As of 18 August 2010, you must register to edit pages on Rodovid (except Rodovid Engine).

Talk:Main Page/Archives

From Rodovid EN

Jump to: navigation, search

See: Main Page for current discussions.

Contents

[edit] About including Gods in the Family Tree

Please Don't! I understand that legendary and mythical kings may appear in lineages... that is fine as long as we realize they were once ordinary or extraordinary men and women and there is some form of documentation to substantiate the claim. However there are many times when I find a God listed instead of the ancestor (or lineage) who properly belongs there. Athough a Gods name can give us clues where to look to find the ancestor we are searching for, putting in the ultimate creator in that spot caps off the lineage and makes us think we have reached our ultimate end point for that lineage. Such a practice is unfair to the actual living human being who should be represented in that spot. I will unlink Gods if I find them. Also...for fundamentalists among us that believe the world is only 6000 years old...get a clue! Some DFA lineages go back to 3000 and 4000 bc. Please don't put God in there if he doesnt belong (I don't care what you call him/her) or else bewilling to accept the notion that God wasn't actually a god but an ordinary being who may or may not be correctly identified and may end up being deleted. If we want to document Pantheons let's have Baya create a separate database to hold that data and not mix it in with our family trees. Almoustine 21:32, 19 May 2008 (EEST)

You should move this discussion to the main page´s discussion or to the help page, because it's a very important topic to resolve in the Rodovid´s community. regards--R0MAN0 21:47, 19 May 2008 (EEST)

Thanks Romano - I will Almoustine 21:49, 19 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Security Model?

What about a security model for living persons? Some people would not want birthdate, birthplace, etc. disclosed. Perhaps a clan-password? This site looks great for sharing and collaborating on family trees and family history, but a security model is lacking. For example: [1]

  • Currently Rodovid uses wiki software. Main feature of wiki is a open free joint work for one goal. There are exists discussion about privacy policy. But,
  1. Who will defined peoples from same clan?
  2. Why anybody can't say that he is from your clan?
  3. and MAIN thing. What information can be found by deliberate criminal at Rodovid and can't be found in any other places?
  1. Other side, if you want hide you roots, you must create your tree under bed at night into black box :) But not on the internet, and even using computer that have access to the internet.

--Baya 12:05, 2 October 2006 (EEST)

[edit] Hello

Hello, I am going to try to improve the Help here so as to make it easier to use the website and to be more helpful. This could be a fairly successful website, but it is sort of small and hard to use. It is also a little unclear about what it is all about.

Please! someone add more comments, make this into an actual talk page..

  • Yes, your right it is small at the moment. Its great that you want to join in and improving the help will be most apreciated.--Bjwebb 16:50, 3 March 2006 (EET)
  • I have a few suggestions on my talk page --Mayhew18 4:16 29 May 2006 (EST)

[edit] Merging Debate

You can read discussion about merging WikiTree, WeRelate & Rodovid here --Baya 12:35, 3 July 2007 (EEST)

[edit] birth and date mark

I didn't know where to ask about this... well, by the date of the death there is a cross. well, what about jewish and islamic people? Ek7 01:21, 8 July 2006 (EEST)

When project will be started on arabic there could be a different symbol because of major religion.--71.111.55.24 22:37, 24 August 2006 (EEST)
  • currently birth and death dates marked by leeters b. and d. corespondanly. These marks can be set in every localisation by localisation community into system messages MediaWiki:Rd_birthdatemark and MediaWiki:Rd_deathdatemark by any localisation sysop. --Baya 12:13, 2 October 2006 (EEST)

[edit] private option

Is there any possibility of adding another option to birthdate to the others (at about, estimated) with the option of "Private"? I know for those that are currently alive, there is the danger of identity theft, and so that would be a welcomed option. --Hipsterdoofus 23:27, 4 January 2007 (EET)

There are exists global discussion for this topic --Baya 17:45, 5 January 2007 (EET)

[edit] Windsor

Hi,

I am surprised that the tree of the Windsor is not available here. I would like to link it with the tree of the French kings. Yann 01:38, 29 July 2006 (EEST)

You can help start it!--Hailey C. Shannon 03:10, 29 July 2006 (EEST)

Well, since all data is already in the database on engine.rodovid.org, there is no point to do it by hand again. Yann 16:58, 29 July 2006 (EEST)
This data I import as example from royal.ged file. I can not guarantee clearing of this file. --Baya 21:44, 29 July 2006 (EEST)
I am not sure I understood what you mean. Do you mean that you can't guarantee that the data is exact? That doesn't seem a problem, as it's much easier and faster to verify the data once it's imported than to copy it manually. Yann 00:47, 30 July 2006 (EEST)

William Arthur Philip Louis Mountbatten-Windsor (Mountbatten-Windsor, b. 21 June 1982) --Baya 21:30, 1 August 2006 (EEST)

This brings up an interesting question: how to merge/link two trees ? If one can enter the Windsor tree as a GEDCOM file, how do you connect it to a tree already on the site such as that of the French kings that already has many of the same names? This is likely to be an important feature as the site grows and people discover that one of their ancestors is featured and they want to add their own tree and connect it. If this issue can be resolved (or if there already is a way to do this), a good way to grow the site would be to contact people with personal sites (or even from commercial sites) whose trees overlap with yours (or with any Rodovid tree) and ask them to upload their file and link it. Any thoughts ?

  • Important thing is "to NOT add person that already in database", during gedcom import similar search procedure occur and user can assign gedcom record to existing record instead adding similar to db. Full tree of Elizabet merged from 9 or more trees. Also at any moment any user can add parent or children to any person at any tree. You can see here many europian houses --Baya 18:53, 18 January 2007 (EET)

[edit] Vanderbilt clan

I just finished the essentials on a tree of the Vanderbilt clan, from Cornelius the First right down to TV's Anderson Cooper, if I missed anymone feel free to add.--Hailey C. Shannon 01:51, 6 September 2006 (EEST)

[edit] XML Export Functionality

Is there any kind of interface to access clan-data on rodovid? if not, this should be an important to-do, because without, information on clans collected on rodvoid is useless for other applications. IMHO to guarantee lasting success of rodovid.org, an open design model is necessary. Best would be an interface to query&edit the trees based on web-service standards. This allows others to develop applications for advanced visualisation, search-improvement or even automatic data integration (only GEDCOM-support is not enough). Dobinator 16:30, 24 November 2006 (EET)

  • I work for possibility for registered users access to raw data (pure xml) --Baya 18:00, 24 November 2006 (EET)

Any further word on this functionality? As much as I hope Rodovid continues to take off and is around for a long time, after entering hours of information, it would be nice to be able to export it to save it in case something were to happen! --Hipsterdoofus 06:46, 4 January 2007 (EET)

  • I hope that I finish new edit possibilities at the end of this January. Registered users can select edit way from genealogical form, pure xml and pure gedcom. --Baya 17:49, 5 January 2007 (EET)

[edit] Growing the Tree

This site needs to reach a critical size to really get going, i.e. to be perceived as a viable resource for searching ancestry in competition with commercial databases. Here is an idea: looking for personal homepages of people displaying their own family tree and e-mailing the owners of those pages asking them if they are interested in uploading their page on Rodovid, or in providing a Gedcom file to be uploaded. There are sites out there with tens of thousands of names and these sites were put up by people who want to have their trees available on-line. If 100 of us each contact 10 sites that each have 10000 names, with a 10% response there could be a million people uploaded relatively quickly. A good place to start would be the list of personal sites on Cyndi's list: http://www.cyndislist.com/personal.htm. Any interest ? CTfrog 20:20, 18 January 2007 (EET)

Frequent visitors to Rodovid have noticed that it is now changing for better at a stable speed. New design is being prepared, help messages are being improved, the family tree engine is soon to get some really cool functionality. However, this website is still in beta. That is the immediate goal is not to get as many records as possible but to improve the functionality of the website first. --Stanley 21:21, 18 January 2007 (EET)
  • In any case you can help a project, if you contact to site owners --Baya 21:36, 18 January 2007 (EET)

[edit] New Engine

[edit] LDS Sealed to Spouse Regression

The SLGS attribute should be attached to a family unit in the same way a marriage is. This had been fixed in the previous engine. The attribute is basically a church marriage. Please remove SLGS from the individual event attributes and add it to the family event attributes. I'm not too worried about you fixing the data in the database. If you just fix it in the engine, I will clean up my data by deleting individual SLGS events and adding them to families. You can read more about this issue on my talk page. --Alexeagar 04:43, 24 June 2007 (EEST)

  • Moved --Baya 22:48, 25 June 2007 (EEST)

[edit] Rollback and Undelete disabled

Sysops should be aware that bugs in rollback and undelete [2] (Bugzilla account required) have caused problems and so both are disabled until the bugs can be fixed.Wikiacc (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2007 (EEST)

[edit] GEDCom uploader

What happened to the GEDCOM uploader?--Hailey C. Shannon 04:18, 29 June 2007 (EEST)

[edit] Rootsweb.com - Mailing list - English only

I created the above mailing list on Rootsweb for the discussion of wiki genealogy pages and the value of wiki genealogy pages. I invite the administrator of this site to join and any other interested parties.

To subscribe follow the links below:

WIKI-GENPAGES-L, send mail to WIKI-GENPAGES-L-request@rootsweb.com with the single word subscribe in the message subject and body. To join WIKI-GENPAGES-D, do the same thing with WIKI-GENPAGES-D-request@rootsweb.com.

Best Regards, --Sidetracked Researcher 04:11, 3 July 2007 (EEST)

[edit] Delete

Hello, could you please delete all the pages I have created? I have privacy issues. Thank you. Andrevan 12:14, 26 July 2007 (EEST)

You can delete records that you added yourself. If a record was in the meantime edited by someone else as well, add that record to the Category:Items to delete. Just insert the [[Category:Items to delete]] in the Notes section. --Stanley 12:23, 26 July 2007 (EEST)

[edit] Clan Name/Surname Issues

I have an issue with the way that some lineages are being combined. Rather than take the time to designate correct clan/tribal names with surnames or heraldic designations, we are rolling a wide range of disparate lineages up into a combined lineage under a country designation.

The problem is that the overarching bundling of all these disparate surnames are masking some very important lineage inheritance patterns that are worth preserving for Genealogical reasons and for Historical reasons as well.

For example both Plantagenet and Norman are being rolled in with Saxon and Scot under the designation England. This is grossly inaccurate and causing huge lists of names that are increasingly difficult to search. The harder the search the more lazy people become. They give up quicker and create or leave a duplicate individual rather than link the lineage properly. Not to mention that for example to Plantagenet stems from an entirely different ethnic stem than the Normans, Scots and Saxons. The lineages of the wives are masked by the association with their husband's lineage or worse with the lineage designation of "England". This is entirely incorrect as it does not allow for differentiation between the subgroups that comprise the English nation at the time and give a false impression that England consists of a single overarching family that is horribly inbred.

I vote we shed the tendency to roll things up into a nationalist schema as it leads to the same crazy genealogical mishmash that exists on other known genealogy sites and is really nothing more than a quick fix. It is better for all that if a lineage (Tribal Clan or Herald) cannot be determined with a fair degree of accuracy it should be listed as "Unknown" in order to allow someone who can identify the lineage to make the designation.

Almoustine 06:38, 12 February 2008 (EET)

This was inherited from the scheme used in many of the GEDCOM files imported into the site; it's not a policy at all, and I don't think that anybody actually advocates it. If you'd like to help out correcting this problem, please do so. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (EEST)

I am currently working on getting my mother's lineage into the tree which will address some of these issues as she is part of the English Royalty tree. After that I hope to relax and perhaps add to the Help files by creating a look up chart that shows the clan names across the various languages so that we can have a look up reference guide for "surnames and clan designations" and perhaps get some standardization going. Almoustine 17:30, 25 May 2008 (EEST)

[edit] Preexisting French King Records overwritten by Newer Portuguese variants?

I have a problem with generations and generations on the Frankish kings having dissappeared and ID number in the 50000 range being overwritten by newer records from the Italian and Portuguese Database. Why was this done? (We have lost generations of valuable relationships which are now obscured by these newer records). Almoustine 01:55, 9 June 2008 (EEST)

Could you please cite some records?

OK so yesterday I did a whole lot of sleuthing to find out what happened and why I could not find the records that I had input or updated prior with Engish names...the records were still there but no longer linked in to the English database. I had to pull in the English records again from other databases by linking them to known persons. It looks like users have been unaware of how to mark records for duplication handling and have just been rebuilding the lineage based on their assessment of what is the most correct. Unfortunately, as you pointed out to me earlier. We need to synchronize the records, mark the NEWEST one as a duplicate, THEN allow the duplicates to remain in the tree until they can be removed.

I pulled in some records again by importing all the various records for [[Person:31836], Bisinus ? (of Thuringia, de Bassinga, Bassinga) (Thuringia, b. about 440 d. about 510), and Théodebert 1 d'Austrasie (Merovingian, b. between 495 and 500 d. between 547 and 548). By checking the following person [[Person:105825] You will be able to see a tree with some badly needed duplication removal efforts. My preference is that I mark and you remove...Is that OK? Almoustine 18:23, 9 June 2008 (EEST)

[edit] update on export functionality

Is there a plan for making it possible to look at a specific subtree, perhaps give that view a name, and export it or watch all of its pages at once/ Sj 07:26, 10 October 2009 (EEST)

[edit] Project DFA infiltration

Hi everybody.

We are very surprised, in France, Brazil and Netherlands to see that english part of Rodovid is infiltrated by Project DFA inc. a US based Non Profit Corporation . Is there any active admin here except Project DFA members?

The activities of Project DFA is discrediting entire Rodovid's database, with complete non-senses:

  • Creating family links between mythological and historical persons
  • Merging persons from different mythologies
  • Linking different family trees without any sources
  • Trying to create a Project DFA certified label to ensure their fairy tales.
  • Modifying english templates, i.e. a mythological person may be real or not instead of is not a real person, though this template is clear in any other localization of rodovid.

Well, what is this mess?

Rodovid needs to become perennial, and we can't make it, because it is full of these jokes. We would be happy to have an admin's answer about this deep and real problem.

Sincerly yours --Christophe Tesson 03:11, 14 March 2010 (EET)

Infiltration requires action to be taken by registered or non-registered users. If it really takes place, such users should be named in a list and discussion should follow about their activity in Rodovid to take necessary action to counteract it. --Stanley 11:34, 14 March 2010 (EET)

Thanks for your answer Stanley.
It really takes place:
Creating family links between mythological and historical persons :
Merging persons from different mythologies
Linking different family trees without any sources:
  • See this modification : [3]
Trying to create a Project DFA certified label
  • See these templates:
Modifying english templates:
  • See this template: Template:Mythological. I had to modify it, because this is an enormous confusion. See history of this template to understand. Former versions were saying This is a mythological character, it is not a real person just like other localizations. Project DFA version says: This is a Legendary/Mythological person. A legendary mythological person may or may not be real person. Which is quite different!
I forgot some other actions:
Creating genealogical non-senses
  • See this modification [4] a child with 7 parents etc.
  • Reverting any modification to the description of [[en:Project DFA|project DFA page,] (deleted) and then cutting this page to paste it in engine. etc.
  • Erasing discussion pages
I wonder if we are on Rodovid, or on Project DFA inc. site. Why should any corporation (even a non profit corporation) have the right to modify Rodovid's unique database?
We have to write a common decision about these Mythological things. Once more time I agree with the fact that fairy tales can be written in Rodovid, but they have to be written and signaled as fairy tales. Not with a pseudo scientific discourse, and clearly separated from documented historical database. I wrote it there in a discussion with Project DFA member
It will be difficult, because Rodovid is not Wikipedia, we don't have 17 different versions of a text, we have 17 presentations of a unique database, so it means we'll have to decide complex things in a very basic english.
What is your opinion about that? --Christophe Tesson 13:19, 14 March 2010 (EET)


[edit] DFA project ideological drift

Hi everybody.

DFA project member has significantly modified main page of english version of Rodovid. See:

Are we in DFA project inc. site? --Christophe Tesson 13:58, 20 March 2010 (EET)

Cette intervention est une grave atteinte à l'indépendance de Rodovid et n'est pas digne d'un sysop! Certain enregistrements hasardeux réalisés par des membres du DFA project ne peuvent être assimilés à un travail généalogiste sérieux! Qu'on se le dise! OldLion 20:26, 20 March 2010 (EET)

[edit] Almoustine's Remarks

I am truly dismayed to see the lack of cooperation being demonstrated by the French Admins under the direction of Christophe Tesson. It is really sad too and really discouraging to anyone who wants to contribute their family information to Rodovid. American users who are attempting to research their lineages find Rodovid and the interactive connection it provides to discover their roots in England, France, Germany, and elsewhere. It seems that the French Admins believe that they are the only ones authorized by *God to create templates, Categories, and edit the front pages of the various linquistic versions of Rodovid (including English). They spend all of their time trying to discover incidences of what they presume to be sabotage by certain users instead of helping to collaborate in a meaningful way and whine about relationships between people that they personally do not like. This is discouraging to users who want to use Rodovid to reach out and collaborate. For instance.

This tree was contributed by my aunt who is a well known researcher with over 50 years of active genealogical experience and who built their research off of public and private records kept by the family for over 200 years. If you have a concern about any individual in this tree then please, post it in the discussion page for that individual. Make a meaningful contribution instead of whining about how this individual lineage is in violation of your definition of what is or is not historically accurate.Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)
Merging persons from different mythologies
Christopher... may I call you Christoper instead of Christophe (Christopher is after all the English version of your name, and this is a page meant to be read by English speakers)... Greeks, Egyptians, Persians and Hebrews all lived in the same small region of the World and intermarried and actively traded with each other for over 6000 years. It stands to reason that the king of Egypt would keep a record of his partner the king of Persia and vice versa. Also, since there is a common origin (proven by DNA) it makes sense that some of the Gods, Heros, and Events would be the same as well. Since the languages differ and the old stories have been retold in various dialects it makes sense that the names of individuals would differ a bit although the stories about them do not change quite as much. That is a phenomenon that still occurs in modern times. Henrik van Angland is still Henry Plantagenet is still Henri de Anglaterra regardless of the linquistic variation of the name. Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)
I issue no retraction for this record. The research stands on its own merit. Seken-Ka was a historical person whose name is linked to the title Osirus in the mythology of a people who worshiped their kings as gods for over 6000 years. If you think this is a mythological individual then mark it such in the FRENCH database, and leave the English one alone, or else allow the author to mark their notes and let user's decide. Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)
Linking different family trees without any sources:
  • See this modification : [5]
This was a case of mistaken identity. The term Montanard was interpreted by a non French speaking researcher as being equivalent to Montagne and did not realize that Montanard was a political party in France prior to the revolution. Instead of mocking the contributor, the French admin might have used their time wisely to help clarify the term and help by either giving a kind explanation and pointing the person in the right direction or by linking the individual to the correct lineage. I, Almoustine, corrected the mistake when it was pointed out and resent the old version being drug up as an lame example of supposed incompetence.Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)
  • See this modification [6] a child with 7 parents etc.
This is a person being actively researched who has been shown to be the child of different persons according to different genealogies. I am personally working on this to see if I can identify which set of parents the child belongs to. It may or may not be the ones you think they are so all potential parents are reflected in the tree.Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)

In light of the list below presented by the French Admins... I am attempting to clarify the differences between persons who have been actively researched and found to be real historical people, and those people who are truly mythological having been pulled out of a single reference source such as a religious reference, oral transmission, or semi-literary saga. I tried doing it nicely but they forced my hand by threatening to delete many of the records that have been painstakingly researched over the course of the past 5 years.

What I recommend as a means to resolve this is for the French Admins to stick to working with their own language version and stop complaining about what is occurring in the English version. If you believe a person is not linked correctly then lets discuss it. Try a bit of cooperation instead of complaining, and when it real doubt and you cannot accept what is a documented link because you personally find it offensive then create your own version and link to it accordingly, or simply disconnect yourself from the tree and go find a different place to store your version of the truth.

You asked about Project DFA and I explained it then you complained because I explained it. Project DFA is simply a research certification company. That is all. They examine records and evaluate whether or not a person actually existed or if they are a purely fictional entity. In Rodovid there are persons who are of interest (meaning they are being actively researched) and then there are persons who on close examination prove to be real and have a place in our common origin. There are not many of those but as more people begin to gain interest there will be more that end up certified. It is not any different than any other resource (such as LDS Genealogical records, or Wikipedia) that might be used by historians and genealogists in researching the links between people. Project DFA endorses Rodovid because Rodovid has the most accurate indexing system of any online genealogical data repository. That is all. Almoustine 22:32, 20 March 2010 (EET)

Trying to create a Project DFA certified label
  • See these templates:
Modifying english templates:
  • See this template: Template:Mythological. I had to modify it, because this is an enormous confusion. See history of this template to understand. Former versions were saying This is a mythological character, it is not a real person just like other localizations. Project DFA version says: This is a Legendary/Mythological person. A legendary mythological person may or may not be real person. Which is quite different!

[edit] But

It is not for users to prove that information is false or questionable but the bearer to bring indisputable evidence for the specification of sources who served in his establishment. Any doubt must be raised. If Project DFA endorses Rodovid, Rodovid can not endorses DFA's project. OldLion 23:40, 20 March 2010 (EET)

[edit] Another trick?

The first page about Project DFA is this one:

  • [[:en:Project DFA] (deleted)

This page was cut from here and pasted in engine (where there are only a few readers) with its discussion page.

The new page in Rodovid.en is this one:

  • [[:en:Descent From Antiquity] (deleted)

and the discussion page is almost empty. --Christophe Tesson 12:21, 21 March 2010 (EET)

    • I am just trying to keep up with you and make the discussion between admins not broadcast to visitors. I could not keep track of all the changes and redirections that you were starting to make so I created a new info page. You are free to merge all of the discussions into one discussion page since you seem to have a lot of extra time to worry about such things and I am already busy with a boat load of research projects and have no extra time to worry about your arguements. I only ask that you quit editing and redirecting the links to information that appear on the English main page and in the DFA source templates. Almoustine 16:23, 21 March 2010 (EET)

[edit] Idea for a project

I have an idea for a project to make the site more fun, a function in which the user can type the names of two people and it shows how close they are related.

[edit] Fictional characters

Gods and figures like from the Bible are okay, but I don't think characters from the Donald Duck comics or Harry Potter books should be listed here, anyone agree?--Hailey C. Shannon 21:20, 27 May 2010 (EEST)

Hailey, I totally agree! I am even moving blatant mythological persons to the engine whenever I can. Almoustine 00:08, 28 May 2010 (EEST)

I think they can be, BUT can't be connected with any real tree and must be marked that they're fictional. --Igor 21:51, 11 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] First proposal for rules

I began to propose rules on this page:

Let's work on it! --Christophe Tesson - talk. 16:03, 19 June 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Contacting contributors

Is it possible to contact contributors? I have found some distant relatives in this database and would love to contact the contributor!

Regards,

Chris

Hi Chris, you can contact contributors in the following manner. Look at the history tab of the individual in the database who is your ancestor and see who was the last person to edit that record. Click on the name of the person who performed the edit in order to access that contributor's page. You may then leave a message for the contributor who will see your message the next time that they log in. Hopefully they will respond to you. You may also contact the administrators of Rodovid about the individual in whom you are interested or in order to enquire about a particular contributor. The admins may not have an immediate answer but will know where to go and who to ask in order to get the information you need.

Cheers, Almoustine 08:04, 4 September 2011 (EEST)


Thanks so much! That worked, now I hope I hear from him. :)

Regards, Chris

[edit] test.rodovid

Because of recent massive spam attacks in Rodovid Engine, anonymous contributions will not be allowed anymore there.

To allow visitors to test rodovid, Baya have build: test.rodovid. It works like any other localization except one thing: test.database will be erased every week.

At this time, this is just a copy of engine. But english speaking admins should make a link on front page to this localisation, tu use it as a "sand box".

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:17, 21 January 2012 (EET)

[edit] Creation of new users disabled?

It seems that creation of new users has been disabled. Only the form for logging in is displayed. From other Mediawiki sites I figured out that by adding type=signup to the address, one gets to the page where one is supposed to be able to create a new user. It tells that creation of new users has been disabled. A week ago I also noticed an error about a damaged database table, when adding a new person. The person is though added. From the Recent changes page, it seems that people is still using the site, but do these things means, that the project is on halt or maybe about to close?

Mortenoesterlundjoergensen 17:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. excuse my english
  2. Yes: creation of new users has been disabled. Because of to much spam-bots. Registered users can create new accounts and give login to new users.
  3. Yes: Rodovid has lots of technical problems nowadays. "searchindex table is crashed". Rodovid developper is working on that problem.
  4. No, Rodovid is not about to close.
  5. Be patient, please ! An don't give up. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 13:43, 14 October 2012 (EEST)
Yeah, I was thinking that perhaps registered users could create new accounts and give them to friends and family, but still I just get a message saying that I am not allowed to create new users or that I don't have the appropriate permissions. My account is from about 2006. Could that be the problem?
Good to hear that people are working on the database problems and that the project is still active. I really fear that more people just migrate to similar closed commercial projects.
--Mortenoesterlundjoergensen 11:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to create as many users you want. Anyway, I send you a "test" user's login and password by mail. Try with these ones. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 18:02, 14 October 2012 (EEST)

[edit] Nominate Rodovid for the best genealogy site

Nominate your favorite website "Rodovid" for putting your family tree online. Then visit the 2013 About.com Genealogy Readers' Choice Awards page to nominate the best genealogy sites and tools in a variety of other categories

http://genealogy.about.com/u/ntn/family_tree_software/best-family-tree-publishing-tool-2013/form.htm?r=facebook until midnight (EST) on February 17, 2013 OldLion 21:17, 12 February 2013 (EET)

[edit] Merging with other language versions

I'm a bit aggravated, because I've been doing a lot of work on a tree for the Gerogian royal family, but, apparently, its non-English version was lifted directly from the Georgian and Russian version of Rodovid but never transcribed or translated, so there was no way for me to know that this had been done, and now somebody from the Russian tree, who doesn't even speak English, has nominated them for deletion. We have got to stop people from lifting whole trees into the English version unless they are willing to translate every entry one by one or we will end up with a cluttered tree that no one can read!

EvansKnight 21:56, 27 August 2013 (EEST)

[edit] New accounts

Hello!
It seems that no new user account has been created on Rodovid (in most linguistic versions) since July 2012, and the page to register is inaccessible (the two situations are probably linked with each other). Nor can people contact an admin because it's impossible if they are not registered.
On the French Rodovid, admins have solved the problem : they have created a mailbox — rodovid.fr@gmail.com — where potential members can file a demand (just indicating the user name they want plus a temporary password) and an account will be created for them in all languages.
Maybe the same could be done on the other versions of Rodovid, because people have probably been blocked from participating in recent months. Dn Gov 02:00, 3 September 2013 (EEST)

[edit] Help needed

Hello, is there anybody in there ?

Could you please help us by translating this template :

in a correct english ? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:01, 26 March 2015 (EET)

[edit] Harry Potter

This généalogy seems coming from the Harry Potter saga [7] there are still copyright on this book ?. BR --CharlesF 00:06, 14 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Unlock

These persons are locked without real reason, please unlock them;

BR --CharlesF 01:35, 14 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] R.I.P. Rodovid.EN?

Tired of trolls and fakes in Rodovid? Help us!
Tired of trolls and fakes in Rodovid? Help us!

Since an english-speaking sysop is trolling Rodovid.EN, we can think that Rodovid.EN is dead.

And because Rodovid.EN is dead, we can think that whole Rodovid is not in a good health.

Please read this page about this sysop's spamming, complete this page, and do what you think is normal…

If you think that Rodovid is a good idea, please help. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 15:46, 19 July 2015 (EEST)

Retrieved from "https://en.rodovid.org/wk/Talk:Main_Page/Archives"
Personal tools