Family Historian User Group

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024 16:45 ...We try to keep the rules about behaviours, not technologies. The extra detail is in the Forum Usage post in the KB.

Which I see has the full explanation now, thanks.

There seems to be a focus in this discussion on technology, rather than on behaviour. ... The text seems OK to me, Helen. Personally, I'm still not convinced that "All defamatory [etc.] ... are strictly prohibited" wouldn't cover it but it's not my board and rules. I believe that you do h...

Ah, yes, John. So I was wrong about needing to access that tab on the Control Panel - or rather, that's not the only way to access Private Messages. If PMs are enabled then I'd see the Private Messages envelope icon on my toolbar. At least, that's what happens on another PHP board that I'm on where ...

The essential principles of what to think about still hold, Mark, as does the relevance of the Control Panel to Off-Board emails. But yes, regrettably all the plumbing instructions appear to be wrong. I can imagine people switching off PMs in the Control Panel and getting upset when they still recei...

If mods can send PMs, could they then send one to a none mod and if so how would they read it? Well, that's a good question. Right at the very top, Jane said "Admins and moderators will always be able to contact you." But if I cannot access the PM tab where I can see PMs, how would I see ...

jelv wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024 22:02... I've added you as a friend - has that made a difference?

No - the contact bubble still offers only emails and I still have no visibility of the PM tab in Control Panel.

I have PMs enabled in User Control Panel, Board Preferences. Can anyone see to PM me? If I click the Contact Speech bubble for you, it only gives me the option to email you. And, as I said, I have no visibility of the (genuine) PM tab that I can see on other boards. As for "the option should b...

... The recipient receives an E-mail from FHUG forwarding the initiator’s message and reply E-mail address. If the intended recipient has messages disabled, that option is not visible, so they cannot receive any direct messages from other ordinary users. I’m not aware of any other way of doing it, ...

Bill - I'm now completely confused because I've checked on a phpBB Board where I do have PM - it's on the User Control Panel, on a tab called Private Messages between Board Preferences and UserGroups. No sign of it on FHUG...

BillH wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024 17:44 This is a bit off topic, but I was wondering if someone could explain how to do a PM on FHUG. I've looked around and can't find it. I see how to send an email, but not a PM.

Hesitant because I'm not sure myself - but is this because everyone you've looked at has PMs switched off?

... As Tamara has said, it was a baked in assumption -- Jane is going to document what had been assumed to be obvious. ... It may be because I'm a bloke but it absolutely wasn't a baked-in assumption from me. My assumption was that the facility exists and that it's therefore intended to be used. In...

Why not? Perhaps to offer private advice if a "discussion" is getting acrimonious...? It would be perfectly reasonable to do that below the radar. Indeed - with a security hat on (not that I ever went in for one much), asking, "Can I set up a confidential dialogue with you?" and...

I am sorry for the elementary nature of this question. ... Firstly I must confess that I don't use Source Templates so I may be missing the normal way of using them. But I don't think that you're asking an elementary question at all... ... I'm using the Essentials Source Template for Civil Registra...

I notice from Chris Paton's blog that Evidence Explained 4th edition is available through its publisher in an ebook format. See https://genealogical.com/store/evidence-explained-4th-edition/ It's $47.50 for the ebook as against $65.00. The ebook format is something that's available only on the Books...

... I have no idea how it [ SOURCE_CITATION inside a MULTIMEDIA_RECORD - I hope! AB] was intended to be used (we need to consult the gedcom gurus for that) ... Unless one ploughed all the way through all sorts of intermediate documents, I suspect that there's no current evidence of anyone's intenti...

... There is no value in an entry like "After 1905" - it is an assumption based on the inscription. ... Yes, on reflection I agree with that. The record of the source needs to contain only what is clear from the real-life source. Depending on your point of view and working practices, you ...

1. Monumental Inscription is what I call them. 2. Fundamentally, for me, the date is the earliest date when I think the stone was erected . But this can be unclear. Normally I would put something like "After dd/mm/yyyy" where dd/mm/yyyy is the physically first death date on the stone. So i...

So basically, so far as I can see now, after looking at Template snippet1.pdf in particular, we're just looking at a convenient, permanent , label, for a group of fields appearing on a Templated Source Record. Seems eminently sensible to me - especially if you're someone like me who likes a long ser...

... If you used the template {Principal:SURNAME}<, {Principal:GIVEN}> then using /Great Western Railway/ works fine as well as John /Smith/ . ... Yes, that might well work where just one name is involved. It requires forgetting about :REVERSE which might be thought perverse. (sorry!) ... The proble...

Gary - I'm getting further tied in knots considering how to process multiple authors. If I enter the "author" as "George Jackson Churchward and Charles Collett" then, as you will guess, the default Bibliography (with Reversed Author) appears as "Collett, George Jackson Churc...

The crux of the matter is surely that organisation names appearing in a :REVERSE "author" item get treated as if they were a human name. In other words, "Great Western Railway" gets shown (by default) as "Railway, Great Western". Which isn't the end of the world in that...

Gary_G wrote: ↑14 Mar 2024 22:25... Having said that; the same can also true for templates, if one doesn't make the field definitions too specific. That's my challenge.

That's what I (as a non-template user) was hoping. Cross fingers and hope!

Tamara - for some reason I felt compelled to have a look at the Northaw registers. You may know this already but there appears to have been a serious fire there - the 1769-1812 register is only present on FMP as a transcript because the original was so badly burned. Some of the marriages are from a ...

... I'm starting to see a disturbing trend. To cite the same type of type of collection for different countries, it's already clear that I pretty much need to create a separate template for each country. Now I'm also finding that the search parameters on each site, for a given collection, can diffe...

Gary_G wrote: ↑10 Mar 2024 19:01 Sounds like using a pull-down is not going to work. There are numerous permutations and combinations of submission content on any given date. A text field will have to be used to capture exactly what was filed on a given date.

I agree.