Merge proposals suddenly moving forward a month to the date ...?

Question

On 14 February 2016, I proposed the following three merges (as can be seen in the changes tab of all three profiles):

08:50: You proposed a merge of Van Timor-6 and Van Timor-1 with a comment. [van Timor-6] / [van Timor-1]

09:00: You proposed a merge of Van Timor-4 and Van Timor-2 with a comment. [van Timor-4] / [van Timor-2]

09:01: You proposed a merge of Van Timor-5 and Van Timor-3 with a comment. [van Timor-5] / [van Timor-3]

Since that date there has been some changes to all of the profiles, amongst others a change of the marriage (spousal) connection to the a notification of the de facto relationship in the biographies of all three target profiles.

In all three cases the lower number (merge target) is protected, and the higher number also has the project profile as co-manager.

In all three cases (and as can be seen on the changes tabs of all six profiles), there have been no rejection or matching issues happening since the day of the proposals - 14 Feb 2016. In fact, until last night they were on my own personal list of proposed merges - today would have been go ...

So I eagerly got up this morning anticipating the mergers to have cleared the 30 days limit, including the leap year date - but they were no where to be seen.

So I searched on name, and went to every merge proposal and saw the date of 14 Mar at the bottom. I then tried to merge, and got the comment ..."thanks for approving the merge" (or something in that line).

And now I'l have to wait another month: Pending Merges Initiated by Me (Most recently added on):

1. Inabe van Timor (Van Timor-5) and Inabe van Timor (Van Timor-3)   compare
   Proposed by Philip van der Walt.
   Approval from Philip van der Walt for Van Timor-5 has been recorded.
   Someone from Van Timor-3's Trusted List needs to approve. If Van Timor-5 and Van Timor-3 are different people, reject the merge.
   Last updated 2016-03-15 04:32:06. Pre-1700
2. Amsoeboe van Timor (Van Timor-4) and Amsoeboe van Timor (Van Timor-2)   compare
   Proposed by Philip van der Walt.
   Approval from Philip van der Walt for Van Timor-4 has been recorded.
   Someone from Van Timor-2's Trusted List needs to approve. If Van Timor-4 and Van Timor-2 are different people, reject the merge.
   Last updated 2016-03-15 04:31:24. Pre-1700
3. Iba van Timor (Van Timor-6) and Iba van Timor (Van Timor-1)   compare
   Proposed by Philip van der Walt.
   Approval from Philip van der Walt for Van Timor-6 has been recorded.
   Someone from Van Timor-1's Trusted List needs to approve.  If Van Timor-6 and Van Timor-1 are different people, reject the merge.
   Last updated 2016-03-15 04:31:14. Pre-1700

Could it be that these profiles are in some kind of time-loop because of the afore mentioned issues with spousal disconnection and the target profiles being profile protected while the to be merged profiles have the Project as active co-manager? (one / two target profile[s] has[ve] been ticked of as DNA-confirmed as well ...).

Comments

I'm glad you asked this question. I have also seen merges move out a month even with no changes at all reported on the changes tab. I have often wondered why...

---

Ditto.  Great question.

---

I am also upset that the mtDNA is not being used correctly here.  The test taker and their direct maternal line ancestry needs to be in WikiTree.  A sufficient mtDNA match with a direct maternal line cousin is necessary to confirm back to their most recent direct maternal line ancestor.  If this is not possible then I recommend "Confirmed with DNA" be removed.

If there is a publication which shows evidence of one or more of the test takers then there needs to be a proper citation to that publication.

Sincerely, Peter

http://www.wikitree.com/blog/the-beauty-of-mtdna-mitosearch-in-wikitree/

---

Peter,
I just tried the link you provided for reference and it goes to a 404 error.
Elizabeth

---

I've fixed the link.  Thank you for letting me know.

---

Hi Peter, the evidence is clear (one of our team members was a Professor in Genetics at Stellenbosch University). See the G2G feed here - I did ask for help and I was unaware that the (my) citations aren't scientifically correct. As I said before in G2G-feeds, this is a whole new ball game of genealogical research and I simply do not get how it works. How do I know who to find / where to find the most direct maternal line cousin in order to confirm back to their most recent direct maternal line ancestor? And now I'm upset because you are upset and I feel as if all our hard work (because it took hours if not days just to unravel this issue) is for nothing? I do not have time or the skill of mind to triangulate all of the DNA-proven / dis-proven relationships within this project and generally within WikITree ... Despite your blog and all the other help I've had so far (even from the team member with a lot more knowlegde than myself) it is all stil acracadabra to me, unfortunately, and I feel stupid. But this is not the point here - the point is that there is a technical issue that needs adressing.

---

Thank you, Phil.  DNA is a professional science and laypersons have no business making confirmatory statements.  General statements may work occasionally and there are plenty to tell us how to do it but there is no direct and transparent, understandable way to analyze results unless directly from the acknowledged scientist to the inquirer.  It seems all DNA sources are simply secondary and tertiary sources when they are referring to your specific ancestor.

---

Hello Barbara,

I strongly believe that genetic genealogists should make statements of "Confirmed with DNA" when there is sufficient evidence for it.

Sincerely, Peter

---

Peter, I guess what Barbara means is that one cannot merely learn Greek to be able write a doctoral thesis on Plato.

---

Yes, that's what I mean.  Unfortunately we don't know "who" that "genetic genealogist" is and what his credentials are.  The reason I bring this up is I  saw a confirmed link by a volunteer to a McManus branch I am familiar with.  They had no knowledge of McManuses. I asked about it and was told it was not possible to make that decision - the way it was made (well, I can't recall the specifics - but the idea was, it was not a proper way to analyze the DNA.)  yDNA has been a boon to me - but only because I've been able to paper trail it together with all the people who tested.  I quit trying after we got tons of females on our project and couldn't figure out a thing.  Not my expertise at all, even though I have had experience in the hematology field of medicine. Also, I'm finding yDNA can cover 400 years or so with strong percentages  But it still doesn't confirm which male branch you came from . . just the MRCA. Your paper trail does the rest.  and  the Big Y will take you back 2200 years before surnames.  It's fun to see but kind of like saying, Yes, I'm connected to Adam . . .or Eve.

I think wiki does a great job of attempting to make everything work perfectly.  And it does work very well for all levels of genealogic research experience. Thanks for allowing me to clarify,.

---

Y-STRs (Y haplotypes) (e.g. Y-DNA37 or Y-DNA67 tests) are exceedingly useful in a genealogical time frame.

A Big Y test has some SNPs in a genealogical time frame but a Big Y test costs $400+ and therefore not as practical for most genealogists.

---

Yes I have a friend in a different surname following a number of Big Y tests and it has been very interesting.  The yDNA helped another surname a lot too with our half a dozen 67 testers, all very close if not perfect and took us back to a 1715 +/- ancestor at 99.% confidence.  That's about as deep as I can get with my knowledge base but it was worth it!  Any deeper and I'm lost and would want a professional telling me. For me, just a little scary topic for more than 2 cents worth.  Thanks for the conversation!

Answer 1

Hi Philip,

The 30 days for automatic approval is from the last time the match was "updated", not from when it was proposed. If one of the profile managers approves the merge (by going to the merge page) that is the last-updated date.

What I think happened here is that you yourself updated the match by trying to complete it less than 30 days after it was started. (To add to confusion: February is a short month, so even with a leap year you appear to have been about four hours under 30 days!)

We shouldn't be updating the match when the person who proposed it tries to complete it. I'm not sure why it's set up this way.

Before making this change, maybe we should decide about changing from 30 days to 14 days. I forget if there has been a proper discussion on this. Do you want to start it if not?

Chris

Comments

Thanks Chris, I appreciate you answer. I'll start a separate feed on this. There is just one thing I noticed - I do not know if it had something to do with the time zone, but at 5:00 this morning (local time Amsterdam) I looked and the merge proposal was nowhere to be seen. I noticed that at 8:00 every morning I have slight troubles - often busy when editing or merging I get a message that no connection can be made to the server of WikiTree. I presume that that is the exact moment when all the technical backups etc. take place.

---

Hi Philip. That 8am problem, I bet it's our caching program that speeds up access to surname index pages. It starts at 7:30am GMT. It really shouldn't cause big problems, though. If it does we need to look at it. Thanks.

Answer 2

Hello Philip,

I'm no longer upset but rather I'm thrilled at the prospect of having this mtDNA information properly used in WikiTree :-)

mtDNA matching does not require triangulatiion.  You simply need two distant direct maternal line cousins (to each other) who have each taken an mtDNA test.  Keep in mind (for example) that if two direct maternal line third cousins are an exact mtDNA match then you can only confirm back to their great-great-grandmother because she is their most recent direct maternal line ancestor.

The direct maternal line ancestry of each mtDNA tester should be in WikiTree and it is most helpful if their mtDNA results are in MitoSearch and their MitoSearch IDs are on their DNA Tests page.

Comments

Hi Peter, I'm then thrilled as well - believe me if I knew how it should be done, I would have done it already. But this was (Scientific info) info from outside of WikITree that had bearing on the current relationships and assumptions up till quite recently. I had to act on correcting them in a way that it would be scholarly (despite my obvious lack of expertise as DNA-triangulation goes). Which I did. Now what you suggest (step 2 - finding this distant maternal line cousins within Wikitree), is something that is outside of the scope of this project - not saying that it is not relevant or important - simply we do not have the expertise and or resources to do that.

---

If only one direct maternal line descendant of Iba has had an mtDNA test then add that tester to WikiTree along with his or her direct maternal line ancestry back to Iba.

Let me know the mtDNA results (not just the haplogroup) and I will create a MitoSearch ID. Then we can add that MitoSearch ID to the tester's DNA Test page.  The tester may be named "Anonymous" for their first name if necessary.

Confirmed with DNA needs to be removed if there is only one mtDNA tester.

---

I can't comply as research coordinator with your request on the profile of Catharina (de Beer) Blom (1678) not that I do not want to, but I simply do not know how (I presume the test results are from outside of WikiTree). Perhaps Roland Baker could be of help here, if it would not be too presumptious to ask.

---

Has this research been published?  If so, what is the link to that publication?

---

I've asked my team member if she could weigh in - she was the one that provided the information. I also asked Roland (mentioned above) for help because he is part of the Dutch Cape DNA research group (outside of WikiTree) and knows the researchers personally.

---

I just looked at the direct maternal line ancestry of one of the tester's in Geni.  Search for Petrie Coetzee at

https://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-mtDNA-Female-Progenitors/17863

Please ask the appropriate person if that ancestry can be added to WikiTree.

---

Ok, thanks Peter, will do so.