Do any of you people ever bother to even glance at previous notes, like Jungle Book , where a user is making significant changes tyo (uncredited) which has been previously DOCUMENTED by another user...not me.

Wow, stunning.

"- Crew and cast (including rolenames for a change) from onscreen; Ken Anderson's birth year propagating from Winnie the Pooh and the old Jungle Book disc, among others. Uncredited cast taken from Grant's Disney encyclopaedia"

I think you are right, Tim, but it's a shame when it involves some of the self-righteous and insulting users that we have here, users who SHOULD know better. The Contributor makes reference to Grant's as well, and provides a copy of A Single Page, that is inconclusive at best. He does offer some sources as well, but I don't think Wiki is anywhere close to as credible as Grant's.

In short the Contributor leaves me personally confused on his data, we have two users claiming the same source, and different data. Personally I will go with the older data, unless the contributor cancome up with something better than he is providing.

Sam:

I panned no one, who did i NAME. Stay out of it and your attacking and insulting attitude.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Sam:

I panned no one, who did i NAME. Stay out of it and your attacking and insulting attitude.

You make me laugh every day. I don't believe I said you did mention a name? Please show me where (or go with your usual "I will not REPEAT myself. The answer is ALREADY above. OH MY."). I said you started this thread to pan another user which you have done.

If you want an attacking and insulting attitude you must look no further than your own posts. I don't see why you can't either:

a) politely PM the involved user explaining why you have voted no
b) start a thread in a reasonable (I know Skip... one step at a time) manner to discuss the matter in hand instead of going on a rant about people not checking notes.

What I find troubling reybr. I two users claiming the same source and DIFFERENT data, including the removal of a role. Something is wrong somewhere. I don't accept Wiki as a reliable source for data, for ther samer reasons as another datadbase. I am concerned about the idea of conflicting data from the same source of information...WHY? I know Grant's very well, it is sold on Disney property because of it's quality, but I don't understand how the same produces different data,it leaves me to question the entire Contribution. I don't understand how some people are willing to accept such an issue, reybr.

And I don't understand problem since the last contributor made a scan from Grant's book. How can you then say that the first contribution that used Grant's book is more accurate when the second actually includes a scan. That is what I don't understand.

To me this, looks perfectly acceptable.

Still more helpful than no scan at all, and all the changes match what the book says.

The additional voices could have been set to Monkeys though (At least according to Graham Webb)

I think contributors not reading the notes is just as bad as voters not paying attention to the contribution.  024543-219699 Transporter 2 DVD:
Forum Moderator: Removed. Calling out users in the forums for their votes is no longer tolerated.

BUT I know we all make mistakes. I've made plenty and have been PM'ed and informed in a decent manner by other users whom have been nothing but helpful. If we started posting screenshots or making threads everytime someone made a mistake, we'd never have anything else to read. Mistakes happen. (I know the pic is underhand as hell but I'm just trying to show you how it feels in the vain hope something gets home).

Oh, and this thread could've avoided so much crap by simply starting a thread about the actual issue and that is determining which notes are correct. You have changed from your initial post of "Do people even check previous notes" to "I don't know which is right".

(My apologies to all other users for being so underhand)