Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - Michael McAlister
Goonies - Micheal McAlister

Orange County: Micheal J. McAlister

Eragon: Michael McAlister

Waterworld: Micheal J. McAlister

Free Willy 2: Micheal McAlister

Thirteen Days: Micheal J. McAlister

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Per Ken the Name Variantts are not to be trusted in and of themselves.

Say what?!

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT.

And also:

Quote:
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

Yes, of course, "if there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person", but there isn't a dispute. With that interpretation, you could argue that ANY use of common names still requires full documentation, which is clearly the exact opposite of what Ken said. Skip will ask his question EVERY SINGLE TIME: if we consider all of those "disputes", then Ken's ruling would be meaningless. But it's not. If you've got specific information showing something is wrong, then by all means, please go ahead and say so. But no more generally questioning everything without any basis at all. It's as Ken said: the users who tend to question everything, those that prefer more rigidly documented common names, are perfectly free to enforce those rules on their local data. They are, however, no longer allowed to force those personal standards onto the rest of us.

Skip didn't raise the possibility that they could be two different people: he merely questioned the fact without giving so much as a hint as to why he would feel this way. Again: that question can be asked for ANY common name usage. Now if someone comes up with a solid REASON, like being able to say: well, I've got a source that shows that they're different people, then we have a dispute, and further documentation is required. We've seen that in the Tennyson Sebastian-thread, for example. Merely questioning every common name usage without basis is not a dispute, and is exactly what Ken's ruling was meant to address.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
you are certainly NOT deserving of your star, and I truly mean that

So basically, it's all just jealousy?     

I'm just following the rules. Always have, always will. I understand that's a new concept to you, but that's really all it is. Period.