• Join - It's Free

Please come and vote on the DV nos in The Suffix to be corrected/removed

Started by Sharon Doubell on Friday, July 18, 2014
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Showing all 13 posts

Please come and vote on the following in this Discussion:

http://www.geni.com/discussions/132812?msg=954617&page=2

IN THE CASE OF De Villiers Pama Nos presently in the Suffix Field THAT CONTRADICT THE ACTUAL PROFILE POSITION ON THE TREE*
SHOULD WE:

1) Keep the FACTUALLY INCORRECT GISA DV NUMBERS IN THE SUFFIX FIELD?
(Ignoring the mis-merges this will create because it contradicts the Geni tree)

2) Remove the factually incorrect DV numbers to the aka/About, and PUT FACTUALLY CORRECTED DV NUMBERS IN THE SUFFIX FIELD, & lock the name/suffix field?
(Ignoring the fact that GISA hasn't got the resources to update them yet)

3) LEAVE THE DV NUMBERS OUT OF THE SUFFIX ALTOGETHER & PUT THEM IN THE AKA ONLY (& lock the Suffix Field to prevent them being added there.)

*(eg the DNA corrected BIOLOGICAL FATHER of Theunis Botha/Appel http://www.geni.com/discussions/127041?msg=954609 or THE CORRECTED SIBLING RANK ORDER of newly 'discovered' Stam Vader kids from slaves born in between their kids from White wives )
Voting closes Monday

Thanks
Love the cuzzins

Also refer to discussion http://www.geni.com/discussions/127041 - the two are over lapping

Number two. Lovers of the truth we are here on Geni :-)
I would prefer to see the factually corrected DV numbers in a locked Suffix field with an explanation in the About block. Especially in the first three to four generations, that would be great.
If we get the 'roots' correct, the rest can follow. But if the roots are numbered incorrectly, everything else is incorrect.
Thanks to everybody who is collaborating
Greetings
Chris

Rita Jessica COOPER (BROWNE) I am happy with option three. However, I know many people use these, so next option would be numbe two.
Agree, lets get the roots correct.

Regards.

Rita

Lol Private User lover of the truth :-) I identify :-)
Thanks Rita

Dankie Chris. EK stem. Of reg of verkeerd, slegs indien onweerlegbarebare navorsing en bronne anders kan beys soss ons dit rky. Gesluit in die suffix blok VOLLEDIG.
J

Option 2 preferably.
Thanks Nico

Option 2 seems to be the best. Attela

None of the above. For DV to have any value the full nr and where published need to be quoted in about field. DV was not developed for a live system like Geni.

Okay, Peter - so you are choosing 3. (Not to show the DV Number at all in the Suffix field.)

WHAT TO DO WHEN the tree is different from the DV numbers in the Suffix Field, and we know the tree is correct.
Should we:

1) leave them = 0

2) update them = 13
Lea, Judi, Jan, Jansi, Daan, Ted, Dries, Chris, Nicolaas, Alistair M, Pieter, Nico, Attela

3) remove them to the aka = 6
Don, Sharon, Anthony, Johann, Rita, Peter

Have I left anyone out so far?
Please vote before end of Monday.

Mine 2

Final vote
WHAT TO DO WHEN the tree is different from the DV numbers in the Suffix Field, and we know the tree is correct.
Should we:

1) leave them = 0

2) update them = 14
Lea, Judi, Jan, Jansi, Daan, Ted, Dries, Chris, Nicolaas, Alistair M, Pieter, Nico, Attela, June

3) remove them to the aka = 7
Don, Sharon, Anthony, Johann, Rita, Peter, Pam

Yell if I've left you out.

I'd say the result is that GENi users want us to update the DVNumbers in the Suffix where they are not in line with the facts on the GENi tree, without waiting for GISA to publish and sell their new lists.

Showing all 13 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion