Kevin I was guessing on the name sorry:-(
The "Music Man" Meredith Willson "The Music Man"
and his sister http://www.geni.com/people/Lucille-%E2%80%9CDixie%E2%80%9D-Willson/...
Private User I went to a local community theater Sunday here in southwest Iowa and saw 'The Music Man". When I got home I found him on Geni. A private profile in an abandoned tree. Since Geni no longer releases these, I made a new profile and started in. Luckily, almost all of them are buried in a family plot in Mason City Iowa so it didn't take a lot of work. There are about ten more burials of Willsons there but I haven't figured out the connections yet. None of them are linked.
I suggest to make this master profile - Sarah Chakko - Sarah Chacko was the first Indian honored to be the President and first Lady president of the biggest ecumenical forum, The Word Council of Churches
Anita M. Boynton, I think that is the option with Master Profile. Curators, correct me if I am wrong. So first step is to back profile data with document proof, then request for profile to be made Master Profile, then the curators will lock the fields. This will protect our data during merges.
re: merges. (perhaps as a reminder)
When other profiles are merged into a M.P., the current values in the M.P. remain the "default" --- but conflicting field values still show up in the "to be resolved" table. ( ... and, thus, fields can potentially be changed by someone selecting an alternative value in the process of data conflict resolution -- or by direct "Edit" of the profile). "Unlocked" M.P.'s are treated like any other Public profile in that sense.
When a field is locked, that particular field's value cannot be changed (either directly editing or via "resolving data conflicts") by anyone other than a Curator.
One caveat - we do not yet have the ability to field lock relationships although that is in the works. So everyone's help correcting tree relationships is still very much needed. And "data field lock" was only implemented a few months ago, so we'd have to back track, which takes time. But in general - so cool.
Does there have to be a justifable reason for making a profile a MP?
I could supply 100% documentary evidence for all details in my mother's profile (even all the boring bits in her About Me) but apart from looking "cool" what possible need would there be to make my mother a Locked Master Profile?
I mean just because a profile fulfils the requirements for a locked MP will you guys do that for all and sundry or is there proof of need required?
NOTE: just idly curious, no actual reason to "Lock up" Mother.
For one thing presumably your Mum is a private profile and that is outside curatorial scope entirely.
Criteria for MPs are current:
I also suspect you may not have been through the pain of waving together fragments of GEDCOM uploads into one coherent profile, one coherent tree. If you had you wouldn't be asking the value of "field locking.". :)
Actually you were 50% correct, i've had nothing to do with Gedcoms
Gedcom is just the name of a mythical being I use to chastise my children when they are misbehaving.
I've spent a lot more time digging around in the gloomy sub-canopy of the forest where the sun rarely shines looking for obscure profiles forgotten since the day J made them, not so much a monkey as a ... mole? Ferret?
I'm sorry for your loss, I'm sure it's hard. In a sense one day I would see every deceased (or living "notable") set as an MP, as this does not mean contributions still don't go on - there are always new facets to add. Genealogy, like history, is endless, and a curator is a volunteer to "look after" in addition to the profile managers. From a more practical point of view, I look at "value added.". How many descendants? How popular? Etc.
As far as I can understand this "spread" discussion:
There are many different profiles that are "popular" for many managers to "take care of". For instance Elvis Presley or other famous persons. I can understand the need for a MP and a curator in cases like that.
There are "old" profiles from medivial times or "noble" people, who many are interested in. It's like for famous persons a need for a MP and a curator since there are so many interested managers.
There are some profiles where the data is conflicting and the managers are conflicting too. If it's "too much" of that and the managers cannot solve their problem then Geni can solve the Geni-problem: Put a curator in and make a MP.
Alex just made an easy example, Erica. The overall meaning of his argumentation is: If the profile is not famous like Elvis, not a person like a King or a noble person or a historical person that many are interested in and there are no longstanding quarrel between a few Geni-users: Where is the need for a MP?
To meet the argument about "if documents make an MP immideately" could easliy be met by "don't write anything about your documents and no MP will be made".
I have seen some of the problems that comes from the GEDCOM - maybe thats necessary to use MP or a "Working"-sign whil the problems are fixed to fit to Geni and it's customers.
I have documents to most of my profiles: Is it a good idea to make MP's of all of them? Don't curators have enough to do?
I would be happy to just keep working on my family tree you know:)
I just made this profile MP and only locked the name field for readability. Sources I found to cite did not include the vital statistics, so the profile is incomplete and requires further research.
Take a look at the statistics section. Take a look at the number of managers. Take a look at her position in the tree (as the grandmother of "first immigrants.").
There's just enough biography to pique my interest but I don't know that I'll have much chance to research further for a while. There is "controversy" in the genealogy shown in the profile overview of her husband. And these were Puritans and suffered in their quest for freedom.
How can she NOT be an MP?