Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:

If as you claim that you KNOW K/S/T to be incorrect then providing documentation should be a simple matter, or are you in reality basing your knowledge on an assumption.

If YOU want to be sure, you can write or phone her. As for me, I have no doubt.

I am thrilled that you have no doubt, Yve, but that is not documentation. If you can't document it then, /12/3 is appropriate. Guesses or assumptions don't count, or your belief based on some arcane cultural device (even American), it is simply a starting point pending documentation from your throne on high to tell us all what it really is. Yes, I am being sarcastic. because YOU do not KNOW all, Yves. I will wager that with KST I could provide documentation rather rapidly. I certainly wouldn't come here and say it is so based on my say so or my guess. I simply go with the starting point, and IF I thought it was K//ST from an initial Contribution, I would not just throw it in there, i would BACK IT UP.

Skip

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
When it comes to adding correct additional data, there is no such thing as insignificance.

so what you are saying is that every single change must be applied regardless of the rules which specifically mention not to apply - "For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted"?

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

I am thrilled that you have no doubt, Yve, but that is not documentation.

This phone book entry is of course documentation. What else can it be? That it is not enough documentation for yourself is a completely different story.

And, BTW, there is no need for documenting the parsing of names in initial contributions.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

I am thrilled that you have no doubt, Yve, but that is not documentation.

This phone book entry is of course documentation. What else can it be? That it is not enough documentation for yourself is a completely different story.

And, BTW, there is no need for documenting the parsing of names in initial contributions.

Please make sure you state in your opinion, rho. This is not Rho'sProfiler...yet.  

Skip

My statements which you have quoted are not my opinion but facts.

First statement: A phonebook entry is documentation. This is a simple fact. Is this kind of documentation good enough for our purposes? This can be argued.

Second statement: Documentation for parsing names in initial contribution is not required neither by the rules nor by Invelos. This as well is a simple fact. Or can you show me where this requirement is documented?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
If YOU want to be sure, you can write or phone her. As for me, I have no doubt.

As I said, if you know it, you should be able to document it.  For me, that would be documentation enough.  Would it be enough for Invelos?  Only they know the answer.

I would agree as well. For me it's more than enough except maybe if another equally convincing source would document a different parsing.

Perhaps it's a man called Thomas Kristin. 

I would also agree, that this documentation is enough.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
For me it's more than enough except maybe if another equally convincing source would document a different parsing.

To get this, I had to type Scott Thomas in family name, and Kristin in given name fields of the phone number internet site (Pages Blanches). Those fields reproduce given name and family name given by the person asking for a telephone line. That means that the actress herself, or a person very close to her, gave "Scott Thomas" as family name.

People asking for more documentation just do not want see things as they are...

I'm not asking for more documentation.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
Perhaps it's a man called Thomas Kristin. 

I would also agree, that this documentation is enough.

That made me