(Reported)

I beg your pardon, Mike,

Could you please answer these 2 questions?

1) When did I ever declare, "I changed it because I like mine better"?

2) How can you go on talking about coming to an agreement, when you've just seen in this discussion, how my arguments are being met?

It must be very convenient for my opponent that you deleted her insolent and vicious reply.
And what a pity that your indulgence is so one-sided that you keep on supporting her autocracy on common public profiles.
I mean, keep on reinstalling the photos of manor houses,that she inserts, instead of the Baptism Records, that some other administrators find more appropriate.

With regards,

Kirsten

Private User -
First sentence in your post above using google translate is
"I changed the profile photo because I consider the baptism record more important than a photo of Billeskov."
-- in other words, you explicitly say you already changed it back
so did not have any discussion at all, never mind with consensus reached - before changing the profile photo.

And you make no argument in that post for why it is more important - just "I consider it to be"
-- ie right there is where you are in effect clearly saying " "I changed it because I like mine better"

Mike Stangel,
I am fully aware of the number of managers on this profile.
And by the way, Joan is NOT one of them!
3 of them are inactive and therefore not accessible so they can't be asked.
The other 3 managers and I collaborate very well and we share the opinion that the baptism record is a better representation of the person than the photo of Billeskov, which as I wrote can still be seen under Media.
1st manager Jette had already removed the Billeskov photo 27/3 2023 because new information (among other things the link to Niels Schmidt's baptism) had been inserted.
That's why I reinstalled the baptism photo 20/5 2023.
This was initially inserted by Marion 14/5 2023.
There was no baptism record on the profile when Joan inserted the Billeskov photo 3/12 2018.
But only diamonds are forever and things CAN change.
But 23/5 2023 Joan reversed it for the 2nd time and made this comment in About Me:
"Original photo put back because it was removed without preceding discussion as prescribed in Geni Rules!
Changes have been made on both text and photo without discussion!"
The last statement is not true.
I only removed the photo!
I have now reinstalled Joan's comment in About Me so it can be seen again.
I have been told not to communicate in About Me.
Is there a special rule or privilege for Joan in that regard?
Because it's a frequent pratice of Joan's to make comments like that.
Or leave her signature JKM, sometimes VS, if she uses her husband's account.
That comment made me start my discussion.
I have no other alternative as I have told you several times.
Usually Joan does reply but this time she did.
And I dare say she showed her true face!
What makes it appropiate to reprimande me publicly for acting unilaterally and hide her infamous slander about me and my companions?
And as to "acting unilaterally", are there other rules for Joan in that regard, too?
She has often removed my inserts such links to churchbooks and census without asking or discussing.
I mentioned that in the last 3 lines in my first post.
I had preferred to communicate in my ticket but I notice that you have marked it solved so I'll go public then.

With regards,
Kirsten