ATTENTION Curators, please assist

Vervolg op mn reactie. Dit geldt ook voor Johanna Cristina Alers en Arnoldus van Bueren, waarbij Johanna Christina Alers samengevoegd is met Johanna Alers en het zijn echt 2 verschillende personen. Laat dit aan de beheerder over en niet aan een curator die zomaar even ingrijpt op verzoek van een ander, Ja, ben nog boos!

Jennie,

Mijn excuses, ik zit pas kort op Geni en dacht dat de curators voordat ze zo'n actie uitvoerden eerst contact opnamen met de betrokken persoon.
Ik zal in het vervolg zelf eerst contact opnemen.

Jennie, I will try to help Job to correct it, if need be

A repost of 5/20..... Here I think there is a problem. There are just too many names that are the same, with different dates. I am just wondering if there are 2 lines mixed together, with or a generational problem. Any curators familiar with these people who can advise me? or shed a little light on the matter?
http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000010092216937#600000000...
The whole thing just does not look right to me.

I have had in my tree conflict folder, for a very long time, in profiles I manage, request to resolve parentage of Peter Tallman b. 1623. There is a controversy regarding his parentage. One group, I do not know the source of this theory, or which study was done by the professional genealogists, that says that his parents are Peter Talemann b. 1589 and Maria Von Peene. As I say I am not sure where this info came from. This Peter was born in Belgium, not Germany. The second theory is from a study done many years ago by the New England Historical Genealogical Society. This study says that Peter Tallman's parents were Henry Tallman b. 1586 m. to Anna, no last name, Henry was from Hamburg, Ger. I chose when I did the research on the Tallmans to use the study done by NEHGS. So, I am not going to resolve the parentage by merging, there by making the decision of one set of parents verses the other set of parents. I think that there are just some resolutions that simply cannot be made, if all the facts are just not there or available, or if there are simply no more facts to be found at this time.. I am hoping that you all can agree to disagree on the parentage of Peter Tallman b. 1623. and not continue to press the matter further. Please, if there has been a study done by a professional organization with credibility and international respect that can convince me of one theory over the other, would you kindly email me and let me know? Thank you for understanding my position on this...

Do you think these should be merged?
http://www.geni.com/search/matches/6000000001495386244

I am worried about the mothers, constance verses Mary....

@Jenny Schouten

Hallo Jenny, er wordt niet zonder jouw voorkennis bewust samengevoegd. Helaas is er een bug in de software waardoor ween aantal profielen van gebruikers onbedoeld en ongewenst zijn samengevoegd, zelfs één der curators, Justin, is daar het slachtoffer van geworden. Geni staff doet zijn best dit nare euvel zo snel mogelijk te verhelpen !

Sally - it looks like the Hopkins need some cleaning up and yes, I would merge those since there's enough unique, shared data to warrant it, namely the name of the daughter with both married and maiden name matching. Clearly someone needs to then go in and fix up the Hopkins. Ideally the curator who will know what's correct although the Curator Notes and About for her should be in good shape.

As for your Tallman post, I agree with your approach and have done exactly the same. Where there is a controversy, even when there is a reputable source such as NEGHS which publishes one theory, as long as there is another theory held by many, I leave two sets of parents.

I don't do this where there is a medieval profile with a scholar who either has primary sources or who has researched and shown that there are not primary sources for a particular parentage. I'm thinking of Cawley's database of Medieval Lands versus various Internet family trees.

Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger Transparent
Curator Note from Erica Isabel Howton, IX (4/23/2011):

NEVER MARRIED Constance Dudley: IT'S A MYTH, PEOPLE!

* 2 wives 1) Mary Unknown. 2) Elizabeth Fisher.
*NOT the son of Nicholas Hopkins & Mary Poole.
*NOT the son of Stephen Hopkins. Maybe:John & Elizabeth (Williams) Hopkyns.
*NOT the father of Berthia/Bethia.

I did some merging and corrections of relations re Stephen Hopkins, spouses, parents and children

It looked like there were 20 children when I glanced at it this morning. Some people do have 20 children, but it seems a red flag to me.

I think you have to discuss this matters with the specialist for this and I think that is
Erica Howton

there are also on Geni projects re the Mayflower, among others this one

http://www.geni.com/projects/-Mayflower-Passengers-Colonial-America...

Thank you Fred Bergman. I will ask Erica whether the 20 children are correct, or the result of various merges.

Fred Bergman

Your information is correct and than you for tagging me. I didn't realize we were talking about my favorite Mayflower (and Sea Venture!) passenger, Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger

It looks like his daughter Constance Snow Constance (Hopkins) Snow, "Mayflower" Passenger needed merging up -- and that there are indeed some merge or pending merge. I'm working on it now.

I also added an additional curator note as a guide for future merges.

Oh dear! What does one do about this. It looked like a straight forward deal, but obviously it is not!

http://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000002665513706?return=duplic...

Hi folks,
I came across this profile who belongs somewhere else in the tree. The dates between her & her parents are way off. Will someone please put this poor lady where she belongs ;-)
Ciceley Baguley

@Ann Vermeulen
I will put Cicely in the proper generation. She was the daughter of Hamon V, not Hamon I. I'll have to build in the missing Hamons before I can move her.

Hi Ann. Still trying to pin this lady down, but have found the following during my search: "The horrid consequence of these forced matches seem to us broadly hinted in the following incident regarding one of the Barons Dunham Massey, related in Ormerod's Cheshire, (i. 399). Sir Hamon Massey married first Isabel, dau. of Humfrey de Beauchamp, and on the marriage day at night, before consummation, she died, an event which at least infers a broken heart. He then married Alice', her sister, and from her, after the birth of a son, he was divorced. Both these marriages were probably compulsory." from "The Gentleman's magazine, Volume 98, Part 1"

Fantastic, Maria!! There are so many Hamon Masseys out there. We now have Alice's surname too. :))

@ Sally Thomas
You pulled up a real mess, didn't you! Luckily, one of the profiles is curated. I am tagging Angus to help us out. I don't know enough about this area of the tree to decide if the left side (male profile) is correct or if the right side (female profile) is correct. In addition, they have different parents.

Angus Wood-Salomon

Thanks, Lynne for that very useful information. There are a couple of curators already involved in the Massey-Babuley line. I also want to confer with them before I go very far. I will stay in touch with progress.

Hi MEZ This one was in my merge requests a while back, I have no idea what it was about. So I just created a MP so I could monitor it until someone with information came along.
That merge request wasn't there before. So I cancelled it.

Carole (Erickson) Pomeroy,Vol. Curator

I wonder if Carole can help...
http://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000002665513706?return=duplic...

Sally Thomas
Sally if you look at the 'Revisions. of Margaret Wardwell you will notice you merged Margaret Lascelle Wardell Marshall into this profile on May 13th..Do you remember that?

Angus, Yes, of course... As I said it looked pretty straight forward, and it looked ok. But then when I got to it, then I saw that all was not ok, and there were several problems. I thought the gender problem would be solved with adjusting the conflict of info. But it never got to that point.

It was after I did that that the red letter box appeared. It was in my merge requests file... I thought it was ok, but then discovered that it was not ok.

Here is what I had to work with.

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000002240817510?resolve=6...

The only thing wrong with this, as I saw it, was that one was female and one was male, as I said, I thought that could be worked out in the conflict of info, after the merge. The dates were not far off, and it did not look too strange to me. After placing these 2 together, is when I got the red letter message saying I could not merge them, and it was then that I discovered that there were multiple problems besides gender, which is when I called you all in to take a look.

Sally Thomas

Correct - not a match.

Does require some merging up and around. I'm on it.

WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS?

Margaret Marshall

Don't they understand how impossible this makes the job?

Just don't make a profile if you have no info! And "delete" any somehow "inherited" that has no info! They do NO ONE any good at all and certainly NOT the tree.

<steam out of ears>