What is going on?

Pam Karp

Regarding your question, even if you cannot text to the project page Collaborating would still give you the _privilege_ of being able to add profiles, link to other projects, add media, etc. So it would not be completely pointless, 30 something odd people have already signed on as collaborators to the second project despite the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

Judging from a comment by Michael McCann earlier today there may actually have been quite an active recruitment campaign to bolster numbers, otherwise how did all those people know that a second project had been started?

Alex Moes

Its unlikely that you linked the two projects in error, even being extremely busy and forgetting about it. Not you !

I didn't know / remember about a Ragnar project being the platform for this discussion. A month of not reading discussions is a long time to be MIA and no, I didn't notice the "Related Projects" being duplicated. Thanks for clarifying.

Each curator has their own opinon and interpertation some better left unspoke of

In light of Mike's comments, there is an easy way to solve this problem.

Many projects have a Resources section at the bottom of the project page. This Ragnar project will certainly end up with a Resources section, with links where people can read more about Ragnar at other sites.

The info from the Triple A's Ragnar project could still be hosted off Geni, and we could put a link to it on this Ragnar project. We could even highlight that link and say that it is created by Geni curator Anette.

That's just an idea, but it seems like it would satisfy the Geni requirements and be good enough to settle the differences of opinion.

Spot on Justin Durand! :)

Reading this discussion, I'm very impressed with the scholarly knowledge about Ragnar that a number of you have, especially Anette Guldager Boye. I can understand her frustration that a project that she created was edited to delete sources - that seems to be the most concerning edit if I understood correctly.

But hosting a Geni project duplicate off of Geni isn't the right approach to resolve the differences of opinion. I hope you smart and reasonable people can continue this discussion to come up with an approach that meets everyone's needs, even if that approach is two separate projects.

Justin's suggested of a link from the Resources section sounds good to me, but it would have to be acceptable to those who have the expertise and the passion.

Mike Stangel wrt "ease of reverting": In MediaWiki's change log, each line lists:
- When the edit was made
- Who made the edit
- What the editor wrote as a summary of their edit

The last point is very important in order to navigate in the list of edits - even if the edit you want to revert doesn't have a summary, the ones before and after it have this information.
"Revert to this version" is almost effortless. Figuring out which version to revert to is more difficult.

(I also note that MediaWiki has the log as a full-fledged page. Having the Geni changelog being a pop-up box makes working with it far more cramped.)

I agree with Harald's points although in this instance i don't think it is particularly relevant, as Mike himself pointed out there has never been any "vandalism" or "edit wars" on this project.

Anette wasn't happy with other people touching _her_ project and when we did deleted it and moved it off site which was what I took offense to.

Since then i have been removed from the project, the project has been completed "deleted", another rival project has been started, I have had my access to Geni restricted and she has blocked me. All because of this Discussion thread.

PS: Hatte Rubenstein Blejer / Mike Stangel / Anette Guldager Boye i can tell you EXACTLY who deleted the Sources, I can even tell you when and make a good guess at a motive also.

Feel free to PM me if you want the name and evidence, or you can work it out for yourself the same way that I did. I'll even give you a hint: "Changes between ←19/10/2015 at 21:06 and 16/10/2015 at 1:00".

Section for sources and section for further reading added.

Please add anything interesting that you know of to the further reading section.

So much for that scolding briddle huh erica? At least i took the hint and stoped unlike others

It appears to me that the original Ragnar project is still intact and in fact I think has benefitted from the collaboration on striking the right balance and format for the discussion of myth-vs.-reality. I hope we'll eventually find a way to reconcile the two Ragnar projects but for now this subject is too raw to ask you all to do that. I can't help but think that we could have gotten to a mutally-satisfactory presentation of the facts and sagas, if only people had taken the time to talk to each other first before making assumptions and jumping in with changes.

Mike - thank you, and (mostly) agree as observer. A bit of "shoot > ready > fire> aim" going on. :)

I like the idea of companion projects. Kind of like the old Saturday Night Live point / counterpoint with Jane Curtin & Dan Ackyroyd, hopefully without the blouse tearing. :):)

Yes.. Research snd genology is allways make guesses first ask good questions later sadly

Love the sat night live blues brother refrence erica..

We'll call this the Harald Tveit Alvestrand update: Updates to Revision History tools http://www.geni.com/discussions/150853

Mike Stangel I have a question here.. I am doing work with erica on a project. there is a list of people beheaded by rulers in england.. Most of it on wikiepdia could you explain how to play by the rules so i don't loose my head? thanks I think a debate or refresher course for the people who allready know on sources and where to get them is in order if we are talking about websites.. wouldn't you?

without the blouse tearing. :(:( Kidding aside - - This Discussion definitely showed me some "Do Not Do's" -- - Thank you all. :-)

Private can you be a bit more specific with your question? Guessing at what you mean, I would make the following points:

1. Wikipedia is not a good source itself, because it's not a primary source. Better to cite census records, birth records, etc. to back up the facts on profiles and relationships.

2. Wikipedia is a good way to understand the "big picture" of a person, family, etc. Wikipedia does allow redistribution of its content with the provision that it contains a link back to the Wikipedia article, identifying it as the source. Images may or may not be redistributable; the license is found behind the "More details" button found on each image.

I see thank you. since the topic was about external sites the redistribution thought came into play.. I don't want to make the same mistake.. lol. Where else can one find a source of people beheded under royal orders for source data though? but you do make a good point about backing up the claim on profiles and for the most part that work I am finding has allready been done on geni as most of what i am looking at ann bolynn etc etc has all ready been entered...

Hello.

I'm new to "genealogy" however, I have been able to trace my ancestry back to Fulk IV through Henry de Radclyffe. I'm not sure if this some something you are interested in ?
Born and raised in Canada, I was trying to trace my roots back to John Baskett, Kings printer and famous for "The Vinegar Bible".

Sincerely,
James E. Baskett

I can't find John Baskett on GENi

http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/vinegar-bible/kw/john-bas...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baskett
If you finde him her is the formated text:
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baskett '''John Baskett'''] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks Bill.

That does sound like a intresting guy to read aboutnon geni but i havnt even got past henri v yet.

William: I believe this is the profile you are looking for but the birth and death date are incorrect. Wikipedia says 1664/5-1742.

John Baskett, of Middlesex County

Here is an article that I cross referenced with. He was married to Elizabeth and they had a daughter Mary who married Henry Tugwell.

http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/baskett/239/

Take care - there seems to be multiple John Basketts, and Dorset (the place mentioned in the cited Geni record) is quite far from London, where one assumes that the "printing Basketts" lived.

The cited article doesn't say at all how the Basketts were related.
References needed...

Harald: You are correct. Do the research. If it is the correct John Baskett and the birth and death date are incorrect then the birth place may be also or it is possible that they moved from Dorset to London or, it is possible that the "Inaugural Bible" may have simply been printed in London my Mark Baskett where he possibly lived as well. It helps to cross check as much as possible.

What's more likely is that one source talks about a John Baskett and says he was born in 1664, and another source talks about a John Baskett and says he was born in 1644. Without actually finding both sources, it is impossible to say whether or not they're referring to the same person - until we have both sources, the wise thing is to not assume that they are the same.

It is easier to merge two pepole after matches have been checked than to untangle two people after they have been merged.

Hello Harald and Pamela.

Thank you for your shared interest and assistance.

My 4x G. Grandfather, Caleb Baskett was born 1801, Pettaugh, Suffolk. His Father, Nathaniel Baskett was from Winston, Suffolk as was his Father, Samuel.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, thought I read that John Baskett started printing in Cambrdge area, geographically closer to Suffolk than Dorest, this lead me to believe due to Our "unique" last name, there could be a Family connection.
As you have discussed, it has been very difficult to find details for John Baskett's extended family to make any connection with my family.

Thanks again