Tree Leaf

Member for
11 years 7 months 26 days
Find a Grave ID
47481781
Not accepting messages.

Bio

There is zero reason or justification to abuse fellow members here. Do not send abusive, name calling, derisive notes for any reason. Read the FAQ. Do not yell at me for following site procedures or rules. Do not yell at me for what old records say or do NOT say. Acquaint yourself with the rights of managers here. Anything I do and any policy I have, I have first checked in with admins to clarify my understanding of it. Things sent to managers are called and considered SUGGESTIONS and are subject to proof. Where proofs conflict managers are allowed to make a decision. For the rest read the FAQ or ask admins yourself. No reasonable person reacts to a decline especially one that has proof in the bio, or has been amply explained (each time), by starting a harassment campaign. Again any policy I have is not MINE but the SITE's. And I'm not sure which is worse, those who spread calumny or those who believe it unquestioningly. Don't use the memorials to abuse me, either. Show some respect for the decedents. Thank you.

_____________

** PLEASE ** do not misuse the photo or flower areas. Information goes into the bio. Per FAQ, sources should be sent via edit/suggest other (the "SAC.") Flowers should be messages of repose. (Like a message on a real funeral bouquet.) Photo area should be for images of the person during life and of their resting place. (With or without marker is allowed.) ** PLEASE ** do not post any text based items in the photo area of pages I manage. Thank you. (Send proofs via the SAC on back of each memorial.)

** PLEASE ** do not make pages of guessed location or no location. This resource is only as good as its accuracy. The site mission is as a database of final dispositions. It is like adding a name to a phone book with no phone number and a guessed location (nicknamed a "plop") is like a name with a wrong phone number. Please do not send those to people who do diligent, exacting work, to link to. It undermines the entire database, to add false information here. It misleads families who are looking for their loved one's final resting place or disposition. Info and links can be made on trees; this is an index of final dispositions first and foremost. If it were that easy, wee could all just add everyone on earth and call it a day. The work is in FINDING the grave. And then it's just as important to be diligent in identifying who is IN it, vs. going SOLELY by the same (or semi similar) name in a census. **

I cannot possibly express how it feels to have worked days or weeks on research to verify a location and identity only to wake up to 'everyone else in the lineage plopped alongside decedent' (with no verification or documentation behind it; in fact many things contraindicating it) and 'suggestions' to add them all as links. Mass plops are fairly obvious. When asked for a source it's never provided.

The site mission is even in its name. Some pages are added to cems that didn't exist when the person died; or the person actually died and is buried elsewhere; but in a rush to 'fill in blanks' some fall prey to the temptation to just put them anywhere. Please don't. : - ) Please only work from records and sources. The integrity of the database here is because of those who did the work to verify things, not because of guessed or no disposition types of record entries. If people think about it: YOU gleaned information thanks to someone else's hard work. The next person has equal right to expect such diligence from your own contributions as well.

_____

NB: Managers ARE allowed to decline. If I choose 'removing accurate information' it's because that's the closest to 'insufficient proof.' (Ask any experienced, thorough genie: they will tell you, a blank is more correct than inaccurate information.)

Most people send NO proof or sources at all. We do not have to ask them to do so before decline; most do not reply. Managers ARE also allowed to decline if they have conflicting sources/records with what was sent. When nothing was sent by way of proofs, my note requesting some was ignored, and the other source was already IN the bio for decedent, please don't then claim I declined for no reason. I even advise people how to pursue post-decline. (That's in the FAQ so again I am taking extra steps trying to communicate.) But if someone has been hostile and abusive, or ignores my attempts to reach out, there is little I can do but go by what I found or did not find.

I am a volunteer. If more people would send the sources they say they have, via edit/suggest other, it would be very helpful. It is not the manager's responsibility to also do full genealogy; the sender is responsible to prove their requests; I do all I can to find proofs but it is not always possible. If making no effort to send proofs nor to communicate nor to answer any questions, then there is no cause to complain.

Please be willing to answer questions and provide proof for your suggestions. I always hope they will prove out but it makes no sense to me to add things for which there is no documentation. Everything in genealogy is about proof. A caveat: We have to also prove the identity of the decedent. A same name is no guarantee is belongs to decedent; there has to be some shared information.

The easiest thing for me to do would be to just let it all roll through unattended but in that case, I'd be shirking responsibility. But again if you are invested in the outcome then PLEASE *use the SAC or edit/suggest other, to send your proofs.*

A decline is not abuse and no one should send abusive notes due to a decline. Just follow the procedure, as I've always said, myself. It's not personal, it's not an affront, it simply means there was either no proof found, insufficient data, unclear if it belonged to decedent, and/or conflicting records or sources. Misidentifying or adding incorrect information too hastily will only cause more problems.

I've taken a lot of abuse simply for trying to follow BASIC genealogical precepts. There is no reason for abuse whatsoever. I get snark, hostility, verbal drive-by attacks, even without doing a thing. Just sent to a years-old page or a days old page. I'm always happy to communicate with people who remain civil. Otherwise, they render useful communication impossible. So consider the result you wish and remain civil and helpful, please.

ALL I am trying to do is be thorough and ensure accuracy. PLEASE also don't play the "do you know who I am" card because if we all knew our entire tree by heart there would be no genealogy industry. Being a (for example) fourth cousin three times removed does not tell me where the information came from, which is the pertinent part. So please help me to help you. Thank you.

______________________________

15 July 2022. I have shut off my message board due to abuse. - TL

If sending proofs, use edit/suggest other corrections area to paste data and/or links to view the relevant records or documents. This is in the FAQ. Please review Genealogical Proof Standard.

* Lineage edits require full information for all persons sent as links. Something more than a similar or same name (e.g. in a census) must connect a decedent with suggested links. There are many reasons why. Ask a genealogist or lineage society why that is necessary. Chances of wrong person are high. *

* Memorials here are user-created. Just because a page has a name atop it does not mean the rest of the information is accurate, info correctly assigned, or, is the person in question. The information could be a collation, or aggregate of individuals, or, otherwise inaccurate. Mistakes compound when no one checks. *

* Each of us is charged with knowing and obeying site protocols. Most declines are due to insufficient (or absent) proofs. Apart from that, the sender has the responsibility to prove suggestions. I will no longer spend days or weeks or stay up overnight trying. Please learn the site function and rules and protocols, vs. arguing with, or verbally abusing, managers of memorials. *

______________

Be kind.

Share your information and sources. This is a collaborative website. Share the sources (data and collection, articles and citations) via edit/suggest other on back of the relevant memorial.

(Emphasizing: PLEASE use the back of the memorial, as we are instructed in the FAQ. There are many reasons for this. Please do not send proofs via message board. Again: there are reasons.)

That is the site protocol -- not mine. That is in the FAQ. This is defined as a collaborative website. If sharing a record we all can find, is seen as proprietary by the sender, please don't try to "collaborate" because expecting one person to do the work is not collaboration. Two people do not always find the same things. Hints come up differently depending on going in 'cold' vs. working an entire tree. I do not always have time to work an entire tree from zero, in (possibly vain) hopes of finding one piece of information for one among them.

It's supposed to be a team effort, not "stump the Find A Graver." I do try but if sending no help with suggestions, it amounts to "I will rely upon what you can find." And I might not find what you did. I might come to another conclusion. So, please (civilly) communicate. But don't assume it's because I don't do any work.

I send hand typed obits and articles, rewritten records and obits (to comply with site protocol), pasted links and data, routinely and have for years. I stopped counting years ago in the thousands. Glancing at a page or a stats stack does not tell you the full story. But I have sent over 31,000 accepted edits as well. The number of SAC sources/transcriptions I have sent out would be roughly commensurate with that. (192 declines.)

It could be more than that, actually. I transcribed obits and articles and sent them out for optional use before I began to index cemeteries, and before I sent out edits to fact fields. That was my main occupation here for a while. Then an admin told me the site goal (to accurately record the final disposition of as many people as possible), and I decided to help with that in my small way. I did that to help others (and myself) find resting places. I never would have guessed it would be met with negativity by a few. I never would've guessed a wish to apply genealogical precepts when asked to add genealogical information would, either.

In my defense, since periodically someone will accuse: No, I do not solely wait passively, for "incoming" (suggestions), or only add what others send by SAC (which only a tiny percentage send, anyway.) I also work on my own, unbidden; and always did. Even if I cannot prove or verify every *suggestion* I receive, I try to keep going and add more besides. I often find other family members, including ones that do not yet have a memorial. I link and add more information for them as well. I do *what I can do* for each.

But what has happened too often is, even if I have found an entire small tree, many who never had memorials until then, told their stories as best I could, linked everyone, taken the links back, forward or sideways a few generations or people...if I did not do exactly as told, it is not well met. That's not supposed to happen either. There are protocols in place if people disagree. (The admins will ask you follow those and step 1 is to use the edit/suggest other to send actual proofs: Exactly what I said at the outset here.) Communicate and follow the protocols in place please.

If you found information or a burial location due to another member's work, perhaps consider thanking them. At the very least don't excoriate or attack them. They just helped you and if you don't feel they did, someone else might feel helped even if they never say so either. Information is often taken for granted in the information age, but someone scoured somewhere and put the puzzle pieces together. That information didn't appear on its own: someone took time from their day to put it there. Identifying a decedent is not always easy at all. Records are often scant or partial. What an onlooker deems "basic" might have taken multiple sources and much work to find, and to correctly identify with a specific decedent. (What looks right isn't always.)

Members here are volunteers. People are here for various reasons, sometimes multiple reasons: photographers, taphophiles, historians, researchers, military buffs, family historians, people new to genealogy and people who want to find their family's resting places. There are members who just enjoy "flowering" or sending information. All are acceptable per admins.

In response to an ugly and false vitriolic missive: We are not asked to "credit" others; it's a virtual grave. Some wish it and if so I include their member number. Other times no one mentioned it, and I might ask or offer if they want to be credited. If I use the material, then, I do this even if it's a pasted item or a link. Even if I had to rewrite or retype it. If it's for the bio, I will credit "other" in some way. We are not expected to "credit" anyone, especially for fact fields. But even if it's a fact field submission, I might still note the info was from someone else. In those cases, or in the rare case they wish it but to be anonymous, I just credit "another contributor."

It is my own work I rarely credit or "sign"at all. Also: Of the portion of material I send out, which is used: Much of that is also "uncredited" as being typed or written by me. I do not request "credit." I don't mind either way. But, some gossip that I do all sorts of weird things that are not true. So, for the record. Per bios on memorials I manage: if it does not have any citation or credit with it, then I researched, transcribed and or wrote it, with few exceptions (e.g., things I have not seen yet: merges or adopted pages.) And: It shouldn't matter. And: who really thinks about this stuff? The fact is very few send anything of proofs. THAT is why you'll seldom see bio credits.

Thankfully only a very vocal few misbehave and send abusive, ad hom attacks, false accusations, or even threats; but it's enough to ruin someone's morale. It does nothing to help verify any suggestions. It has no place in genealogy or volunteerism.

Understanding the site goals and purpose and protocols, and what is being asked of us here and what is not, would go a long way toward evaporating those types of cliquish, unfair actions.

Give people benefit of the doubt, follow site protocols and community guidelines and Genealogical Proof Standard.

Thank you to all those who contribute here and remain civil and helpful, who communicate, who work patiently with others.

There is zero reason or justification to abuse fellow members here. Do not send abusive, name calling, derisive notes for any reason. Read the FAQ. Do not yell at me for following site procedures or rules. Do not yell at me for what old records say or do NOT say. Acquaint yourself with the rights of managers here. Anything I do and any policy I have, I have first checked in with admins to clarify my understanding of it. Things sent to managers are called and considered SUGGESTIONS and are subject to proof. Where proofs conflict managers are allowed to make a decision. For the rest read the FAQ or ask admins yourself. No reasonable person reacts to a decline especially one that has proof in the bio, or has been amply explained (each time), by starting a harassment campaign. Again any policy I have is not MINE but the SITE's. And I'm not sure which is worse, those who spread calumny or those who believe it unquestioningly. Don't use the memorials to abuse me, either. Show some respect for the decedents. Thank you.

_____________

** PLEASE ** do not misuse the photo or flower areas. Information goes into the bio. Per FAQ, sources should be sent via edit/suggest other (the "SAC.") Flowers should be messages of repose. (Like a message on a real funeral bouquet.) Photo area should be for images of the person during life and of their resting place. (With or without marker is allowed.) ** PLEASE ** do not post any text based items in the photo area of pages I manage. Thank you. (Send proofs via the SAC on back of each memorial.)

** PLEASE ** do not make pages of guessed location or no location. This resource is only as good as its accuracy. The site mission is as a database of final dispositions. It is like adding a name to a phone book with no phone number and a guessed location (nicknamed a "plop") is like a name with a wrong phone number. Please do not send those to people who do diligent, exacting work, to link to. It undermines the entire database, to add false information here. It misleads families who are looking for their loved one's final resting place or disposition. Info and links can be made on trees; this is an index of final dispositions first and foremost. If it were that easy, wee could all just add everyone on earth and call it a day. The work is in FINDING the grave. And then it's just as important to be diligent in identifying who is IN it, vs. going SOLELY by the same (or semi similar) name in a census. **

I cannot possibly express how it feels to have worked days or weeks on research to verify a location and identity only to wake up to 'everyone else in the lineage plopped alongside decedent' (with no verification or documentation behind it; in fact many things contraindicating it) and 'suggestions' to add them all as links. Mass plops are fairly obvious. When asked for a source it's never provided.

The site mission is even in its name. Some pages are added to cems that didn't exist when the person died; or the person actually died and is buried elsewhere; but in a rush to 'fill in blanks' some fall prey to the temptation to just put them anywhere. Please don't. : - ) Please only work from records and sources. The integrity of the database here is because of those who did the work to verify things, not because of guessed or no disposition types of record entries. If people think about it: YOU gleaned information thanks to someone else's hard work. The next person has equal right to expect such diligence from your own contributions as well.

_____

NB: Managers ARE allowed to decline. If I choose 'removing accurate information' it's because that's the closest to 'insufficient proof.' (Ask any experienced, thorough genie: they will tell you, a blank is more correct than inaccurate information.)

Most people send NO proof or sources at all. We do not have to ask them to do so before decline; most do not reply. Managers ARE also allowed to decline if they have conflicting sources/records with what was sent. When nothing was sent by way of proofs, my note requesting some was ignored, and the other source was already IN the bio for decedent, please don't then claim I declined for no reason. I even advise people how to pursue post-decline. (That's in the FAQ so again I am taking extra steps trying to communicate.) But if someone has been hostile and abusive, or ignores my attempts to reach out, there is little I can do but go by what I found or did not find.

I am a volunteer. If more people would send the sources they say they have, via edit/suggest other, it would be very helpful. It is not the manager's responsibility to also do full genealogy; the sender is responsible to prove their requests; I do all I can to find proofs but it is not always possible. If making no effort to send proofs nor to communicate nor to answer any questions, then there is no cause to complain.

Please be willing to answer questions and provide proof for your suggestions. I always hope they will prove out but it makes no sense to me to add things for which there is no documentation. Everything in genealogy is about proof. A caveat: We have to also prove the identity of the decedent. A same name is no guarantee is belongs to decedent; there has to be some shared information.

The easiest thing for me to do would be to just let it all roll through unattended but in that case, I'd be shirking responsibility. But again if you are invested in the outcome then PLEASE *use the SAC or edit/suggest other, to send your proofs.*

A decline is not abuse and no one should send abusive notes due to a decline. Just follow the procedure, as I've always said, myself. It's not personal, it's not an affront, it simply means there was either no proof found, insufficient data, unclear if it belonged to decedent, and/or conflicting records or sources. Misidentifying or adding incorrect information too hastily will only cause more problems.

I've taken a lot of abuse simply for trying to follow BASIC genealogical precepts. There is no reason for abuse whatsoever. I get snark, hostility, verbal drive-by attacks, even without doing a thing. Just sent to a years-old page or a days old page. I'm always happy to communicate with people who remain civil. Otherwise, they render useful communication impossible. So consider the result you wish and remain civil and helpful, please.

ALL I am trying to do is be thorough and ensure accuracy. PLEASE also don't play the "do you know who I am" card because if we all knew our entire tree by heart there would be no genealogy industry. Being a (for example) fourth cousin three times removed does not tell me where the information came from, which is the pertinent part. So please help me to help you. Thank you.

______________________________

15 July 2022. I have shut off my message board due to abuse. - TL

If sending proofs, use edit/suggest other corrections area to paste data and/or links to view the relevant records or documents. This is in the FAQ. Please review Genealogical Proof Standard.

* Lineage edits require full information for all persons sent as links. Something more than a similar or same name (e.g. in a census) must connect a decedent with suggested links. There are many reasons why. Ask a genealogist or lineage society why that is necessary. Chances of wrong person are high. *

* Memorials here are user-created. Just because a page has a name atop it does not mean the rest of the information is accurate, info correctly assigned, or, is the person in question. The information could be a collation, or aggregate of individuals, or, otherwise inaccurate. Mistakes compound when no one checks. *

* Each of us is charged with knowing and obeying site protocols. Most declines are due to insufficient (or absent) proofs. Apart from that, the sender has the responsibility to prove suggestions. I will no longer spend days or weeks or stay up overnight trying. Please learn the site function and rules and protocols, vs. arguing with, or verbally abusing, managers of memorials. *

______________

Be kind.

Share your information and sources. This is a collaborative website. Share the sources (data and collection, articles and citations) via edit/suggest other on back of the relevant memorial.

(Emphasizing: PLEASE use the back of the memorial, as we are instructed in the FAQ. There are many reasons for this. Please do not send proofs via message board. Again: there are reasons.)

That is the site protocol -- not mine. That is in the FAQ. This is defined as a collaborative website. If sharing a record we all can find, is seen as proprietary by the sender, please don't try to "collaborate" because expecting one person to do the work is not collaboration. Two people do not always find the same things. Hints come up differently depending on going in 'cold' vs. working an entire tree. I do not always have time to work an entire tree from zero, in (possibly vain) hopes of finding one piece of information for one among them.

It's supposed to be a team effort, not "stump the Find A Graver." I do try but if sending no help with suggestions, it amounts to "I will rely upon what you can find." And I might not find what you did. I might come to another conclusion. So, please (civilly) communicate. But don't assume it's because I don't do any work.

I send hand typed obits and articles, rewritten records and obits (to comply with site protocol), pasted links and data, routinely and have for years. I stopped counting years ago in the thousands. Glancing at a page or a stats stack does not tell you the full story. But I have sent over 31,000 accepted edits as well. The number of SAC sources/transcriptions I have sent out would be roughly commensurate with that. (192 declines.)

It could be more than that, actually. I transcribed obits and articles and sent them out for optional use before I began to index cemeteries, and before I sent out edits to fact fields. That was my main occupation here for a while. Then an admin told me the site goal (to accurately record the final disposition of as many people as possible), and I decided to help with that in my small way. I did that to help others (and myself) find resting places. I never would have guessed it would be met with negativity by a few. I never would've guessed a wish to apply genealogical precepts when asked to add genealogical information would, either.

In my defense, since periodically someone will accuse: No, I do not solely wait passively, for "incoming" (suggestions), or only add what others send by SAC (which only a tiny percentage send, anyway.) I also work on my own, unbidden; and always did. Even if I cannot prove or verify every *suggestion* I receive, I try to keep going and add more besides. I often find other family members, including ones that do not yet have a memorial. I link and add more information for them as well. I do *what I can do* for each.

But what has happened too often is, even if I have found an entire small tree, many who never had memorials until then, told their stories as best I could, linked everyone, taken the links back, forward or sideways a few generations or people...if I did not do exactly as told, it is not well met. That's not supposed to happen either. There are protocols in place if people disagree. (The admins will ask you follow those and step 1 is to use the edit/suggest other to send actual proofs: Exactly what I said at the outset here.) Communicate and follow the protocols in place please.

If you found information or a burial location due to another member's work, perhaps consider thanking them. At the very least don't excoriate or attack them. They just helped you and if you don't feel they did, someone else might feel helped even if they never say so either. Information is often taken for granted in the information age, but someone scoured somewhere and put the puzzle pieces together. That information didn't appear on its own: someone took time from their day to put it there. Identifying a decedent is not always easy at all. Records are often scant or partial. What an onlooker deems "basic" might have taken multiple sources and much work to find, and to correctly identify with a specific decedent. (What looks right isn't always.)

Members here are volunteers. People are here for various reasons, sometimes multiple reasons: photographers, taphophiles, historians, researchers, military buffs, family historians, people new to genealogy and people who want to find their family's resting places. There are members who just enjoy "flowering" or sending information. All are acceptable per admins.

In response to an ugly and false vitriolic missive: We are not asked to "credit" others; it's a virtual grave. Some wish it and if so I include their member number. Other times no one mentioned it, and I might ask or offer if they want to be credited. If I use the material, then, I do this even if it's a pasted item or a link. Even if I had to rewrite or retype it. If it's for the bio, I will credit "other" in some way. We are not expected to "credit" anyone, especially for fact fields. But even if it's a fact field submission, I might still note the info was from someone else. In those cases, or in the rare case they wish it but to be anonymous, I just credit "another contributor."

It is my own work I rarely credit or "sign"at all. Also: Of the portion of material I send out, which is used: Much of that is also "uncredited" as being typed or written by me. I do not request "credit." I don't mind either way. But, some gossip that I do all sorts of weird things that are not true. So, for the record. Per bios on memorials I manage: if it does not have any citation or credit with it, then I researched, transcribed and or wrote it, with few exceptions (e.g., things I have not seen yet: merges or adopted pages.) And: It shouldn't matter. And: who really thinks about this stuff? The fact is very few send anything of proofs. THAT is why you'll seldom see bio credits.

Thankfully only a very vocal few misbehave and send abusive, ad hom attacks, false accusations, or even threats; but it's enough to ruin someone's morale. It does nothing to help verify any suggestions. It has no place in genealogy or volunteerism.

Understanding the site goals and purpose and protocols, and what is being asked of us here and what is not, would go a long way toward evaporating those types of cliquish, unfair actions.

Give people benefit of the doubt, follow site protocols and community guidelines and Genealogical Proof Standard.

Thank you to all those who contribute here and remain civil and helpful, who communicate, who work patiently with others.

Search memorial contributions by Tree Leaf

Advertisement