their opinions.

Do I consider myslef knowledgeable about Hollywood? Yes, I am smarter than the average bear, Boo-Boo. But that does not mean I know EVERYTHINHG or that I cannot make mistakes, I do all too often and when such mistakes are pointed out I CORRECT them without fail. I will not change a Yes vote to a Neutral when it should be a No.

Skip

As one of those users who changed my YES, and when  I voted there were no other votes so I took the user at his word, who then changed my vote to NEUTRAL, I could care less about whether you respect me or not. Your relentless calling out of people who make honest mistakes as though they have committed a crime is really getting old. I didn't start a thread to call you out when you blindly voted YES when someone changed James King to Jamie King, She is credited on screen as James King, in the Pearl Harbor profile without checking it out. I sent you a polite PM about it. Why you feel the NEED to do this publicly really mystifies me. It's rude, impolite and belittling, yet you wonder why people give you negs (I haven't given anyone a NEG at all).

What's your problem? Skip didn't mention any names, you outed yourself.

My Problem? The hypocrisy that Skip is showing here as James has pointed out above. It's a do as I say not as I do world with Skip. When he does the same exact thing, it's ok, but if others do it, they are trying to destroy the Rules/Database. You can't have it both ways.

Give it a rest!

Well, I voted yes and I'm keeping my vote yes.  As an experiment, I contributed a change to Clueless, since Mr. Rudin produced that one as well.  Invelos did not complain about the gentleman's BY.

Now I don't know how it got in there, but it doesn't matter to me.  Invelos says this is acceptable, therefore there is nothing in these submissions that warrants a "no" vote, in my opinion.  Suggesting that the voters are "mindless" for going along with the vote implies that we don't check.  Well I did check.

Now, I would agree that this BY is useless, but then I think they all are useless with the ridiculous way they are implemented.  Complaining about this particular one just strikes me as silly.

Oh, and I cancelled my Clueless contribution.  I'm not interested in propagating this junk, just in verifying that my vote was not "against the rules".

It's on the credits page of the rules:

Enter birth years only when necessary to differentate between two actors with the same name. When submitting a contribution that adds a birth year to one or more credits, list justification in the contribution notes.

And there's this thread in which Ken Cole announced the Selective Birth Year system and described how it works, including this quote:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The system is designed so you don't need to worry about the accepted birth year entries - they will simply submit automatically.  In parallel, if you have birth years you don't want to worry about submitting, do nothing and leave them unchecked - they will be stripped during submission automatically.  If the entries have no other variants, this is what you'll want to do.  You can even accept your submission locally and your birth years will be preserved, even though the online version does not have them.

Mr. Rudin took advantage of this free publicity we are providing him and was interviewed on NPR today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18746698

He failed to mention this thread...just talked movies...yada, yada. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am sorry when some of these are users who hold themselves up to be supporters of Rules

I support the rules whether I like them or not. 

Quote:
vote Yes to such an obvious error, or worse yet then chnage their vote to neutral instead of the appropriate No, then I have great difficulty in respecting those individuals or their opinions.

I voted yes to the submission prior to anybody voting no. I do not go back to double check my vote unless someone points the mistake out. After finally reading this post and seeing that there is only one Scott Rubin, I changed my vote to NO.
This topic was brought out in another thread and to me it seemed like everybody was in favor. This was not an obvious error to me. The submitter is one that I trust and they had good documentation.
Skip I find this statement harsh under the circumstances. If the contributor was wrong you should have brought it up with him and showed the rules to be in your favor.

This is the contribution notes and looking at it, it does not seem to be wrong. How do I know that there is or is not another person by that name within a title I do not have. The contributor provided good documentation that the birth year belongs to Scott Rubin.

Quote:
Propagating Previously Accepted Birth Year for Scott Rudin

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0748784/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rudin#_note-advocate
http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Scott_Rudin/190613

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
one of his doppelgängers

I love it! 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
LOL, James. Since you outed yourself. What documentation do you require?

There is ONE Scot Rudin.

The Rules state:

"Enter birth years only when necessary to differentate between two actors with the same name. When submitting a contribution that adds a birth year to one or more credits, list justification in the contribution notes."

End of subject. Cut and dried. It was probably entered by one our users who wants to send Christmas Cards to everybody.
      Or maybe he was trying to distinguish between other Rudins, but no other Scott..

It's my understanding that all undocumented birth years were wiped from the system when the selective birth year procedures were implemented. Invelos must have seen some documentation that led them to accept the birth year. Yes, the fact that we're only seeing one Scott Rudin in our usual internet lookup locations does call into question whether we need this birth year or not.

But without looking at the documentation that persuaded Invelos to accept it, I don't believe we've reached "End of subject. Cut and dried."

If Invelos admits to a boo boo, that's fine. We can remove it. But if they've accepted documentation on it, it's in the system and will stay there past a nuclear winter.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
As foir ANY comment Rick chose to make....who cares.<yawn>

Rude and unnecessary.