certificate and a photo of me by his grave 2,800 km away.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Cathy Pinner [mailto:genea...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:42 PM
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Hi Pat,
I was just reiterating what
the extra source citations from
these now unlinked branches for a while...!)
--Paula
From: Pat Hickin pph...@gmail.com
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Well, it looks as though
Hickin pph...@gmail.com
*To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
*Sent:* Sunday, May 18, 2014 6:37 AM
*Subject:* Re: [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Well, it looks as though everyone feels it's best to keep them in and
unlink them. I've already done the unlinking so I'll just let them stay
Pat,
If there is an oral tradition for these lines being part of your family
and someone has gone to the trouble to disprove it with DNA, all the
more reason to include a note on your proved ancestor.
Cathy
Pat Hickin mailto:pph...@gmail.com
Tuesday, 20 May 2014 4:36 AM
Thanks, Paula,
In
Cathy,
I'm not sure what you mean by this:
to include a note *on your **proved ancestor*. Can you be a bit more
explicit?
Pat
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Cathy Pinner genea...@gmail.com wrote:
Pat,
If there is an oral tradition for these lines being part of your family
and someone
Hi Pat,
I was just reiterating what others have said.
If you unlink people/a line because the link is disproved, it helps to
add a note on your family member from which they've been unlinked so
that everyone knows that another line was pursued and it was wrong. If
only you know this, then the
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
Â
*From:*Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 6:51 PM
*To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Â
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and
have since
:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Â
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and
have since been disproved. Â I don't want to delete them entirely and
I'm wondering how other L
egacy users handle the matter. Â I could put
them in a separate file or leave them where
@LegacyUsers.com
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Â
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and
have since been disproved. Â I don't want to delete them entirely and
I'm wondering how other L
egacy users handle the matter. Â I could put
them in a separate file
Not for me. I always exclude everything that is in privacy brackets.
If I want some things sometimes but not others I use an event which I can make
private when I don't want it.
Now I guess you could choose to include or not include event notes but since I
haven't entered notes with the thought
Just different ways of working - it's no bad thing for users to know the
options.
Ron Ferguson
http://www.fergys.co.uk/
Sent from my Xperia™ smartphone
Cathy Pinner genea...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for me. I always exclude everything that is in privacy brackets.
If I want some things sometimes
Well, it looks as though everyone feels it's best to keep them in and
unlink them. I've already done the unlinking so I'll just let them stay
there. Thanks for your input!
Pat
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Ron Ferguson ronfergy@tiscali.co.ukwrote:
Just different ways of working -
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
Â
*From:*Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 6:51 PM
*To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
Â
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines
Hi Jay,
I also have a few of notes in name fields to warn the reader. For example, when
I think I've found the parents of an ancestor, I add them, make them invisible
so they're not published and for my use visually on the screen add to the given
name - guess (meaning best guess rather than
...@legacyfamilytree.com
www.LegacyFamilyTree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com
From: Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 6:51 PM
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and have
Pat Hickin wrote:
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral
lines and have since been disproved. I don't want to delete
them entirely and I'm wondering how other Legacy users
handle the matter. I could put them in a separate file or
leave them where they are and just
*To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and
have since been disproved. I don't want to delete them entirely and
I'm wondering how other Legacy users handle the matter. I could put
them in a separate file
@LegacyUsers.com
*Subject:* [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and
have since been disproved. I don't want to delete them entirely and
I'm wondering how other Legacy users handle the matter. I could put
them in a separate file or leave
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 6:51 PM
To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Disproved ancestors
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and have
since been disproved. I don't want to delete them entirely and I'm wondering
how other Legacy users
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral lines and have
since been disproved. I don't want to delete them entirely and I'm
wondering how other Legacy users handle the matter. I could put them in a
separate file or leave them where they are and just unlink them so that
they're
I just unlink them and leave them sitting there. I've done quite a bit
of research on some people before I realized I was barking up the wrong
tree. Maybe someone else can benefit from your work.
On 5/16/2014 3:50 PM, Pat Hickin wrote:
I've got a couple of what were once thought to be ancestral
Unlink them and leave them where they are. In 6 months time when the names
flash past your eyes again you will be saying to yourself I'm sure I had
that somewhere!:-)
Don't put them in a separate file.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Liz Denis nehalemm...@gmail.com wrote:
I just unlink them
The only other thing I'd do if the line had been thought by others as well to
belong would be to put a Disproven Line event on the person(s) you're unlinking
the wrong line from. This event could be made private for some purposes or
published to let others know not to follow that path.
But
Or worse you forget that you ever looked at that person in the first
placeage!
On 5/16/2014 4:49 PM, Anne Picketts wrote:
Unlink them and leave them where they are. In 6 months time when the
names flash past your eyes again you will be saying to yourself I'm
sure I had that somewhere!:-)
I disconnect them but leave them for a couple of simple reasons. Either
later I need to know I have already looked at them - or I find out they are
cousins and the information proves valuable but in other ways.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Liz Denis nehalemm...@gmail.com wrote:
Or worse
Pat,
Some years ago I also hit this problem and in my case decided to leave the
individuals as a separate tree in my main file.
At the time my main reasons were because the family had the same surname as the
correct one, and lived in the same area they may prove to be related (still not
the
26 matches
Mail list logo
