Christopher Fosh

http://www.ukscreen.com/cast/cjfosh

Quote...

TV  ULTIMATE FORCE 4  BENTLEY PRODUCTIONS Ltd  Undercover Special Branch Officer  2005 
Feature Film  DERAILED  MIRAMAX  Chicago Cop  2004 
Short Film  THE HOUSE THAT JACK BROKE  NEW YORK FILM COMPANY  Henchman LEAD  2004

Aimee Muschamp

http://www.aimeemuschamp.com/aimee_muschamp_s_resume.htm

Quoting from her credit resume...

Derailed
*Starring Jennifer Aniston, Clive Owen  Featured Feature Miramax Films/Mikael Hafstrom
The Oracle
*35mm, screened at 2005 Cannes Film Festival  Lead Short Boiler Room Pictures/Onomen Asikele

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Aimee Muschamp

http://www.aimeemuschamp.com/aimee_muschamp_s_resume.htm

Quoting from her credit resume...

Derailed
*Starring Jennifer Aniston, Clive Owen  Featured Feature Miramax Films/Mikael Hafstrom
The Oracle
*35mm, screened at 2005 Cannes Film Festival  Lead Short Boiler Room Pictures/Onomen Asikele

This is boring....................

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
I am not trying to change the existing profile in the database.
The onus is on the person removing factual data to provide proof they were not in the film. It is the same as if I wanted to add uncredited actors, I would need to prove it.

No, sorry Richie, but the onus is on the guy who adds that stuff to start with.  You can't fault somebody for cleaning up a mess left by somebody else.  Even if the information might be correct - and I stress the might be part - without documentation it shouldn't have been entered in the first place.

Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:
I have found where I think these credits came from. They match letter for letter.

Here
..
..
..
Try Here
..
..
From a Third Party Database.

Not a good thing.  Bad credits.

Thank you GOOGLE!

Um, thanks for calling me out as a supplier of data that's destroying the database. If you'd spent all of 30 seconds evaluating the context of the page that google found for you, you'd have noticed that dougweb.org is a personal website, and not any kind of film database site. As is the other site I've kept in the above quote..

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
ALL data, entered or removed, should require documentation IMHO.

agreed

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The data was entered originally ILLEGALLY, it was not documented properly, the fact that it got past the screeners does not make it legal.

If he chooses to make use of your documentation fine, if not he should stand his ground the data was illegal and still is and should be removed. If he stands his ground, then you can always come back with proper documentation.

So climb down off your high horse, richie

Skip

Since Rich was agreeing with me, does that mean I have to come off my high horse too?!?    I like it up here!

But seriously, I do not understand, since there is no documentation, how you identified that the accepted data was entered illegally.

Rich has documented several instances proving that the old contribution is, in fact, accurate. This makes me feel that the screeners were correct in accepting this into the database.

Unless there is documented evidence that this is illegal or incorrect data, I feel that I am correct in voting no on this change. I do not vote no lightly, I read discussions on the topic; ask questions, or occasionally sending a private message for clarification.

Of course, even after all that, I might be incorrect. Or maybe we are both right and we just need to agree to disagree and accept the screener’s final decision.

I have proven at least 5 of the persons being removed should not be.

Documented fully with links - where did I get told that documentation was everything? 

Therefore the contribution is wrong.

End of.

Leave it to the screeners.