Is uploading of multiple instances of the same image and forced removal of profile managers WikiTree policy?

Question

Hi, I am using this profile as example. When I created the profile from the baptism source, I uploaded the image of the page in the register. I received a kind message from WikiTree that asking if this is a duplicate of Botha-3229.jpg, I checked and saw that it was the same and added the profile ID to that Image instead of uploading the image again. About fifteen minutes later the co-ordinator of the Dutch Cape Colony had uploaded the duplicate image, gave the profile's name to the image, and posted a message that I will be removed to the trusted list after adding the Dutch Cape Colony as Profile manager.

My concerns are these. That image has a total of thirty baptism records. According to Dutch Cape Colony policy that image has to be uploaded to WikiTree thirty times, once for each rekord. About 30 x 1.3 KB. Maybe WikiTree won't say anything, but isn't this abuse of a free resource. How long will WikiTree be able to sustain this kind of behaviour. Wouldn't it be better to just rename that image to the register's name it was taken from and have the image uploaded once?

Regarding the forced removal of Profile managers. Is this accepted WikiTree policy? I have searched and have not found a single G2G discussion where this policy of the Dutch Cape Colony was discussed and approved by the members in open forum. The problem I have with the removal as manager of the profile is that the trusted list does not get e-mail notifications like the managers do. On our settings page

Receive an e-mail when someone posts a comment on a profile you manage.
As a Wiki Genealogist who has signed the Honor Code it is strongly recommended that you do not opt-out of any of these updates.

Please don't ask me to be on the Dutch Cape Colony's project feed for their 9-10 thousand profiles to receive messages for a few profiles I am interested in under their project. I'm already on the feed of a large project.
Just to conclude, I have no problem with the project and the PPP'ng of profiles. In fact I support it.
What do you think?  

Comments

Louis, Trusted List members do receive notification of profile changes. They don’t receive merge requests or trusted list requests.

I concur with you that uploading multiple copies of the same image (one per profile) is the wrong thing to do. Can you quote who told you this or where you saw this project practice explained?

---

Hi Jillaine,

The way to collaborate on a profile is by posting a message on the profile. In my experience the people on the trusted list do not receive e-mail notifications of messages posted on a profile. Can you confirm whether this is so or not.
Feed notifications are useless when you make a lot of your own contributions. My problem is with not receiving e-mail notifications. You cannot collaborate without e-mail notifications.

Regarding you second paragraph, I included a link to the profile on which it happened where you can have a look at the changes feed. The responsible person is Mr Phillip van der Walt.

---

On the page of the Dutch Cape Colony Project

Guidelines for uploading images in general:

1. Baptismal records need to be uploaded as a whole for every profile every time - if an image has been uploaded before, the system will make mention of it but you'll have the upportunity to proceed and by double click upload the system again (the reason is that an image is title bound and title bound images are profille specific, also in the case of baptismal images)

---

Fascinating. So the project is naming images based on a specific person.

I have no idea why they’re doing that. I’ll ask Philip to explain.

I think you’re right about notification of comments not going to TLmembers. Perhaps propose a change in that policy? I’d support it :-)

---

The picture you're talking about takes 1,25 Mo (1 314 816 octets) on the hard drive.  

Why should we have multiple images instead of one image linking to multiple profiles.??

---

WikiTree make it easy to use the same image over and over again, without uploading it more than once, I feel there should be a firm stance taken to  save hard drive space.

---

The issue is this. From the start we have been validating profiles with Baptism images [or valid transcriptions when the images are not available] to a) validate the spellling of the LNAB and to b) validate the parent connections. Adding images without titles does not make them valid. When there are images with no titles it makes them a) invalid as documents b) useless as tools to collate and validate profiles.

This is the same for marriage records.

The images are in .jpg and not in .tiff (which demands a much larger storage capacity). In the near future it will be possible to store unimaginable amounts of data on very small amounts of space. Quantum computing is around the corner.

The tone of this "question" is underhand polemising and also conflatory. "Abuse" "kind of behavior" "tolerate" "Honor Code" ... What does the one issue (1 image per profile) have to do the other issue of moving managers after profile protection to trusted lists? I do not have the time or the inclination to defend this "policy" or "Good Practice"; I have a full week of work ahead of me and this has to be resolved without dragging the whole WikiTree community into it out on the open internet.

---

I agree with you Philip on one point ...

I think the question should be two seperate questions.

---

Philip,

I don't think anyone is suggesting adding images without titles. But those titles don't have to be specific to only one person.

For example, I might have a page from a German church record's birth records. The title of the image might be something like

Schwenningen_Births_1768_p172.jpg

In the details for the image, I would include a full citation.

Then I would link to each profile listed on that page. Aside from the space-saving issue (which I concur is not all that big a deal these days), what I like about this approach is that through one image, I can see all the wikitree profiles linked to, in one place.

And sorry that you're feeling beat up about this. You represent a project, and that project has a policy/practice that several of us clearly are curious about. And yeah, some of us disagree with it. My intent was to understand your thinking behind it and to show you the benefits of a single image for multiple profiles.

Respectfully,

Jillaine

---

Thanks Jillaine for your kind words and understanding. This method of using single images for every profile only applies to baptism and marriage images. In the past (I think 2 years ago) there was some G2G discussion on this. So it wasn't just something that was decided at a whim.

The actual project leaders are Ronel, Susan and Bea. I represent this {{Dutch Cape Colony}} as I and Liz set it up mid 2014. Ronel has some experience of using pages to harbour images. Thing is - we still need those images. To actually read them. Adding Family Search as a source without uploading the documents, only leads to a general login page. Given the daunting task in the past of regulating and guiding and merging thousands of profiles, it prove(s)(d) much easier and quicker to just upload to each profile (this does not apply to personal photographs lets say of a group of people - there only one image is uploaded and linked via WikiTree ID's. Same goes for other documentation. Only one upload and then linked with all profiles it applies to.

The thing is the context is not communicated here with this "question" - there has been quite an amount of communication with Louis and many of the project members and leaders on that other conflated issue, which as Guy agrees with me, is an unrelated matter. The personal communication. And this is all I'm going to say on this latter issue now.

Answer 1

I feel very strongly about this

It does not make sense to move managers to the TL and are not in the spirit of collaboration, but rather 

.....Thank you for your hard work .... now please go away.....  

The only reason ever given as explanation is that the manager can sabotage the profile should he or she stay on a manager. 

That explanation does not make sense at all.... Why would a manager sabotage his own work? 

TL do eventually get a message but only on Wednesday's ....sometimes to late : The work that has to go into restoring profiles that was messed up are very time consuming and in my HO totally unnecessary. 

Imagine getting four messages on Wednesday telling you that 4 profiles was merged during the past week, and low and behold the merges was done by someone that has no knowledge of the family where the same names are given over and over by all the sons. Not only is the profile messed up but the entire branch are affected. One has to reconstruct the branch 2.  

Every one that had to mend a bad merge, would know what I am talking about.:-D

I have seen members just removing them self from the TL and leaving the mess for the project to fix. 

Sometimes this lead to a messy tree that need help, but no one is helping because the helpers are few and the profiles are many.

 

 

 

 

Comments

Ronel,

Not sure if you remember; but, I posed a similar question a few months back when I found myself kicked out of my Pre 1500 profile because I was not Certified.

The answer was basically as you said, thanks for all your hard work; but, we don't trust you to look after your own contribution, "we" can all do it better than you can, even if we don't "Know" the person.

Imagine if a person worked hard all year and got a $1000 bill as a bonus from his/her boss. When he went to the bank to deposit the bill, the bank manager grabbed the money, stuck it in a jar, put it on a shelf and said.  THERE. It is safe, we don't trust you to look after it, you can come in and look at it anytime, but you can't touch it, you can't add to it, and we won't add anything to it unless we get a special request.

HOW MANY people would go back to that bank?

HOW MANY contributors have been PO'd and driven away from Wiki by this insane attitude?

I think possibly it is time for a review of these practices, because as someone said, this is supposed to be a co-operative effort and the "Management" seems to be sabotaging that spirit of co-operation.

---

Moving someone from Profile Manager to Trusted List is hardly saying "now please go away."

That said, I don't think we've figured out (or come to agreement about) how best for projects and individuals to share collaboration on a project-protected profile. Not all people on the TL of a given profile will want to subscribe to the Project google group for the feed.

Oh, and apparently, TL folks DO receive notification of comments posted to profiles on their trusted list. And the most current list of these can be seen by looking at your own Family Activity Feed-- either at any time from the "My Wikitree" menu or on Wednesdays when the feed is sent via email (assuming you have your settings to receive those...).

---

There are 3 issues in this thread.

1. Efficiency of storage space is dramatically affected by uploading the same image multiple times and the IT TEAM need to be aware and redirect bad behavior that affects the system bloat and costs.

2. I also belive it is against the Wikitree Honor code and any sense of Ethics to remove a profile manager without cause. I believe there is no case that can be made that  even a Project, including a project of which a person may join in membership, has any right to assume overarching rights above those of a pre-existing manager. This is becoming increasingly clear to me in the case of the COGH Project which is assuming a ‘First among Equals’ role over the entire ancestor population of a Country.  The only acceptable ethical standard must be to respect all original profile managers as equals and not to be removed. Lack of technical tools in Wikitree to do this and PPP IS SIMPLY NO EXCUSE for a wrong  to be justified  

I repeat a profile manager should only be removed with just cause of proven bad behaviour

 

 

3. The last issue is the separation of special interest profile managers from public visibility on profiles they have created, breaking the obvious first collaboration response of reaching out to the manager (not a project) when the manager/s will have done much of the original research, may be actually personally relatedand have greater family insight, and have considerable focused interest on a smaller group of profiles than the project.  

This needs to be addressed as at the moment there is a clear conflict between the good intentions of the COGH project, and the effect of Project takeover on profile managers.

---

Jilliane

When it happened to me, I checked the profile and my name was gone. there was no "Please", no explanation as to why, where, or how, and certainly no mention about the TL and emails and how to find them. If that isn't a slap in the face, what is it?

I know you do a lot of good work here and appreciate your efforts. This problem is not of your doing, but I find this attitude untenable in a "Volunteer" organization such as this.

There appears to be a serious breakdown in communication.

---

Riaan

You have expressed my concerns even better than I could. I had not considered the aspect of the Honour Code.

---

".....Thank you for your hard work .... now please go away...."

It may not be the intention to make people feel in this way but it has this effect. If we didn't have a profile manager system then perhaps people would feel differently..

If  I had created a profile (that wasn't a duplicate), given it a  correct preliminary source and  found myself being asked to abdicate within 30 minutes of creating it, I would feel rather miffed. It may well be that I intended to round out the profile with a narrative and more detail of the person's life. Why, if it is felt necessary to PPP a profile,  cannot the original/active creator remain as joint manager? People who have put something into the profile are far more likely to take care of it than a team with several thousand profiles under their wing.

Even today, I looked at one profile I have created that had this project's badge put on it  (by fluke of dates since he was part of the British conquest in 1795 and stayed on ) . I debated removing the badge. (I didn't but I stuck an England Sticker on him!) If I ever get round to researching his British Naval career at Kew which might lead to his birthyear and from there his baptism I might be in this position, happy to share managerial responsibility but annoyed about being asked to remove myself.

I also feel strongly that this question should be discussed in another question and believe this should be openly.

---

It's a pity the images issue and the profile / PPP / COGH issue got mixed up into the same post; anyway, the images issue seems like it’s something fairly simple to sort out, but the "managers being removed by COGH" issue drags on....  This issue needs to be addressed and not dismissed, as it affects how we feel about being included in WikiTree. I would like there to be the goodwill and trust on both sides to accommodate both the original managers and the COGH by leaving the existing /original managers in place as ongoing managers, reinstate the previously removed managers and have COGH added as a co-manager to continue its good work.  I maintain that removing managers from direct responsibility for profiles has been a big mistake because it alienates the removed managers and impairs the spirit of Wikitree collaboration.

I believe that outside people prefer to bring data forward to a real person than to a project / committee. I get lots of direct email queries addressed to me on the profiles from which I have not yet been removed. That immediate communication is lost when I’m removed as manager & moved to the trusted list.

Adriaan Serfontein, Louis Heyman, Jilliane Smith, Helen Ford, Bill Dunkley, Ronel Olivier, etc all make very important points and the COGH needs to understand that being inclusive of active managers is a strength and not a weakness. Adriaan Serfontein succinctly points out that only managers that are proven to be bad should be removed.

I’ve said this before: we all joined WikiTree because we like the collaborative, open interaction. It is important that COGH responds positively to these concerns and makes changes to its current policy of removing managers, in order to retain the trust of us ordinary WikiTree members; and so that we can confidently welcome new people into WikiTree with the assurance that this is an equal & collaborative genealogy site.

Answer 2

I assume we are talking about early profiles or profiles that are candidate for project management ? I think we should try to change the way how people think or feel about Project accounts, or to make sure members understand what it does exactly and why it is added. 

People are mostly upset because they often really seem to have no idea what the Project Account does and why it is added, the Project Accounts are just a tool or means for projects + all project members to make it possible to watch over, collaborate, work on (sometimes Project Protected) families and profiles, with thousands of members if needed, much easier. 

It is not replacing a manager, it is more like adding all Project members as co-manager, because it's making it possible for everyone that's related to or just very interested in these families or profiles now to keep track of, watch over and work on them with thousands of members if we would have to, because now all Project members have access and can use the same tools every minute of the day if they like. 

The Project Accounts if added as (Co-)Manager (or to the trusted list) generates 4 things:

*1.The Project Account Google Group this in fact is just the project profile Inbox, where notifications of posts added to profiles or private messages send to the project Account are received and can be read by everyone who joined the Google group (Project members). (notifications are received of all merge proposals, questions, remarks, etc.)

*2. A Project Watchlist where you can find all profiles that have the project account as (co) manager or where it is added to the trusted list. 

*3. A Project watchlist Feed where we can keep track of and see all edits. Here you can see who has been or is working on them. In combination with the Project Google Group this is one of the most important feeds for us. (Projects, Project/WikiTree Members)

*4. A Project Tag Feed, if we added some tags to the project account, here you can see all activity on profiles related to the tags, for example the name tags: Jans or Hendriks show all activity on profiles with sortlike names. 

When we first started to use the Project Accounts we were asked to move everyone to the trusted list because some profiles/families had 10 or maybe even more managers..but because many of us had a hard time to just move people like that to the trusted list (it felt wrong), we figured perhaps we should ask people if they could move themselves to the trusted list, the COGH Project adds requests for members where they also ask to add the Project Account as manager with a link to some explaining, etc. 

Unfortunately sometimes people removed the Project Accounts from Project managed or Project Protected Profiles as manager, because they wanted to stay sole manager and didn't want the Project account (or anyone else) added as (co)manager to ''their'' profiles. 

So to prevent this from happening and because it's hard to say ok you can stay manager to one member and to say you will have to go to the trusted list to the other, if there is more then one manager, some projects decided it would be best and most fair if all managers would go to the trusted list and the Project Account (All Project Members) would be the 'sole' Manager. Especially because the Project Account is not a real manager or a person, and it in fact represents all Project (WikiTree) members related to /interested in these profiles and that's something I think just isn't clear for everyone ?

And now there are some new rules, if a profile is falling under a Project it should have:

1. Project Template (sometimes PPP) and it also needs to have the Project Account added as manager.

2. If a Profile has the Project Account as (co) manager it also has to have a Project template. 

3. If a Profile is PPP't (Project Projetected Profile) is has to have a Project Template + the Project Account as (co) manager. 

If Profiles are candidates for Project Management: 

Now Project Account added as manager + Project Template (+ sometimes PPP) always come together, and it depends on the Project if members are moved to the trusted list or not, some Project are ok if one or two active managers stay manager also, other Projects prefer if only the Project Account is manager and all managers move them selves or are moved to the trusted list ones a Profile is PPP't . 

So it's not that Projects are taking over or hijacking profiles, these profiles very often are early profiles or families (Pre-1700) or profiles from a specific period (Dutch Pre-1811, COGH 1652-1806) or place/area (subject, Mayflower, Native Americans, Holocaust, etc) that very likely are or will have to be shared by many members, and for this and several other reasons will very likely at some point fall under one or the other Project (duplication, patronymics, LNAB, famous, corrupt linages, etc, etc) And the only way to share them with thousands of members, without the need to add all these members as manager or to the trusted list, is to work on them with Projects.

I think that's why Projects were started in the first place, to try and get all duplicates merged, errors or false lineages corrected and accurate, add sources, clean them up after all those merges and make sure we will have at least these early lineages and families as accurate and duplicate free possible. 

So if members are interested in working on these early lineages and families, the best way they can do this is to join a Project or Projects that are working on them and help. It's so much fun to work together on things. And after all the work, the credit is for all Project members not just one or two managers but the whole crew :D

Comments

Hi Louis, 

As you know we are all about making sure our members feel more involved and to let everyone interested have a say in this or the option to vote for things, so just like we did when we started the South African Roots Project. So I promise we will start a Project Update G2G for everything including this, times are a bit hectic now with the new WikiTree Project guidelines, a lot of Project leaders are working on this + Christmas is coming up, so I assume almost everyone is busy preparing for that also at the moment. 

But we decided we for now will put PPP ing on hold, it of course would be nice if profile managers that have some spare time could help and work on adding the Project Account as co-manager themselves without moving themselves to the trusted list now and perhaps add some categories or needs to profiles also while they are at it ?  

The new WikiTree Project guidelines mean that all Project Profiles that now have a Project Template (and/or PPP) but no Project Account added as co-manager still need to have it added, or.. if it's the other way around...so if profiles do have the Project Account added as manager, but still are missing the proper template or needs, that's what members could add ? 

If we have things prepared a bit and when Christmas is over we can start a Project update G2G right away where we all can discuss things and have a vote :)

---

Hi Helen,

1. Most if not all COGH Families and Profiles were imported and (sometimes still are) duplicated a lot, some families were conflated or totally mixed up due to wrong merges, or imported with mistakes in the lineages, so things weren't looking so good and it became quite a mess, and we all were affraid the WikiTree goal to have just one profile for every person that ever lived was never going to be achieved if nothing would change. Which is why many Projects were started in the first place. We had PPP, later we also had a Pre-1500 import stop, the Pre-1700 self certification and the Pre-1700 import stop.

Anyway it's one of the reasons why after validation they all are PPP't now. This way we try to make sure we at least have and keep the earliest WikiTree families and lineages all accurate, well sourced (validated, correct LNAB) good looking and free from duplicates. So if in future new duplicates are imported or created we can now much easier and quicker merge them all into the PPP Profiles. Projects didn't have a way to watch over or keep track of these profiles and that's when and why the Project Accounts were invented.

2. No... Projects are representing groups of members, so if everyone really understands why the Project Accounts are added and how they work (so that adding it as manager to a profile is adding all Project members as co-manager), and if they all, and it looks like they do, prefer to still have some additional active (!) Project members as co-manager on these profiles, we now decided we are going to vote on this in a Project Update G2G for all members as soon as possible, when Christmas is over if that's ok with everyone ;)

3. What Louis says, so yes if Projects have an overlap we will communicate about which project is the most appropriate and the Projects will have to collaborate.

If I understand and remember correct, now because of the new Project guidelines, it's preferred to have only one Project Account added as manager to profiles, the other Project(s) can be added to the trusted list, this way they also can work on them and keep track of them in their feeds, the notifications (Google Group=project inbox) for those are only received ones a week though) With the new WikiTree Project Guidelines, for other project the categorie(s) or sticker(s) can be added and the Project that's managing can add the Project template.

---

Hi Angie, 

Thanks for all your help and enthusiasm. You say the email is overwhelming, do you mean you are receiving email from the Google Group ? If so, you can change the email settings yourself there or we can change them for the Group. We would like to make sure no one is receiving email from the Group and that it is not used to communicate directly, communicating should be done not in the Group but by adding follow up messages to the profiles where we received the notifications from. (where a post was added, or a merge request was posted etc.) 

Hope it helps :)

---

Hi Bea

I would prefer to just receive mail from the family I am watching, not all.  I have all mail filtered from wikitree into one folder so it is not messing my inbox as such.  I rarely look at others, I scroll over those just to change the flag to read.  If the focus was smaller I would pay more attention.  I have found that sometimes we acquire backround knowledge when looking at a family.  

I see, after I got all offended about the suffix dVP numbers there was discussion that it would be ok till PPP, then bio.  An American "official" wikitree got all nasty about it and changed many of my profiles so I simply stopped participating.  For me it became difficult to know at a glance which is a cousin and which is duplicate when creating.  The early families are fairly well listed on gssa and first fifty years.  

Regards

Angie

---

It would appear that several of us have poked the hornet's nest with pointed sticks and agitated the occupants. This has resulted in an open discussion of the problem.  I think this is a good thing and long overdo.

Bea, your explanation is great, although I don't totally agree with it, I understand where you (projects) think you are benefiting the community. You are all; however, ignoring a vital precept of this community which I will elaborate upon when we start the discussion in Jan. For now I will just go out and sharpen some more sticks.

Bea, I love and appreciate the work you do here. Please don't take this as a personal attack on you but more of a revolt of the minions against the "Corporate Machine" that Wiki appears to be evolving into.

For some reason I keep having visions of George Orwell's "1984" where Big Brother knew what was best for all. I don't remember a general membership vote to give the "Projects" these powers. Did I miss something?

Maybe I'll go look for some Burning Pitch to dip my pointed sticks in.

 

WildBill

---

Hi Bill :), 

I don't mind really, I'm Dutch you know and we are used to directness and to discus things in the open, WikiTree is huge with thousands of members so it's logic we can't all agree on everything all the time, but we always can and should try to come to an agreement that will make at least the majority happy or more happy eeh. 

We had a television show called Big Brother, so I think I know what you mean :P 

You say, I don't remember a general membership vote to give the "Projects" these powers... 

Projects=Groups of WikiTree members working on sourcing and improving specific groups of Profiles and trying to get them all accurate and free from duplicates, so:

Project ''powers'' = WikiTree member ''powers''

There were many G2G's or Project update G2G's where things were discussed, and I'm not sure, but maybe some Projects worked or still work,  to keep their members informed or updated by email or google groups, so yes it's possible you missed things, but I don't think there was a vote for this for the whole Wikitree community, unless I missed it, which of course also is possible :P 

But well, all I know for sure is that at some point the whole WikiTree idea, our shared and main goal, to have one accurate worldwide FamilyTree with just one profile for every person that ever was born/lived, really was doomed to fail, we had an endless stream of huge Gedcoms that were imported which caused thousands and thousands of duplicates (duplicate lineages/families), add the thousands of duplicates that were created manually (sometimes duplicates only and on purpose were created to become manager, because after a merge in the past the member from the duplicate automatically became co-manager), add a few bad merges that sometimes caused families were all jumbled up and things really became a mess. 

So we all felt and knew we had to do something to try and save our WikiTree before it was too late. That's when and why Projects were created by and for WikiTree members, we first started to try and save the earliest lineages (merging has to be done from the top down to prevent losing profiles (floaters), mixed up families-bad merges), we had PPP (locked the LNAB field+ later also the parents) we had the Pre-1500 Import stop, the Pre-1700 Self certification, the Pre-1700 import stop, members who created duplicates no longer automatically became manager after a merge with a PPP profile), so all this and perhaps even more, is one of the reasons why the early profiles now automatically are going to fall under a Project. 

But....there still was no tool or anything for WikiTree/Project members that made it possible or more easy to share, keep track of, watch over and work on these families and profiles together, so that's when someone figured perhaps we should try to work with Project Accounts. (this was proposed in a G2G from a few years ago)

We started to experiment with those at first in 2015 if I remember correct, but soon discovered it was a great tool, adding a Project account as co-manager was in fact adding all Project members as co-managers to these families/profiles so now, thanks to the Project Accounts, everyone has a Project overview, they all can read the email, feeds and everything that's going on, and it's making collaboration and sharing our deeper ancestors with all members really much easier. The feeds are open so all WikiTree members, including members who didn't join Projects, can pitch in, help and work on things if they would like. 

So now we all have the same overview + we all can be co-manager of our widely shared ancestors, without ending up with profiles that have hundreds of visible co-managers (they could have though, if a Project would have thousands of members). All members have to do is join a project or several ones they are interested in and participate and..also very or maybe even most important, to have some fun together while working on things !

And I love those minions, I have a nine year old who loves them too 

Thank you Bill for the contribution and the humor and see you in January with the sharpened burning pitch dipped sticks, I'll take some feathers :D 
 

And thank you so much everyone for the help and contributions here I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New year ! 

---

Hi Everyone; thanks for the minions X'mas card Bea; Merry Xmas to all.

I wonder if we could call a truce now and stop the ongoing removal of managers to trusted list until we have a chance to discuss further & vote on this after the holidays. The reason I'm asking for a truce is that today I'm continuing to be bumped off from profile manager to trusted list by the COGH. 2 more profiles today, although Esmé did send me an email on Sunday to say the COGH would hold off with further PPP requests till the matter is settled. It's as though there's a frenzy to get as many profiles removed from ordinary managers as possible before having a vote.

Happy Holidays

---

Aah bummers, I'll check it out for you Anton, I also was under the impression we were holding of PPP'ing until after the G2G so just send me the links and I'll add you back as manager. :)

---

Bea,

Thank you for being so active in your responses to this (these) questions and your readiness to reverse changes made on individual profiles.I agree that the best way to  discuss matters openly. This is particularly important when people begin to feel that their contributions and their particular expertise in a family or area are being cast aside..

Hoping that we will have a discussion/vote  on the issue after Christmas.

Happy Christmas to you,

---

Thanks and we sure will Helen, Projects are created by and for members so how we all work has to do with on the one side the WikiTree guidelines and often a little touch of our Project members, so we all should feel happy and comfortable within the Project and how it all works, it's a team and we should have fun while working on things together eeh :)

Merry Christmas :)