Please do NOT merge unsourced duplicates into the MEDIEVAL tree

Started by Sharon Doubell on Friday, July 29, 2016
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 7411-7440 of 7672 posts

Henn's merge into Dagobert was on an already RLed profile, so would not have created hours of work. That is precisely the function of the Relationship Lock.

https://www.geni.com/merge/view?revision_id=85866185890

it was originally the same snippet of 40 generations..
the excerpt comes from l'UNDO of
https://www.geni.com/merge/view?revision_id=85866378830 (merged 20 minutes after)

there were merge requests for scattered throughout the Middle Ages for 800 years,
You're right! not hours!! not even days, certainly not weeks or months,
they would remain unfinished merge conflicts for years.. without the timely intervention of @ Erica

Go Erica !
Thanks for all the work you do here, Livio. It is very valuable.

Thanks for the work that all of you do here! I just stand back in awe and wonder at this discussion thread. I wish I knew more to contribute, but sometimes the best you can do is just report something seems wrong and let you experts take over. I'll go back to South Carolina now, but again, thanks.

hi, user Private User
No sorry you can't duplicate the whole Middle Ages in Polish and then merge it, polishing it all.

PLZ Erica Howton need "a pair" of UNDO

-https://www.geni.com/merge/view?revision_id=85870475120
-https://www.geni.com/merge/view?revision_id=85870475600

From my merge center (June 21, 2024):
https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000000796878913&src=profile&cmp=btn (Matilda Egerton) the other side has all inactive managers.

This profile: Sir William Lovelace, of Lovelace Place

appears to be an erroneous, unsourced dupe of Sir William Lovelace, of Woolwich

Private User - fixed the Lovelaces.

There may be more issues with the tree, it’s been a while since I, at least, looked at it. So spin off discussion at https://www.geni.com/discussions/280469?msg=1707687

Duplicates: Geoffrey Todd
and
Geoffrey Todd

From my merge center (June 22):
https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000003649650035&src=profile&cmp=btn (John de Domville, Lord of Brinstage and Oxton) The other side added today. The new profile adds a son with a stick-and-spouse tree.

The next possible tree match is https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000206706412842&src=profile&cmp=btn (Thomas John Millington (old) vs Thomas John Millington (new))

I will merge, there’s new profiles for the family of Margaret Riley

Raoul Tourte still has multiple fathers to resolve if anyone knows how

new tree from yesterday. It seems to go back to the 1100s with just single names from here. ancester comparison
https://www.geni.com/list/ancestors/6000000000629616788?compare_id=...

side by side
https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000000629616788?return=match...

same stub branch as above. It seems to start here and goes back mostly with names without dates and adding a person or two along the way.

Lady Anne Lusher

I found a different duplicate (one from 2010) nearby. The names match, but the data start getting out of sync going backwards on some.

https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000003086732375 .

It says that the 2010 profiles don't have a path, but then it doesn't say they are isolated. Have they just been sitting about in near 1300 for 14 years waiting for a ride?

Ralph Copley

https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000003468251024&src=profile&cmp=btn (Sir James Dent, Kt.) The other side added in 2023 with siblings that are not on the master profile.

Unfortunately, https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000206847077826&src=profile&cmp=btn was completed by the user who created the match. However, his wife and some of the children have duplicates.

I will NOT deal with any of the duplicates.

In looking at the family of Richard Wrottesley, Esq. I found where the family continued toward the current time - Eleanor Long (posted in 2010) vs Eleanor Long (MP).

It starts at the top here, and everything below the 7th generation is a "different tree":

https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000006444239948?to=600000020...

Sir Thomas Griffin, Knight
Sir Thomas Allen Griffin

Elizabeth Griffin
Elizabeth Latimer
_____________________________________________

1. Sir Thomas Allen Griffin b. 1330; d. 1360
└ +Elizabeth Latimer b. 1335; d. 1417
2. Richard Griffin b. 1360; d. 1411
└ +Unknown
3. Nicholas Griffin b. 1390; d. 1436
└ +Unknown
4. Nicholas Griffin b. 1426; d. 1482
└ +Unknown
5. John Richard Griffin b. 1450; d. 1485
└ +Unknown
6. Nicholas Griffin b. 1476; d. 1509
└ +Unknown
7. Edward Griffin b. 1507; d. 1569

I would assume the duplicate Edwards should / could be merged (if proven), but all duplicates above that should be isolated and deleted.

Edward Griffin

Edward Griffin

Private User - I've traced down the new tree from Nicholas Griffin (duplicate of Nicholas Griffin, Sr., of East Carlton) down to the user. The cutpoint is William Lamson Griffin, Sr. (added 2016) vs William Lamson Griffin, Sr (added June 28, 2024).
I have messaged the user about the creation of the duplicates. He is relatively new to Geni (March 2022) and only has his father's tree (stick only) loaded.

Thank you, Emily!

From my merge center (June 29, 2024):
https://www.geni.com/search/matches?id=6000000004085143589&src=profile&cmp=btn (Alice Hunt vs Alice Hall) This is not my bailiwick so I'm not touching it.

hoi hoi this can do damage:

DUP Tiemuzhen 鐵木真

MP Genghis Khan of the Mongol Empire

and I don't want to go back there >.<
Duplication: -https://www.geni.com/list/descendants/6000000074791637994#5

Showing 7411-7440 of 7672 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion