Hi jabrenner-
Thank you for posting the submission reference! Further reviewing, this has been re-submitted on your behalf and approved. The changes will be live shortly.
Cheers!
@Maya-
Here's another one too #251006-112228-835000
And I attach another source of evidence for you to review where you can see May, 2000 information: https://ibb.co/nM7NYSh6
Thank you, I appreciate your contributons as well to make this database richer. I think these should be reported, editor in question seems to invalidate proper evidence.
Whoops, another set of rejects as of now:
1 - #251006-233456-509000
2 - #251006-114320-018000 (sometimes listed as Julia Emelin-Loeb as seen here https://www.bodalgo.com/en/voice-over-talents/julia-emelin and here https://imgur.com/a/hWwnszi, so this was submitted based on an educated guess with proof, but editor disregarded this).
@Maya, here's another one. There was absolutely nothing to pose any verification problem with it. I doubt if the editor even checked the links properly.
#251014-232456-227000
Thank you.
And has it been reported too? Any action taken to ensure attentive examination? I know to err is human, but these errors shouldn't happen consecutively if the submission is already backed with reliable sources.
If I observe the persistance of it, I may quit contributing this data type.
#251125-164730-524000 got partially approved. Only the addition of Manhattan went through, the editor ignored the attached evidence for the year, approved without changing that part.
251209-135602-228000 too got rejected despite the official sources, I thought the earlier errors were duly reported. Why is the constant aversion to the required changes? It has been tiresome now.
Do tell if the reason behind this nonsense is to encourage contributors to quit submitting correct information here. That way, I can spare my time.
@jabrenner- Thanks for bringing this new use case to our attention. We’ve informed the team about the earlier issues, and we’re now escalating this to our manager so it can receive a thorough review.
As per this submission, it has been re-submitted and approved.
I regret to inform you of the ongoing random rejections despite flagging earlier errors. As far as I am concerned, the person who falsely rejected these corrections didn't bother to check for verification.
Is there any news following the escalation? This shouldn't have happened again.
I appreciate it Maya, but I would also highly appreciate if the editor in question could stop sabotaging my valuable efforts. Even reporting and escalating, the same thing repeats itself.
251224-140200-918000 got rejected despite the records and a birthday post by the actress herself. Reason? The highly qualified editor did not capture a specific reason during processing.
At this point, I don't believe any progress has been made with the questionable editor. I am painfully exhausted to report these errors.
This is a high rank name and Date of Birth, the provided evidence is not enough for us to approve the modification. As mentioned in our Bio Data guidelines:
We are looking for links to public records, printed publications, or official documents.
We do allow social media links to be an acceptable source for birth dates (i.e. Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, etc.)
Feel free to re submit when you have solid evidence for the modification.
Fran, whether a person is high rank or not shouldn't interfere with the already presented official sources. This one was a clear processing error with a random reason. I am not going to accept your response.
You also made it clear that you didn't check the submission with the public records. I expected better from you since you are a staff member, but you chose to humiliate yourself by giving a direct response without checking the full submission.
Checking in to inquire about it as the incorrect info is still live.
As a friendly reminder, actually, I put all the necessary links here for everyone to see, so unless there's something beyond your scope with this submission, you yourself can view the obvious day & date with a manual review in a matter of seconds.
It has been 9 days since you said you were reviewing, so I am not sure if any real progress is underway with how many people despite the links, explanation.
Since the turn of the year, many more submissions were already processed.
Anyone here in charge, in general, realize a factually incorrect information is being listed? FYI, if my rightful attempts have any bearing on your end, I am raising the issue again for the sake of your trustworthiness.
Maya
Employee
•
6.3K Messages
•
66.2K Points
3 months ago
31