Most of the Biblical tree is locked, and in my opinion rightly so, since that tree is well developed, with sources and details, and additional profiles to merge provide zero benefit.
By way of example, http://www.geni.com/people/Abraham-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D-%... could be added to this project - but please I suggest not the hundreds of other locked Biblical profiles - a few examples should suffice.
Another example of locked MPs with purpose in my opinion
and everything in sight around him. I recall asking the curator to lock profiles round here, after countless bad merges.
And if I may say so - an excellent welcoming curator's note on this profile.
Another set of justifiably locked profiles with the same excellent curator's note is at and all around
Same good reasons for locking as above
Ditto at and around Menachem Mendel Schneerson [7th ADMOR of CHABAD] The Lubavitcher Rebbe
Locked for good cause - and with the same curator's note
Barbara Jean Shepard these are not "curator" locked profiles - you would see a Master Profile designation om them if they were. Again, we're always happy to help out - but best posted to the discussion
Attention curators please assist
If you would be kind enough to cross post there for better investigation?
Thanks Erica - the data conflicts are not really conflicts.
On Betje Koekkoek the conflicts are on whether surname should be married or maiden name (on which there have been many discussions), and a minor naming of country difference.
On Abraham Barend Koekkoek it's simply whether the two names both go in the forename field. The issue here is really Geni's lack of support of patronymic naming.
Only a curator can resolve the conflicts.
The reasons David experienced for locking in the famous KOEKKOEK-painters-family are really ridiculous. In official digital archives of our Dutch administration everyone can find ---when using the right own birth-names, not that of partners ofcourse-- the whole KOEKKOEK family with all the different given surnames, birthdates and -places, professions, earlier partnersname in the context, etcetera. So here is a manager ruling who does NOT WANT interference, maybe caused by other interests. I am the manager of a lot Koekkoek-profiles, but some of the family-pages I could not access to even to add parents a/o children. It was only by merging with the help ot very distant relatives who where also forced to make duplicates to get it right. But what are the interests that are on the basics of these 'conflicts'? No one knows, for the key-holder is a champion in silence.... And after so many discussions about namesgiving everyone with Dutch feminine profiles in the pocket should know that we never ever allow woman to use her husbands names in official documents that are introduced to know about HER-self and HER origine and not about her partners-choise sometimes only for a marriage-liaisons of some short-life-time-period. And when there are no children of a partnership its even more strange to give such an argument for frustrating behaviour. Especially genealogists should understand that.... but yes, not all curatores are genealogists, but I am the last one to suggest that that argument will solve 'conflicts' with stubborn lonely planet-travellers.
If you need the KOEKKOEK family profiles unlocked to edit them, let the curator know by email.
That's what other people do. As you know, some curators put a note explaining why a profile was locked -- which is to prevent mis-merges most often -- and invite people to contact them if they need to make an edit.
Do you need to make an edit? Is something wrong? I could not tell from your post frankly. Is the wife's last name wrong, not according to Dutch custom? Is that your point?
I'm going to be very direct here -- locking protects profiles that are very often merged or edited incorrectly. I have no idea if that is/was the case here. I don't lock all profiles I curate, but I do lock those that I find a tangled mess and clean up and those that once they are cleaned up are quickly messed up again. These are our shared ancestors and it benefits all of us to have documented and correct MPs versus a bunch of spaghetti.
If a profile is locked and you have an edit that has a source behind it, just email the curator.
Now, more recent profiles are more problematic, but as far as historic profiles from the 1600s, 1700s, and even early 1800s go, locking of researched profiles is to benefit everyone, not the opposite.
yes, Hatte and others here, I really trust your answers and I see it is no way to discuss these things with honest and fair curators, for the ones it would be worthwile to have a discussion with are the silent ones, including the owners of this site. So lets close it here between us, for I do not intent to dust good discussions between curators. Negotiation and silence and no feedback is one of geni's problems, not yours as a volunteer. I and a lot of other users really appreciate all the work you do just for the credit to be part of some sort of a 'management-group' to build on a marvelous thing. I will continue to do my job here, by adding nice profiles, watching what happens with them afterwards and making all different kind of projects, so new users can have a nice start to get used on the geni-culture and if they ask for it, I will coach them trough this wilderness. Hope they stay aboard and are there when we can harvest for all that precious time and attention we invested in the content of this non-transparant company..... Have a nice day or what times might be yours, here its sleeping time, groet, jeannette.
Private User, impossible to say anything without knowing the name of the curator, but are you sure he/she is active at the moment? Curators are just ordinary people, with real-life events of all sorts including severe illnesses, travels and holidays. If you contact an active curator privately (I agree with not posting complaints about named people publicy), it's possible that he/she can help you with the issue - curators are able to override each others' actions when there's a good reason for it.
My experience is that it is very easy to miss a message, us curators get a lot of them on a daily base.
Maybe try one more time , also when you send additional info it might be a good idea to send the source of the information too, I often get additional information send that I need to check out for myself first before making any changes and will find out the information might not be correct after all this takes me ages then and sometimes I forget to get back to the person who send me the information in a timely matter, I admit.
I have no idea where this particular case is about but I would say try to contact the person one more time.