Keyword william-shakespeare added in the past month #2

Bradley, as you know, I have created a thread in which these kind of standalone names are all pointed out (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/standalone-names-shouldnt-be-keywords) and not just deleted all in one go. So yes, I'm aware of the fact these keywords shouldn't just simply be deleted.
But, as you probably also know, the keyword william-shakespeare was at one point in the recent pasts not attached to any title. After that, it did get attached to a title. I pointed this out and Jaime said they'd taken action to ensure this wouldn't happen again (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/keyword-william-shakespeare-added-in-the-past-month). But, unfortunately, it did. That's why I created this thread, so that IMDb can contact the contributors that added this wrong keyword and create a block for this keyword (and ideally, all keywords listed in my original thread with dozens of standalone names).
I really appreciate your passion for the keywords section of IMDb, but to me it seems that IMDb needs to become better at this section. And until they are, I'm afraid quite a bit of your work might be in vain. I think you (and me, and lots of other contributors) can be of much more use to the database if we point out errors every now and again, asking for yellow warnings and/or blocks where needed and ask IMDb to contact well-meaning, but confused contributors. I think that way, we can build a better database, with a better keyword section.

(I don't know about you, but when I look at my submissions, most of them deal with either correcting or deleting stuff, instead of actually adding information.)

I probably add as much data as I delete, and do spend a lot of time (too much?) on keywords.  However, they have a very low priority on IMDb.

I have been a contributor since the early days of IMDb, and so many keyword agreements and differentiations and decisions and preferences seem to have disappeared.  Ii's a challenge, especially since many old battles have to be unnecessarily fought again.

Here's one for you:

Abandon (2002)

There is literally one 3 second scene in the entire film where Katie Holmes' character is tossing about in bed and her (white) panties are visible.

(The movie sucks too.)

If you see this keyword pop up again, please let us know here and our staff can then take additional actions to reach out to the contributor.

Thanks for the offer. I will do that and hope other contributors will not remove the keyword.

They were not "removed," but "corrected."

Yes, and if they weren't, Michelle would've contacted the contributor(s) who made the error in the first place. As you know, I really appreciate all the work you do regarding keywords, but if someone starts a thread about a keyword issue, I think it's best if no touches those keywords so staff can fix it, take measures to prevent it in the future and/or contact the contributor responsible for the mistake.

To the staff: Just be careful with audits.  The example in question resulted in two corrections, not deletions.   In the past, there have been blanket corrections and/or deletions that annihilated data, with facts now forever lost.