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

User talk:Almoustine

From Rodovid EN

Jump to: navigation, search

On this Rodovid discussion page, of the English language location, you can send messages to

Almoustine

  • Please put your signature under your message Image:sign.png
    or type:~~~~.


Contents

[edit] Challenges in Record Dating

There are several different date sets available for some kings. This difference is due to the use of different methods for calculating a year in the ancient world. Just as there is an Islamic Calendar that is in active use today alongside Julian and Gregorian calendars. The ancient poeples of the Old and New worlds had there varying methods of calculating a year. The book of Enoch shows that the ancient Thinite and Aryan peoples calculated their years as 6 months with alternate years of light and dark. This is harmonious with the Parthian Greeks who according to the Elusian mysteries calculated a year as a half year of dark followed by a half year of light. Thus while a king may be said to be 250 years old by Aryan tradition, according to the Greeks he would have been 125.

I will post more about ancient calendar systems here as I can.

[edit] James Avery

I was following back my Avery relatives, and when I got to my 9x-great-grandfather James, I saw that, with your contribution, he was already in the system, to my suprise. If you are Living Magee (Magee, ?), then I guess that makes us 10th cousins! And just to let you know, I was able to go a couple generations further to his grandfather, Christopher Avery (Avere) (Avery, b. 1550 d. 1613). crabGoblin 22:05, 14 April 2010 (EEST)

That is amazing and totally awesome! and yes... so hello cousin! I welcome you to continue contributing. It will be fun to discover our mutual roots together! Almoustine 00:49, 15 April 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Sir Richard de Hoghton

This is incredible! It seems like we are also 23rd cousins, through Sir Richard de Hoghton, MP (Hoghton, d. 1340)! So that makes us related from two different directions or something, since the Averys were on my mother's side (Avery->Davenport->Miller->Harris), while the Hoghton's were on my father's side (Hoghton->Southworth->Southard). This is quite interesting. crabGoblin 06:24, 18 April 2010 (EEST)

Oh just you wait. There are about 13 lines all within 16 generations that haven't been input yet. At some point, you will end up feeling like your own grandparent. :) I noticed that your lines include Jansoon the Pirate. That is awesome. If you do some searching through the Rodovid database you will find some incredible records of privateers from that era and the links to current families. I have been trying to post articles to the Secret History X blog with links to persons in the Rodovid Database. This is my way of advertising the existence of the Rodovid Database. I would like to include some articles about Jansoon and some of the connections you find. Contact me via secrethistoryx.com if you are interested in contributing. Almoustine 16:54, 18 April 2010 (EEST)

I haven't done any actual research at this point (I don't really have time to, given my other responsibilities), so all the connections I have found so far are mainly entries from the Rootsweb resources, and any other writings that I have found online about my ancestors. I just found this 1905 book on some of the Southworth/Southard family in the public domain on Google Books, though it doesn't seem to cover my branch of Southards, from the Thomas that came to New Netherland and married the granddaughter of the aforementioned Barbary pirate. From what I've read, Anthony Jansen had three other daughters, and it is not known where Janszoon's other children ended up (at least one left behind in Haarlem, and probably others in Spain or Morocco). My understanding of Jan and Anthony come from here, here, here, here, and here. crabGoblin 23:06, 18 April 2010 (EEST)

[edit] Archambaud de Comborn

Dear Almoistine, firstly tanks for the fact you wroth in french. I've modify this father record (betweenHugh (?, b. about 930 d. about 1010) & Hugh of Rouergue (Rouergue, ?)) of Archambaud.

On the Archambaud record, you say he can come from the Limoges line. I've sow althow this information on another website but I didn't found any document about that have you got that ? Regards --CharlesF 23:23, 12 December 2010 (EET)
see wiki fr what do you think about that (I think it is a misstack), Regards--CharlesF 23:25, 12 December 2010 (EET)
Sorry, I've got it, I found ;-) sorry --CharlesF 23:28, 12 December 2010 (EET)

--Trig 19:52, 3 January 2011 (EET)Trevor Lee

[edit] Sorting out the various Constantines

Julian Constans Caesar ap Constantine III (brother of Constans II [the monk] and Justus) was married to Martina v. Marcus + Ancia

Interesting given the dynastic web of the times and the overall confusion of the various Constantine Emperors (Many who ruled simultaneously). It seems plausable.. I know that the family of Aurelius fits in there somewhere. What are your sources? Almoustine 18:26, 22 August 2010 (EEST)

The British Chronicles, by David Hughes is a good place to start. Duplication occure I believe when names are taken from there roots and transplanted into other languages and dialects ie Cunedda, Constantine as a obvious one. Coel, or is it Choel, is it Hoel or could it be Aramond or Faramond, that is the Quest. Coel Godebog is not the splended or anything else that has it's roots in greatness, but people keep incorrectly associating him having 2 issues including Elena, this is a duplication I believe with more issues to it.

Gwen = Eleias/Elistus/Elydyr/Cadwalidyr/Arthur Vivi-Anna = Taliesin/Anlawdd/Buddic (Lewdoc) Emyr Lydaw.

While I do use this book and recommend it for research and reference for certain lineages; I have found that, like others out there, some of the lineages contain some errors and persons have been conflated and or assigned to an erroneous time period. In short not everything in there is correct. I recommend using the volume along with additional records (preferably historical which unfortunately are still in Latin, Greek or other). There is nothing quite like being able to corraborate a lineage with historical, archaeological, and genetic records. Almoustine 19:37, 24 February 2011 (EET)

[edit] Borjigin line

Hello Almoustine, I see you described several female persons out of Borjigin lineage as

Barkhujin Qo'ai (Goa) (of China) (meanwhile Bargujin is a place name in Siberia)
Mong Ulun (of China)
Mong Goljin (of China)

Is there any particular source for the "of China" part and the breaking of first syllables from names? Charles Bawden's 1955 edition of Mongolian chronicle Altan Tobchi does not carry any resemblance to this curious spelling as far as I can remember, neither do any other sources I had read. --Tar-ba-gan 02:57, 16 April 2011 (EEST)

  1. THE TRANSFORMATION OF AN ORIGIN MYTH FROM SHAMANISM TO ISLAM*
  2. The history and the life of Chinggis Khan: the secret history of the Mongols By Urgunge Onon
  3. Kinship in the Altaic world:proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10-15 July, 2005. Elena Vladimirovna Boĭkova, R. B. Rybakov
  4. The role of women in the Altaic world: Permanent International Altaistic Conference edited by Veronika Veit

I thank you for helping me making my tree. I saw that you added different persons and comments.

I should like to know the rule about definite article like the English "The".

Concerning Jean Guillaume de Prince 591286 you mention his clan as Prince. Concerning his daughter Catherine Margaret de Prince 590947, I mention her clan name as "de Prince".

Do we have to take away the definite article in the clan name like we take a preposition away?

Of Bourbon, de Bourbon, van Bourbon => Bourbon The Taylor, le Tailleur, de Kleermaker => Taylor or The Taylor?

Thank you for your advice,

Michel Nowé

Hi Michel, We are eliminating the article in order to make it easier to find in the search charts. (Take away de, van, von, of, the). If I am unsure of the clan or family designation I put in in the "Other Surnames" box and leave the clan blank until the surname ascendant is known. Also in the English version of the Rodovid database our clan names aren't always tied to location. In fact it is frequently tied to the symbol that a person's family uses to identify themselves on their clan sheilds and flags, or to identify descent from a particular ancestor.

[edit] hello, cousin

I see you added Elinipsico Cornstalk's mother to the tree -- thank you! Minerva Nine 01:53, 4 July 2011 (EEST)

[edit] page deletions

Hi Almoustine -- I apologize for the deletion of records yesterday, I didn't realize that Rodovid would let me delete pages that other people were using. I was trying to delete all the pages connected with this account (LVehko) because I have a cyber-stalker who has been obtaining personal and family information about me from stuff I have posted online. Because of this, I don't want to say more here, on this publicly-accessible page. Would you email me at lvehko@gmail.com so that I can ask you about merging this account with one under another name? Thanks -- LVehko 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EEST)

On the english Wikipedia site, users can request a username change for their accounts. Is this possible here? If so, please let me know where to send the request. Thanks -- LVehko 09:42, 14 October 2011 (EEST)
If your stalker knows which entries you can submitted under your old ID and monitors those for changes in ID assignment to a new ID your change will have been ineffective. It is probably better if you create a new account altogether and then work with me to help identify various records. Plus... do not use the "This is Me Checkbox" to identify yourself in the system and refrain from posting given names and dates for persons that are living, you can also decide whether or not you wish to post information for family members born after 1900 who are deceased. The issue is you can't always control what/how much other (cousins) might want to post for their lineages. I try to stay within the guidelines of the Ukrainian legislation for Individual privacy which is no posting of living persons. However rule is regularly broken for Celebrities and Royalty whose genealogy is a matter of public record anyway.Almoustine 19:14, 14 October 2011 (EEST)


[edit] Ana Enriques (of Madeira)

I am very interested in this entry by you showing this lady Ana Enriques (of Madiera) http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Ana Enriques (Avis) (Aviz, ?) to be daughter of Prince Henry the Navigator. http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Henry Aviz (Henry the Navigator) (Aviz, b. 4 March 1394 d. 13 November 1460) - Can you please identify your sources for this entry? Also note that the island is called Madeira no Madiera. Thank you very much.--Colon-el-Nuevo 19:04, 22 December 2011 (EET)

[edit] Your Sources - Ana Enriques (of Madiera)

I am very interested the entries you made here: [1] for Ana Enriques (of Madiera) - please let me know where I can read more about this. Thank You. --Colon-el-Nuevo 22:31, 24 December 2011 (EET)

Dear Almoustine, can you please provide me with a book and page number where I can read more about the entry Ana Enriques http://pt.rodovid.org/wk/Pessoa:418656 - as wells the other entries you have made in this family. thanks.Colon-el-Nuevo 17:01, 8 January 2012 (EET)

Almoustine - Can you please provide me with a copy of the information you used to create Person:108796, John D'Estaing,Person:108895, Thomas Eastin, and Person:108792 Jean D'Estaing. This is a grandfather, Father and son. I am a direct decendent of this family, and have been looking for a family connection for years.

Thank You

John Eastin

[edit] eastin D'Estaing Family Connection

Almoustine - Can you please provide me with a copy of the information you used to create Person:108796, John D'Estaing,Person:108895, Thomas Eastin, and Person:108792 Jean D'Estaing. This is a grandfather, Father and son. I am a direct decendent of this family, and have been looking for a family connection for years.

Thank You

John Eastin

[edit] Segrave and De Segrave

Dear Madam, I have been working on my family pedigree for almost twenty years. The true name at birth of the earliest member (historically acountable) is HUGH DE SEGRAVE. not Hugh Segrave. It was only in the thirteenth century that the family dropped the "de" and used only Segrave. Whoever opened the clan of "Segrave" in 2010 at Rodovid was inaccurate. I will continue to add to the de Segrave clan, unless you demand that I use the false clan of "Segrave". Please let me know your decision. I have a doctorate in Greek and Latin from Columbia University, a Master's degree in Jursiprudence from Oxford University, and a Dr. Theol. granted by the faculty of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Yours respectfully, Rev. DDr Richard Seagraves (New York)

Dear Madam, I have noticed that whoever introduced the clan "Segrave" in the year 2010 was in error. I have been working on the family pedigree for about twenty years. I have a Master's degree in Jurisprudence from Oxford, a Doctorate in Greek and Latin from Columbia University, and a Dr. Theol. granted by the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. The "de" was disused by the family in the thirteenth century. I wish to continue to use the correct clan of "de Segrave" instead of the false "Segrave" unless you order me not to do so. Please adive me!

Respectfully, Rev. DDr. Richard Seagrave (New YOrk)--Gaufredus 01:59, 26 June 2012 (EEST)1900 hours on 25 June 2012

Hello Richard,
Due to the way that Rodovid preserves the clan names searching for ancestors becomes problematic when adding the De, Van, Le and other prefixes to the name. The global administrators decided therefore that the clan names would not include these prefixes.

[edit] Anthony Ashley-Cooper

You seem to have entered this record twice: numbers 632476 and 632486. I would merge them myself, but not too sure how to do it.--Ruszewski 04:29, 28 August 2012 (EEST)

[edit] Parents

Please respect the Rodovid rules:
4.3. Controversy or uncertainty about a family link
4.3.1. If parents are controversial do not add any parents "as parents". Just add all controversial info in notes.
4.3.7. The only exception of the rules 4.3 can be mythological persons, which do not have any relationship with historical persons and should be explicitly included in the categories "Mythology" or "XXXXX mythology"
Please unlock pages you've lock ! such as Licinia ? (Angrabothia) (Licchavi, ?), Bello de Carcassonne - (Count of Carcassonne) (Bellonid, b. calculated 755 d. before 810), Meribanes (Mirian) (Mihran) III Chosroidi (Chosroid, b. about 277 d. 361) --CharlesF 10:31, 7 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Controversial blocking

As advised by Baya on the new page Make-believe people, you should unblock CharlesF a.s.a.p. Dn Gov (d) 04:00, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

I would be happy to unblock him .. .Where shall I do that? I cannot seem to find the page to unblock.. Almoustine 05:02, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

Privit Almoustine
  1. You can unblock CharlesF here :
    • en:Special:Ipblocklist
  2. Could you please help me to find exact translation of "make believe people" in french?
Well... I don't put "make believe people" (aka "fictional people) in the database. I do however include people that some consider legendary and possibly mythological (such as Adam and Eve) ... if I find some sort of corroborating evidence the indicates that they might have been real ...I would like to suggest that we maintain separate lineages for Biblical lineage, Islamic Tradition, DFA. I have some ideas that perhaps there is a link that will allow the user to filter on a lineage and see the lineage as it is presented through the filter of their choice (The user looks at a record that says it has more than one lineage available, biblical, historical, adoptive and selects which one they want to see. The lineage will then be filtered according to that criteria) Almoustine 16:37, 12 July 2015 (EEST)
Anyway, there is a big desease in Rodovid.EN. In last counting of Rodovid (january 2014), we discovered that Rodovid.FR has much more records than Rodovid.EN. This is a complete anomaly (regarding to numbers of french speaking or english speaking peoples around the world). Obviously, you're killing Rodovid.EN, and then all localizations of Rodovid. You do have to find a way to work with other people. Let's talk about that, and when we'll find a gentlewoman and gentlemen agreement, I can assure you that I will help you with all my knowledge.
--Christophe Tesson - talk. 09:35, 12 July 2015 (EEST)
It didn't start out that way. In the beginning I was pulling in records from other language DBs and translating them. Then some persons in other language DBs got angry and started to disconnect the English records from the lineages and then delete the isolated English DB records. I have always been committed to working with other people, but found my work being targeted by people who are intent on disrupting my effort so you can hardly lay the blame on me for the killing the English Version of Rodovid. But if you will do what you say you want (working together) then I think we both have a lot to contribute. But you do need to be willing to have an open mind and not simply dismiss something that contradicts what you think you know and I will do the same. Almoustine 16:37, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Be rigorous please

Dear Almoustine

We are not in a primary school courtyard. "It's not my fault, it's because of him!" In french, I say to my five years old son : "gnia gnia gnia" (nia nia nia, I guess you understand these coloquial words)

So:

  1. I just checked your 14 last edits in Rodovid. 13 were without source, and without "Need sources" template. Don't you think you give a bad look to Rodovid, working this way?
  2. I've checked Chlodio (Merovingian, ?) in different languages. Results:
    1. spanish = mythological
    2. nederlands = mythological
    3. french = guess what?
    4. english = ah uh…

So please, please, stop working in your own corner, it's unbearable to other users, please!

Let's make a deal about Clodion :

It seems that Grégoire de Tours is the only contemporary source. Do you agree?

Can you agree with me, that sources can be "contradictoires"?

You use Johannes Bertels as a source to give parents or children to Clodion (I sincerly don't understand, your records are too bad). Clearly, Johannes Bertels writes what he wants in 16th century.

So let's do something together : a complete transcription of Johannes Bertels' book in Rodovid, for merovengiens, in a particular catégory. So then there will be:

  • Clodion (according to Johannes Bertels)
  • Clodion (according to Grégoire de Tours)

Let's write links between these two records to explain work in progress.

With any other method your work is useless. For instance : I begin with french republican datas, then I go through religious datas of 17th an 18th centuries, with some hypothesis, then I jump into a noble tree, to the midle age. Then I do some onomastics, and jump to a "DFA gateway". Yeepee, I am the grand-son of Jupiter, the cousin of Mao Zedong and Theodore Roosevelt. Ah! I feel important. Seriously…

It seems that you can read latin. I can make usefull source templates, taging records in pertinent categories. So let's work together.

This way :

  1. You can explain to us what you read (so then thank you)
  2. You avoid Controversial discussions, without any interest
  3. You explain to us what was important in 16th century historians' head. This is interesting, even for me.

And then we cut unusable links through 40, 50, 90 generations. Even Rodovid server cannot read this.

What da ya think about this idea? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 17:24, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Historia Luxemburgensis

OK, no response… It's really sad…

[about Historia Luxemburgensis and Chlodio (Merovingian, ?)]

This book has been written in 1560 !

Typically a controversial source !

Foundation for Medieval Genealogy does not give any parents to Clodius.

Imho, any ascendance to Clodius should be written as a hypothesis, not as links. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:06, 12 July 2015 (EEST)

When was the bible written. Based on your argument we shouldn't use that either but we do... besides, a book written far closer to the source is more likely to be insightful than one written long after the event. I am not going to dismiss anything based on when it was written. Otherwise we can't use anything. Why burn down the library because the books are old. You asked for a source and here it is. I say it stands otherwise... (let's be fair and say that all of this is pointless) Almoustine 17:21, 12 July 2015 (EEST)
It is certainly not pointless…
Let's be fair and let's find common rules…
Seriously, why are you always talking about bible? Is Clodion cited in Bible?
Please, Almoustine, let's work together, let's write together the "Category:Merovengiens according to Historia Luxemburgensis" and lets test common rules!

[edit] Portrait and self portrait

(No more answer?)

Dear Almoustine

I've done your work. Now you can have some rest, your familly tree is written :

Because it was not fair, I drawn my self-portrait the same way. (It was easier)

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 15:26, 14 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Familly names

Hello, I know you don't care, but please when you change the family names check if it is the same in the other languages. --CharlesF 14:23, 15 July 2015 (EEST)

Charles, it's just oNomaSTics. We can not understand, we're to dumb. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 16:18, 15 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Help

Hi Almoustine.

I decided to implement advanced search in Rodovid.EN, because nobody has done it.

I know how to do it but it needs some translations. Could you check my english? It's very simple: first check these short messages:

These ones are much more longer :

Take care of WikiSyntax Thank you. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 09:24, 22 July 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Shameful

Have you at least shame ? [2] just to believe higher in social gatherings or just high level of mythomania ? --Charles 01:18, 5 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Beit Lehem HaGlilit

Almoustine, it that Bethlehem witten un Hebrew ? Can you write in an understandable english please ? --Charles 13:53, 6 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Sources

Almoustine, Your recent contribution have not been sourced, regarding the records you've done : please fallow the rules 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6. --Charles 14:00, 6 August 2015 (EEST)

  • Mummolin - (de Soissons) (-, b. about 530 d. after 566) -> where did you read that the parents you add is his parents ? it should be one of these very recent book based on Onomastic ! but it is still Hypotheses !
  1. Hervé Pinoteau, La symbolique royale française, Ve - XVIIIe siècle, P.S.R. éditions, 2004, p. 43
  2. Christian Settipani,Onomastique et Parenté dans l'Occident médiéval, Oxford, Prosopographica et genealogica,‎ 2000, 310 p. (ISBN 1-900934-01-9)
  3. Christian Settipani, Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne, Paris,‎ 1989, 170 p. (ISBN 2-906483-28-1)
  4. Christian Settipani, « L'apport de l'onomastique dans l'étude des généalogies carolingiennes », dans Onomastique et Parenté dans l'Occident médiéval, Oxford, Linacre College, Unit for Prosopographical Research, coll. « Prosopographica et Genealogica / 3 »,‎ 2000, 310 p. (ISBN 1-900934-01-9), p. 185-229

--Charles 14:35, 6 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] To make it clear

Almoustine, To make it clear between us ! regarding you controversial work in Rodovid and by the fact there are one one DB for all language; all you modification in records have a direct incidence in every pages and languages. As French Sysop and regarding the infringement you do on the DB (and in consequences in RD.fr) , I will (as other) personally check all your new contributions and apply strictly the rules starting now. I do not whant a new debate about your work: that have been made many times in the past to make conciliation between you and the rules without any success !

  • I you are not agree with the rules, please ask for change !
Rules are maid for everyone to work and contribute in harmony without conflicts ! the fact you do not follow the rules maid many conflicts, so Rules are made for everybody ! you are not above !
  • If you do not want to follow the rules and continue to adding "Non-proven" work I advice you to stop contributing at RD and find another genealogical website (as geni ) looking less strict or more flexible with the history or internal rules.
  • For information Baya is making a new software of Rodovid, making able to create hypothesis records or classification regarding the quality of the sources (as Fiction, Theory, Hypothesis, .. , sourced). It should be operational in September.
So; Starting September French Sysop will clean up your work to rank them as they are : Theory/Hypothesis (we allready begin to inventory your work), if you add pertinent sources it will be better rank (as birth sources, pertinent contemporary book, etc ... ), but make it sure we will continue to check your work for a long time and apply for rules.
If you are agree with this development and to rank your work as "Theory/Hypothesis" when you do not have sources as birth sources, pertinent contemporary book, (etc ..) and follow the rules; we may can cohabit on this website, if not; It will continue as I've described above because I will continue to applying for rules ! --Charles 14:58, 11 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Sources

Dear Almoustine; Please source

  • Elissa Anna (Israel-Matrites, ?) -> where did you see she was the mother of Ascha-baal (of Carthage) & Abihajil (of Israel) ? and did you notice that her 2 son had child together, can you corect the sex or the link ?
  • Dascylus ? (of Lydia) (Israel-Matrites, ?) -> where did you see he was the father of Maudaces ? (of Medea) & Mordekai ? (Marduk-bel-shunu) & Phraortes ? and did you notice that; his 2 son had child together, can you corect the sex or the link ?
  • Elissa Dido ? (of Carthage) (?, ?) -> can you source the fact she his the daughter of the parents you've put in RD and the same for her child ?
  • Why you give to these the name of "Israel-Matrites" : they are took to be Assyrian or Phoenicien ?
Unfornatly If you refuse to answer, I will corect these records and all them relatives by myself --Charles 01:30, 12 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Translation

Almoustine, could you translate records that you had import in RD ? you will find many of them here. --Charles 11:09, 12 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Source

Dear Almoustine, As I see you continue to contribute, so it is meaning that (contrary as you said many time) that you do not want to collaborate and to respect rules ! So as soon as it will be possible for me, I will make a clean by my self and maybe stoping asking you to correct and to source; it seems unuseful !

--Charles 16:40, 12 August 2015 (EEST)
The cleaning will be done in September (according to the ask of Baya "to not null works of each other (this is the general point)") --Charles 16:54, 12 August 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Goal ?

Almoustine, Can you explain me the goal of importing data who was not translated ? and data like this one [[Person:929560] ? I realy whant to know what is the goal of this ?--Charles 01:43, 17 August 2015 (EEST)

In this improtation you no added information, just no added value in this --Charles 01:44, 17 August 2015 (EEST)

I can only suppose that this is an error due to so many corrections, deletions etc. I restored one of the deleted persons who was attached in order to validate the lineage. There is a possibility of missing generation (Bernard I) However I believe that Bernard I was the father of Bernard II and a brother to Adaleme de Poitiers (Guilhelmid, b. 760) who was the father of Emino and Turpio and that his original English name as Adalhelm. The clan name has been corrected. Almoustine 20:05, 20 November 2016 (EET)

[edit] "Throw the baby out with the bath water"

Hello dear Almoustache

You wrote that : throw the baby out with the bath water.

No problem: because the baby was a troll, the bath water is poisoned.

How can you be so mythomaniac? This is really a complete mystery to me.

Please, stop trolling, stop writting false sources which have no link with the person you're talking about (Bello de Carcassonne - (Count of Carcassonne) (Bellonid, b. calculated 755 d. before 810)).

We disagree, so then how can we work together? (Because we have to do that) I've made several proposal, it's your turn! --Christophe Tesson - talk. 18:44, 6 September 2015 (EEST)

Come on Christophe ! don't be so idealistic ! She will not give response to your offer, like to all you've done in the past ! She just use Rodovid to troll or to explain mythomaniac theory, she don't care about genealogy, she just whant to fill higher in social gatherings ! I can not wait the new engine to make the sort of all this peace of troll !!! because I will do the sort !!! and it will be fierce for her records !!!
The most funny is that she claims to have discovered many linage, where hystorians or scientists do not arrive, however they worked on this point since a long time. She whants to theach to the world how she is intelligent (or mythomaniac) --Charles 22:07, 6 September 2015 (EEST)
Look ! she don't do what she said; she said "please, warn me before modificate my records " (as if it was her property), then I've warn her many times and wait her feed-back, she never answers ! then she says she will stop contributing in Rodovid, ... but she's still here ! --Charles 10:36, 7 September 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Wow, not so bad !

Dear Almoustine !

I've found one two of your records that seems sourced, with no contradiction whith its source !

Congratulations !

Huh, no, sorry. As you said : "Wikipedia is not the ultimate source". --Christophe Tesson - talk. 15:44, 7 September 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Relationship types

Hi,

look at http://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Current_events#September_10.2C_2015
with this feature it will be possible to avoid charges in person. Just mark relations accordingly ))
best wishes --Baya 08:21, 11 September 2015 (EEST)


Thank you :) Almoustine 23:40, 12 September 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Place names

Hi,

Did you ever wonder why "Westmorland" is not the same thing than "Westmoreland"? Please, just write "Place name" in "place fields" of your records.

e.g. "King of Balouchistan" is not a place name, but a title. Thank you. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:16, 13 September 2015 (EEST)


How about if you are checking records and notice that there is a simply typo or something that someone, anyone, missed, you could kindly correct it. That is what a good teammate would do *wink*. In the meantime thank you for letting me know that you caught it and I will make a closer effort to avoid the error in the future *smile* Almoustine 21:14, 13 September 2015 (EEST)


Dear almoustine

You're so boring. Could you please learn how to:

  1. use your computer
  2. use rodovid (which is a complete software)
  3. notice that other users are not your servants (so they possibly don't have to correct your lack of knowledge)
  4. notice that nobody needs to bore your opinions : we are in a wiki, not in a blog.
  5. notice that among 81 obvious timeline errors in RD.EN (at this time) you are the author of 30 of it? (40%) How could you think you look interesting? Your "20 years searching" are proving that sperm congelation was inveted in XVIIth century?

You're tyring me. This is the ultimate problem: you're using Rodovid as a blog. If you want I will buy you a license of Heredis: write your own fantasy about any genealogy you want, and publish it in"Heritage books". This is a "vanity publisher", they will agree. And stop using their "books" as a source in Rodovid. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:49, 17 October 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Place names (again :-)

Hello Almoustine

I'm still studying disembiguation of english place names.

I still do have question about this work. Could you please read this post and give your opinion?

Thanks a lot! --Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:59, 22 October 2015 (EEST)

Hello Tesson Thank you for asking. I would be happy to. I will leave my comments on the discussion tab for that page, so that the rules can stay uncluttered by edits and only reflect official statements as the policy is finalized. Almoustine 18:12, 23 October 2015 (EEST)

[edit] Place names (again and again)

Dear Pamela

Happy new year

Instead of hiding your place name errors under the carpet, by erasing warning we write in your records, you should try to correct these errors. If you can't do this, do nothing!

I guess it's a bit complex for you, but the warning template drops the bad record in a special category (Category:Place name errors), so then other users can check each record and correct false entrance when they have the knowledge you don't have.

Remember you're writing in a wiki, not in a blog.

Uh please, could you create your blog? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 18:49, 30 December 2015 (EET)

Actually its not that difficult... I have looked at your warnings but I haven't really found many place name errors... instead I find places that are perfectly correct that are mocked at and labeled in error but which I am able to validate with a simple google search. Also... please beware that you are working right now in the English DB. We spell things the English way here. So of course French place names are Anglicised. What I am doing is googling the location and placing the link to the location in sources since you obviously unable to locate it doing a search in French Google (while attempting to correct English records). Why should I create a blog when you have done such a marvelous job at attempting to malign me already. Almoustine 05:21, 31 December 2015 (EET)

Yes OK, I understand, you make a joke for the new year.
Seriously, I guess than less than 30% of your place names are meaningfull.
And your spell is not particulary english. I've checked it (22,000 red links today, I've checked 17,000 red links, almost 50% of place names, and let's say 40% were written by you. almost 3400 place names from you. Most of them are misspelled. Or you consider that Wikipedia.en does not write the English way.
I notice that you have done nothing to write a new rule for place names.
As usual your contributions are poisonning Rodovid, your place names don't follow any policy. Please Create your blog somewhere else!
And noway, I won't learn to be polite, because your work is extremly violent for other users, it's not just a question of politeness. Happy new year. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 22:53, 2 January 2016 (EET)

[edit] About Josephte Foraz

About Josephte Foraz (Foreest) (Foraz, b. calculated 1814)

I'm terribly sorry but civil records of Douvaine are online. These are not transcripts, but original scanned pages. Who sold you such a fake? ;-) There's no "Forest" (seems strange in french, but possible) "Forex" (seems really really strange in french) or "Foreest" (clearly impossible in french) in these records. See: archives de haute savoie search in Douvaine.

Name form change due to Dutch Transliteration... Almoustine 19:39, 31 December 2015 (EET)
Missed. It's Foraz (Typically savoyard, this possibly explain confusion with Forex, "Z" is old fashioned and looks like "X"). Isn't it simpler with sources ?
And well done: this record is not online. So you have (sometimes) good sources. Not so bad !
Josephte is a rare first name in french, but it is attested (see : Geneanet for instance). It was given mostly in 1800's.
Well done Pamela! Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:42, 12 January 2016 (EET)

[edit] Fougères - Bresse

Dear Pamella

Could you please stop writing nonsenses?

It would be kind of you, for other users. (Did you noticed that there are other users of Rodovid??)

So you wrote on this record: Marie ? (Saint-Mars, Coëffier) (?, b. 1626 d. 18 September 1708), that "Chateau Fougere" was in "Bresse". You just ad a source about "Chateau fougere". Good, this is an english speaking source.

Oh, sorry, it's not a source about "Chateau Fougere", it's a source about "Château de Fougères" (even in a well known english site).

I do know Fougères and its castle: one of my brother lived there. There's only one problem. As you can see here : path from Fougères to Bresse according a well-known american site, there's only 750 km between Fougères and Bresse. (I know that, I'm living near Lyon, 80km of Bresse.

As usual in your record, no source, just your self-persuasion, and finaly a complete nonsense. As usual.

But, oh! I understand! In secret Warner DFA sources, Fougères is in Bresse?

Friendly yours. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:42, 8 February 2016 (EET)

PS: your slaves certainly won't ad any correction to your lack of knowledge.

[edit] You're such a poet!

Dear Pamella Bradford McGee,

Could you please read this:

One more time we've found an exemple of your poetry. Remember

And remember how Morais, Bergsmit, ChorinJS, CharleF, Wikiacc and so many others did like your poetry!

When will you do something to show you're working with other users? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 18:59, 24 April 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Template POV

Hello Pamella Bradford Magee

I agree with you, I'm not happy with the content of the Template:POV. Obviously it's "ad hominem", so we have to find another content.

I tried to ask for help in Rodovid.FR : fr:Rodovid FR:Discussion#Petit problème de méthodologie. But, as you see, the answer was: Il faut supprimer le plus rapidement possible les fiches qui ne sont pas conformes et éventuellement bloquer les utilisateurs qui ne suivent pas les règles.

Summary: we have to erase these records, and block users who wrote this. Not really helpfull with problems of Rodovid.EN

So but: in Rodovid, when a user:

  • has more than 35 generations in is tree
Oh I am sorry, where shall we cut our ancestors off (just because the length of the pedigree offends you. (IMHO all ancestors deserve to be remembered)
  • has a tree going to biblical adam, with lots of mythological records
Biblical Adam is a myth and has nothing to do with the work I have entered. My sources are historical and derived from written records as best as possible, I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.
  • has a tree with branches running through antiquity
And???? I fail to see the problem here.
  • has a tree with massive and repetitive timeline errors (children born 10 years after their parents death)
OK so I have noticed some typos and have been grateful when they are pointed out for correction and additional research
  • try to invent an "organisation", with special secret sources, and use this invention as a source
I did not "invent" and organization. I attempted to organize a corporation in the name of "the descent from antiquity project" in order to protect some work that had been done by others. The purpose of the organization was to promote genealogy, data consolidation (from several persons other than myself have dedicated their entire lives and or have risked their lives to research in areas where it was sometimes very dangerous, and rodovid as a tool for global genealogical and historical preservation of human lineages. It was brought to its knees by YOU and was forced to be abandoned because of the cruel slanderous attacks of personal defamation on the effort of the organization before it could even get started. DFA is a concept. It was a project. NONE OF THE SOURCES ARE SECRET, most are stored in various libraries and museums around the world and can be viewed by anyone. We were merely attempting to consolidate and cross reference these sources.
  • Writes anything anywhere (Titles or occupations in place fields, ethny in Clan field, etc.)
I only write in the fields that are designated as such... We do have fields for ethnicity, occupation, other etc. I fail to see why it is a problem that I use these fields.
  • Modifies clan names as he wants (often in FitzSomething)
Because that is how they are referred to in English. Not everyone speaks French. Having and English name for a French person is NOT a typo.

Fitz (pronounced "fits") is a prefix in patronymic surnames of Anglo-Norman origin, that is to say originating in the 11th century. The word is a Norman French noun meaning "son of", from Latin filius (son), plus genitive case of the father's forename.

Sorry.. those people are real. I don't put fakes in. If I find one I move it or mark it hypotheical or mythological. You have erased so many real people from this database that I cry every time I look at it.
  • Merge characters of different mythologies, because he don't understand differences between social studies and genealogy
I am a social cultural anthropologist with a data science background and over 30 years of practical experience in cross reference research. I know how to do this. I am not going to hide truth just because someone is offended.

How can we call this type of behavior? Wikipedia has created the idea of Point of view pushing. Ok, you can have your point of view (everybody has one), so then peoples will desagree with you. So then don't push it.

So maybe I should just erase what you don't agree with? Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps your attitude is also "Point of View Pushing?" This is a collaborative tool. I intend to keep on collaborating and refrain from attacking the integrity of people I work with.
  • I'm sure you agree with this point, so help us to rewrite Template:POV in an unpersonnal way, and to cut trees where point of view pushing is obvious.
I am not in the business of cutting people away from the tree of life unless it can be proven to be incorrect. I will mark them hypothetical and post an invitation for further research. AND what I will never do is slander someone who is simply attempting to do their best. I will work with them to help find evidence to prove or disprove and then post accordingly (documented or hypothetical) and move on.

Thank you. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:18, 5 June 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Lets be fair?

I've seen your modification…

Point of view pushing
image:50px-Attentionsign.gif‎ 0 The French Administrator has decided that the main contributor of this record is "Point of view pusher" because no one could possibly trace genealogy older than 800 CE, so he decided it best to label this record as controversial and advises you to exercise caution in accepting it at face value. The English Administrator advises the same but invites you to collaborate on this forum to help research this person/lineage.

Worse than my bad first version: more and more personal. Who cares about any french or english admin? Let's try something else. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 18:07, 5 June 2016 (EEST)

[edit] After discussion and vote in Rodovid.FR

[You] fail to see the problem here as usual.

Anyway, I've made this template empty. People do think that these controversial records should be erased, that's all. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:09, 7 June 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Category:Habiru Confederation - Benjamin

Hi Pamela

I guess it was a littlle mistake. You wrote:

  • Habiru Confederation - Benjamin

as a lineage. Obviously it is not.

So I created this:

You're not friendly with categories, but it's much more smart.

You can write what you want in this category page.

Friendly yours --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:42, 20 June 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Negotiating

Please see my talk I don't want anyone to leave such a small project. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:50, 27 June 2016 (EEST)

Please respond I am getting some cogent criticisms on my talk. I am awaiting your response to them--they are from good editors on this site. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:01, 7 July 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Make-believe records and links

[edit] Original messages:

Hello Almoustine,

Could you, please, add some info, _why_ such person or link are "make-believe".
Nobody knows why do you think so. You should describe such records.
Without description such records are the spam, nothing more.

--Baya 00:15, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

for example: [[Person:1012020] (erased) where did you take description about person?

DO NOT recreate records!!!! you as sysop can undelete records. Why you can't discuss with other the record and undelete it, and add needed notes?

You know that it is you are breaking common imagination about history. So it is you MUST present the full line of your thinking with all sources. And if anybody found errors or mistakes in your idea it means you are wrong, not all around you. And you should correct your idea and find additional sources or you have to give up (perhaps with regret) from your hypotheses. --Baya 01:48, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

Hello.
You're unblocked…
How do we restart? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 17:28, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Answers:

Hello Almoustine,

Could you, please, add some info, _why_ such person or link are "make-believe".
Baya... I am not the one marking individuals as "make believe" That is a label that was added to the record by Tesson and Charles.
Nobody knows why do you think so. You should describe such records.
Well when I create records for historical persons (18th dynasty of Egypt for example) I am taking them from the historical record, archaeological records and cross reference secondary (scholarly opinions from various writers and professors, and persons who have dedicated a great portion of their lives to researching the individual) and primary sources (contemporary cources and the archaeological record.. the amarna letters for example). I do not (as a rule) include biblical reference unless of course the biblical reference is CLEARLY a reference to someone who can be proved to exist (Nebucadnessar for example)
Without description such records are the spam, nothing more.

--Baya 00:15, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

Correct. Tesson is in the habit of removing descriptions in the notes field. I make every attempt to restore them.. sometimes going so far as to retrieve them from history and include them in the talk page for that record so they can be discussed further there with respect to all opinions. However what I see most often are mocking, sarcastic responses from Tesson and Charles.

for example: [[Person:1012020] where did you take description about person?

I took the description out of the history of that record (which had been deleted by Tesson and copied it into a new record because corruption had started to creep in and I was unable to reverse the edit) I determined it might be better to simply start a new record using the old data and had every intention of making it conform to the standard. The lineage of Tuthmoses III and his various names are a matter of historical record. :::Almoustine 01:41, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

DO NOT recreate records!!!! you as sysop can undelete records. Why you can't discuss with other the record and undelete it, and add needed notes?

I can do this.. I do not like to recreate records and have not until this last fiasco... the reason the record needed to be recreated is because corruption of the other language version has become a risk since these persons are being used as biblical persons in the other language versions (I DID NOT WANT TO CAUSE CONFUSION) I will discuss (respectfully) record and add additional notes.. but I do request it be mutual respect. (Tesson (et.al) stops with the name calling, slander, and unilateral decisions to simply delete and alter my contributions)Almoustine 01:41, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

You know that it is you are breaking common imagination about history. So it is you MUST present the full line of your thinking with all sources. And if anybody found errors or mistakes in your idea it means you are wrong, not all around you. And you should correct your idea and find additional sources or you have to give up (perhaps with regret) from your hypotheses. --Baya 01:48, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

Baya, with deep respect...I have made no claim to be infallible, but historical persons simply cannot be dismissed regardless of how old the record, or what type of record it is. I do try to be careful and because it is difficult (impossible really) to reconcile the historical persons with biblical ones I recommend we have a biblical lineage that is entirely separate from the historical one. I have attempted to do this always with my entries (I made some mistakes in the early days but attempted to fix that very early on) In my opinion you have created a great tool here for preserving genealogical records, not only for vanity sake but for history sake, these ancestors belong to us all, they were real, they lived, they died, and they deserve to be remembered.Almoustine 01:41, 13 September 2016 (EEST)
Regarding some of the records that were deleted by Tesson... they were malicious. There was nothing at all wrong with the entry other than he simply did not like them. They had dates and references... and roman names.. Now. I do not do that to his entries and edits, and I would appreciate it if he did not do that to mine. It is unprofessional behavior that causes a lot of strife that is needless and unproductive. And I would like for it to stop. If he does not like the entries in the English database then perhaps he would be happier sticking to French and allow for me to recruit some hard core genealogists with an eye for historical data (in addition to genealogical research methodologies) and I promise to be more rigourous in my documentation. Does anyone have a problem with this? Almoustine 01:41, 13 September 2016 (EEST)
Hello.
You're unblocked…
How do we restart? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 17:28, 12 September 2016 (EEST)
Tesson, we restart from this very moment with a mutual commitment to exercise professional courtesy and mutual respect toward each other. This applies to everyone without exception. This means that we flag records for review and then use the discussion pages on individual records the way they were intended to be used instead of deleting anything that doesn't please us. It means that we speak to each other politely and refrain from using derogatory terms and abusive language.
I will go in and recreate the records that were recently deleted and work to resolve those myself. You may review the corrected records each night and ask questions on the discussion page of any that you do not agree with, and I will do the same for you. Please post alternate sources and any other relevant information that you feel I might have overlooked. But please refrain from posting mocking statements about me and slandering my sources.. also do not delete my sources and claim they were never there.
There are a few records which have become hopelessly corrupt and cannot be edited even with someone with sysop rights. I reserve the right to recreate a record in the English DB if that record has been corrupted beyond the ability for me, as a sysop, to edit it because I will assume that it is so for all sysops and will then flag and escalate the matter to Baya.
It was always my intention to recruit additional researchers, but I haven't because the situation here was ugly and hostile. There is so much work still left to do (while it is still possible for us to do it) that we can use the help... I think perhaps exercising courtesy toward each other is a step in the right direction.
Regarding the preservation and presentation of Biblical and Historical lineages do you think it might be possible to simply agree to disagree and have both a Biblical and an Historical lineage past King David (Djetkephredu) since I have no interest in using anything other than historical and archaeological sources to anything older than that date? Also, a word of advice... Roman military records and other Greek, Latin, Indian, Parthian and Assyrian records.. they exist. It might not hurt European genealogists to open up and use some of those sources from time to time.

Almoustine 02:09, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

Thank you. My deepest respect to both of you. --Baya 08:08, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

[edit] How to?

[edit] Copy paste from engine:User talk:Baya

Huh. In fact, it needs lots of calm talks between users. Use of Wikipage to expose hypothesis, and lots of precision in sourcing etc. We have some case of collaboration between users on RD.FR, users who don't agree but collaborate.

With Almoustine we will have to:

  • agree about what is a "Place"
  • agree to write only "Place" names in "Place" fields
  • agree about what is a clan name

etc. I'm OK to try again. --Christophe Tesson - talk.

thank you. --Baya 07:59, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

Proposal: May I propose that When a link is controversial between at least two users or according to an easy to read reference (for instance Wikipedia) then we cut the link and expose sourced theories on a special wikipage?

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 17:11, 12 September 2016 (EEST)

PS: Almoustine is unblocked.

Great idea :) It will be good to group all such pages by places, centuries, type of controversy, etc. Some time it can even be a special huge part of RD. --Baya 07:59, 13 September 2016 (EEST)


[edit] So…

Great idea? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:01, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

Yes. This is a great idea :) I love the idea of being able to look up a special page with the flagged individuals and work those together to resolve the conflicts.Almoustine 21:07, 13 September 2016 (EEST)
Also I like very much the templates that Tesson has created to flag things that need additional sources or that are controversial.. I have found them useful... however like to soften the language a bit to be less inflammatory and more of an invitation for users of Rodovid to contribute to the research and resolution so that they feel comfortable participating in a collaborative environment. I would also not want to cut the link for this reason. It make it easier to identify and remove duplicates since very often the problem is that the name has been spelled differently in different languages or sources) It make resolution easier than having free floating individuals to juggle and results in a cleaner database. Almoustine 21:00, 13 September 2016 (EEST)

I want to be sure you understood. The idea is

  1. cutting controversial links
  2. creating wikipages to explain sourced hypothesis

(anyway too long trees are no longer displayed by Rodovid.) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:25, 14 September 2016 (EEST)

No this is unacceptable because you do not have the right to decide what is too long. And it is evident that you believe that anything that I have contributed... even if it is a perfectly clearly documented individual or relationship ... is controversial. I would prefer the person remain in tact until it is determined by both you and I that it may be disconnected... AND even then it should be preserved with the notion that if it is proven to be valid it may be reconnected to the tree.

Almoustine 22:17, 17 September 2016 (EEST)

[edit] How to? (bis)

Hi

There are two objective reasons to cut links each time there's a controverse:

  1. controversial links is the thing that makes users leaving Rodovid… This happened several times.
  2. Nobody decides what is a "too long tree"… except the server! In fact it's not "too long" but "too big".

Please, for instance, try to display your full tree: it's impossible.

Obviously, having lots of users and being able to display trees are our common interest.

So please, reconsider your opinion: "unacceptable" sounds strange in a wiki.

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 10:28, 18 September 2016 (EEST)

Hi, Regarding people leaving over the presence of controversial links. I think they may have left because of our fighting more than the presence of controversial links. In my opinion adult people stay and talk about the possibilty that perhaps there are some controversial links and then they work together to research the issue and come to a consensus rather than getting offended and leaving because they don't like the fact they might not be a full blooded "whatever". Things are going to get controversial when we talk about distant lineages and when we start collaborating together to open, document and resolve different language recors.. that is to be expected. We don't just burn books and walk away. That is what makes Rodovid more powerful than other platforms.

Regarding a tree that is too big... That is a problem. I can see that... But here is a quick fix. Perhaps we need to just use the feature in our preference setting to limit the size of the tree (number of generations) that is generated when we see a full tree. Problem solved. I think a much better solution using the existing tools than deleting people and separating people from their families.

Almoustine 08:46, 3 October 2016 (EEST)

[edit] "we agreed to joint review and resolution before any deletion"

You're writing this…

But you know you didn't agree about anything… (read above)

How to… ? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:28, 18 October 2016 (EEST)

[edit] Copy paste

Copy paste from Person talk:132198

Almoustine, you are grossly violating again Rodovid rules by putting two fathers for this person.--alexandre 12:33, 23 November 2016 (EET)

and now? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 13:58, 23 November 2016 (EET)

[edit] What about changing your process : creating "Almoustine's chronicles"

Hello Almoustine

Happy new year.

OK, everybody understood : your way to contibute to rodovid is a problem for other users. Though we all made several propositions for you to contribute in another way, you still write your fantasies.

You are allowed to write this in your blog. In a Wiki, this creates a big problem.

So stop creating "Person:" or "Family:" pages, and write as many "Wikipages" you want. This will be simpler.

If you want, we can write the biggest possible title on top of main page of Rodovid.EN going to Category:Almoustine's chronicles. So then, every wikipage you write will be categorized this way and readable in one click. And then you will be allowed to write that Jeanne of Ark is the mother of Mao Dze Dong, just as you use to do. No problem. But please just stop annoying other users. And then you will be free.

OK?

PS

  1. Hu, my hope of a "yes" answer is very low.
  2. Do you understand what is a wikipage in Rodovid
  3. I will create this Biggest possible title on main page, as a "commentaire", in seconds.

--Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:42, 10 February 2017 (EET)

Done. I've created this title as an anoucement. Is it OK for you? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:52, 10 February 2017 (EET)

No answer as usual? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 15:13, 17 February 2017 (EET)

THANK YOU, I really appreciate this addendum to the Rododvid platform. I will, however, continue to edit and create persons and families... but then I will use these wiki pages to provide additional documentation, links to controversies, and a forum for exploration and the posting of sources that you seem to object to having appear on the persons and families pages. BTW I NEVER said Joan of Ark was the mother of Mao Dze Dong... don't be ludicrous. Almoustine 19:46, 28 March 2017 (EEST)

As usual you did not understand… --Christophe Tesson - talk. 14:57, 30 March 2017 (EEST)

[edit] Is it a good idea?

You've been unblocked. Take care. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 20:10, 7 July 2018 (EEST)

Thank you. I request the additional rights to review edits and restore deleted records that have historical sources. for example [[Person:605321] If they are speculative lineages will refrain from connecting them to other historical lineages but will instead document a possible link in the comments and notes section. Almoustine 03:53, 8 July 2018 (EEST)

Could you please write the same sentance in Globish? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 16:10, 8 July 2018 (EEST)

Dear Almoustine, I have some questions regarding Francois Maximilien Misson that I would like to ask you regarding an ancestor born in the Mescarene Islands circa 1678. Is this something you think you could assist me with?

Retrieved from "https://en.rodovid.org/wk/User_talk:Almoustine"
Personal tools