Thank you very much John and Andrew. This solution solved the problem perfectly. Gilles Paquette Le 2015-02-20 19:03, John Steed a ecrit : To Gilles Paquette You can pick Ancestor, Ahnentafel Book and there is an option there to include the children of the ancestors. You asked about siblings, but children should be the same people, just look one generation up on the report. So the children of your grandfather are the siblings of your father or mother If that does not do what you want, let me know. John Steed

To Gilles Paquette You can pick Ancestor, Ahnentafel Book and there is an option there to include the children of the ancestors. You asked about siblings, but children should be the same people, just look one generation up on the report. So the children of your grandfather are the siblings of your father or mother If that does not do what you want, let me know. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gilles Paquette via" <[email protected]> To: "BK - RootsWeb" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 4:43 PM Subject: [BK] Ancestors and siblings > > Hi, > Is it possible to make a report with one's ancestors and the siblings > and > the respective spouse(s) of these ancestors? > This is easily done with descendants, but I can't find how to do it with > ancestors. > Thanks. > Gilles Paquette > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Hi, Is it possible to make a report with one's ancestors and the siblings and the respective spouse(s) of these ancestors? This is easily done with descendants, but I can't find how to do it with ancestors. Thanks. Gilles Paquette

In message <[email protected]>, David Bartelt via <[email protected]> writes: [] >Example: >Name in Name Field LastName used in EditScreen/Names/Sort >John Smith Smith >John Smyth Smith >John Smithe Smith > >Can all be found using Find/F3 "smith" [] Could also use the actual names, which would still be findable using sm*th* (which would not, I think, in most cases find too many false hits). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I was showing her the sights of London - you know, Buckminster Castle, St. Paul's Abbey ..." Sir Les Patterson, Australian Cultural Attache (Barry Humphries) on "Parkinson" 1982-1-30

Yes, Steve, you must be careful in the change of surnames. In this particular case the families with the problem are from the 1700s aand 1800s before decendants came to America. There are only a couple of families involved but there were many children and I hate to do them one at a time, more chance of error. Their decendents who I do not have, nor am I interested in had changed the name to "Nemeth" which was given to me by the person that furnished the data on the family. Unfortunately in his data base, the families that I was interested in originated in Hungary and the original spelling was "Német" according to church records that I checked. I corrected my data base and made him aware of the original spelling. He will be changing his data also. Ed http://JonesFarm.us/ The trick is to get education out of politics - and get it into the politicians. On 2/19/2015 11:54 AM, Steve via wrote: > I would be very wary of doing that for a couple of reasons. > > 1) Surnames change. Especially further back in time, due to lack of consistency in spelling and illiteracy of the majority of the population. I have people with surnames such as Lee where it is spelled at least 4 different ways for one person. > > 2) Not everybody who has the "wrong" surname may be in the family you really want to change. I have an unusual name in my ancestry (Gluyas) and one of my wife's ancestors married one - unrelated back as far as 1700. > > Regards > Steve > > On 19/02/2015 13:24, W3BNR via wrote: >> I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a number of >> people that require the change. >> Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do each one >> individually? >> >> I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? >> > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I would be very wary of doing that for a couple of reasons. 1) Surnames change. Especially further back in time, due to lack of consistency in spelling and illiteracy of the majority of the population. I have people with surnames such as Lee where it is spelled at least 4 different ways for one person. 2) Not everybody who has the "wrong" surname may be in the family you really want to change. I have an unusual name in my ancestry (Gluyas) and one of my wife's ancestors married one - unrelated back as far as 1700. Regards Steve On 19/02/2015 13:24, W3BNR via wrote: > I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a number of > people that require the change. > Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do each one > individually? > > I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? >

I have a few surnames that are spelled differently - often the change was made by one child while the rest kept the original. There are those that I don't know why the spelling difference is there but I suspect they are related. Originally, when I would want to find one it would be under one of the variations. So, I choose the most common of the surame spellings and for the others I added that most common name to EditScreen/Names/Sort. This way all of them show up in one list when using Find/F3. Example: Name in Name Field LastName used in EditScreen/Names/Sort John Smith Smith John Smyth Smith John Smithe Smith Can all be found using Find/F3 "smith" Dave -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve via Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] Multi-change of surnames I would be very wary of doing that for a couple of reasons. 1) Surnames change. Especially further back in time, due to lack of consistency in spelling and illiteracy of the majority of the population. I have people with surnames such as Lee where it is spelled at least 4 different ways for one person. 2) Not everybody who has the "wrong" surname may be in the family you really want to change. I have an unusual name in my ancestry (Gluyas) and one of my wife's ancestors married one - unrelated back as far as 1700. Regards Steve On 19/02/2015 13:24, W3BNR via wrote: > I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a number of > people that require the change. > Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do each one > individually? > > I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 2/19/2015 10:24 AM, John Steed via wrote: > To Ed W3BNR > > It can be done with File, Utilities, Global Search and Replace, Change only > the Name field. > > Be sure you have a Backup copy of the database before doing this. > > John Steed N8AJJ > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "W3BNR via" <[email protected]> > To: "BK List Server" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 8:24 AM > Subject: [BK] Multi-change of surnames > > >> I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a >> number of >> people that require the change. >> Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do >> each one >> individually? >> >> I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? >> >> -- >> Ed >> http://JonesFarm.us/ >> >> Don't take life too seriously; no one gets out alive. >> >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Thank you John. Saw all the other Global Change options but missed that one. Old age is creeping up on me. Thanks for a great product. Been using it since DOS days. -- Ed http://JonesFarm.us/ "To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." -Woody Allen (1935- )

To Ed W3BNR It can be done with File, Utilities, Global Search and Replace, Change only the Name field. Be sure you have a Backup copy of the database before doing this. John Steed N8AJJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "W3BNR via" <[email protected]> To: "BK List Server" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 8:24 AM Subject: [BK] Multi-change of surnames >I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a >number of > people that require the change. > Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do > each one > individually? > > I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? > > -- > Ed > http://JonesFarm.us/ > > Don't take life too seriously; no one gets out alive. > > > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

I recently learned of a misspelling of a family surname. There are a number of people that require the change. Is there a way to mass change the name at one time, or do I have to do each one individually? I know place names can be changed this way, but what about surnames? -- Ed http://JonesFarm.us/ Don't take life too seriously; no one gets out alive.

Thanks John Steed and others for your comments. Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Steed To: Andrew Jackett Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private To Andrew Jackett I am working on a way to mark individual people's data as private to prevent exporting it to gedcom. I will let you know when it is available. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Jackett To: John Steed ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:40 PM Subject: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected]

To Max van Dam I am working on a way to mark certain people as private so that their information will not print on reports and will not export to gedcom (without having to use Split database) John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max van Dam" <[email protected]> To: "'John Steed'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:36 AM Subject: RE: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private > Dear John Steed, > > I see your answer to Andrew Jackett. Does using "bksplit" not solving the > problem or do I miss something or do you working to an different solution? > > With 300 people who do not wish to show up in publications on internet an > important issue for me. > > > With my best regards, > > Max van Dam > Rechovoth > Israel > > http://www.maxvandam.info/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > John Steed via > Sent: 17 February 2015 05:32 > To: Andrew Jackett > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private > > To Andrew Jackett > > I am working on a way to mark individual people's data as private to > prevent > exporting it to gedcom. > > I will let you know when it is available. > > John Steed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Jackett > To: John Steed ; [email protected] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:40 PM > Subject: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private > > > Hello people, > > I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program > in > that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion > basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't > want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want > them > shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At > present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can > specifically > mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to > the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to > be > maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how > many > times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, > etc.) > The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases > of > the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the > individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will > display about eac! > ! h individual in one database and not in the other and always use the > excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy > approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details > in > BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations > like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have > to > make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it > still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. > > Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or > is > work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating > as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any > suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a > process > out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts > and > ideas are welcomed. > > Thank you for reading this. > > Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. > [email protected] > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > >

Dear John Steed, I see your answer to Andrew Jackett. Does using "bksplit" not solving the problem or do I miss something or do you working to an different solution? With 300 people who do not wish to show up in publications on internet an important issue for me. With my best regards, Max van Dam Rechovoth Israel http://www.maxvandam.info/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Steed via Sent: 17 February 2015 05:32 To: Andrew Jackett Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private To Andrew Jackett I am working on a way to mark individual people's data as private to prevent exporting it to gedcom. I will let you know when it is available. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Jackett To: John Steed ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:40 PM Subject: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about eac! ! h individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected] Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Fran, Good thought but it's not going to do what I am after. I still want the individuals to go through and be recognised but without the tell tale information about them. Screening the people rather than deselecting them. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. ----- Original Message ----- From: Fran L To: Andrew Jackett ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private When creating the gedcom have you tried "deselect people", then either "Range of Numbers" then enter each BK# individually. I just tried it and it did delete the 2 #s I entered. I.E: Range of Numbers" start with 4, end with 4 and it deleted it, then did the same with #5 and both were deleted. Fran L On 16/02/2015 2:40 PM, Andrew Jackett via wrote: Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each ! individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected]co.nz Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected]

Hi Jim,   Thanks for the advice.  I used Word in the beginning and then went to Open Office and recently switched to Libre Office.  So, have lots of conversions to deal with on old files.  Although, most times I create a pdf file when I send a report to someone so I know they can open it.  Guess I could switch to text files instead.   Patty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Dell" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 7:27:29 PM Subject: RE: [BK] can't print Patty Libre Office no matter what type of document opens office.exe on my PC.   My advice is use BK’s built in editor, which is text only. I think people that use something like Office are asking for trouble down the line.  Just ask a guy who’s being using MS Word since version 1, version 2013 won’t open those files.   Jim    

Dear Andrew Jackett, In my database of 105.000 people I have about 300 people that do not want that they show up on my site. I have in BK 7, but the opportunity was already in BK 6 to put the numbers of them in a file within BK with the name bksplit (a Notepad file). If I made a gedcom than we have the opportunity to deselect people. After choosing deselect I push F5 and all the people mentioned in bksplit disappear out my gedcom. Maybe can John Steed it better explain than I do it now. With my best regards, Max van Dam Rechovoth Israel http://www.maxvandam.info/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Jackett via Sent: 16 February 2015 21:41 To: John Steed; [email protected] Subject: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each ! ! individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected] Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

To Andrew Jackett I am working on a way to mark individual people's data as private to prevent exporting it to gedcom. I will let you know when it is available. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Jackett To: John Steed ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 2:40 PM Subject: [BK] GEDCOM Export of individuals marked as Private Hello people, I have a problem when I export individuals to another genealogy program in that while I can have individuals marked as Private on an age exclusion basis in BK, I can't yet export individuals who for various reasons don't want their information shared about themselves or possibly I don't want them shared yet because I want to investigate something about them further. At present with BK7 there doesn't seem to be a system where I can specifically mark individuals as Private (i.e. do not send details about this person to the GEDCOM file but allow for recordkeeping of details for this person to be maintained in the BK program like you would for any other no matter how many times you export excluded information, do reports or group sheets on, etc.) The only workaround I can see for this at present is to keep 2 databases of the information you want to GEDCOM export and physically change the individual names to read Private and remove any events/facts that will display about each individual in one database and not in the other and always use the excluded database to send GEDCOM exports from. This is a kind of boggy approach to handling this I believe. I would gladly publish the details in BK if there was a system that would cater better for handling situations like that on the web but at the moment there's not. It seems that I have to make improvisations in BK to adjust and convert them over as, for now, it still seems worthwhile going to other software to publish. Does John have a bandaid yet to assist with sorting out this dilemma or is work in this area still some time away? I am still finding it frustrating as you can probably pick up in this message! Do other readers have any suggestions for me dealing with this better? Hoping that there is a process out there that will in time make this procedure a lot easier. Thoughts and ideas are welcomed. Thank you for reading this. Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [email protected]

In message <[email protected]>, Andrew Jackett via <[email protected]> writes: >Thanks Fran, > >Good thought but it's not going to do what I am after. I still want >the individuals to go through and be recognised but without the tell >tale information about them. Screening the people rather than >deselecting them. > >Andrew Jackett of New Zealand. [] If this should ever be considered, I'd like a privacy flag - or something similar - that I could put on each piece of information (ideally maybe several of them). I have people who give me information on the promise that I don't reveal it, and I'd like to be able to honour this. (I say ideally several, so that I could say include data tagged with A but not data tagged with B, or something like that.) It might vary across a person - such as their name is public but their age is private, or their POB, or a previous marriage - so not all or nothing about a person. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

Patty Libre Office no matter what type of document opens office.exe on my PC. My advice is use BK’s built in editor, which is text only. I think people that use something like Office are asking for trouble down the line. Just ask a guy who’s being using MS Word since version 1, version 2013 won’t open those files. Jim From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 7:55 PM To: Jim Dell Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BK] can't print Jim, I'm not sure how to give full path with Win 8.1. Desktop > Patty > Dropbox > genealogy > BK7 main file Both it and the program are installed on the C:\ drive on my laptop. Which reminds me, I don't know how to connect Libre Office as my editor using Win8. How do I find the path of that? Thanks, Patty _____ From: "Jim Dell" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 5:33:25 PM Subject: Re: [BK] can't print Patty Where is your database located? Where is BK installed? Full paths please? Jim Sent from my iPad On Feb 15, 2015, at 5:18 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: I have tried rebooting. For whatever reason, the printing doesn't seem to be a problem now. Although, I'm noticing that the options I select aren't being saved. I am clicking on "save options". I have rebooted the computer multiple times, switched between different databases, just exited out of BK, changed my setting to run as administrator. I had set the run as administrator when I first switched over to BK7 and it seemed to have not kept it as when I went in to check, the box was unchecked. Also, now that I have it set to run as administrator, every time I open BK7 it asks if I want to allow the program to make changes to my computer...... (the normal message, I can't remember the exact wording.) It's never asked me that before when I open BK. I am running the latest version of BK 7.0.42, 1 Feb 2015. Had been running 7.0.40 until about an hour ago. I do have my registration information entered. Any other ideas on how to save my settings? The File > Options are staying. It's the ones I set under Reports > Other > Group Sheets that are specifically not staying right now. I'm sorry to be such a pain lately. I'm not sure why I'm having so many problems with this. Patty _____ From: "Jim Dell" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "geneamom" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:38:18 PM Subject: RE: [BK] can't print Patty Have you tried rebooting? Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of geneamom via Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:50 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [BK] can't print Okay, I finally got the group reports working the way I wanted, but now I can't print them. I've tried using my physical printer and my pdf printer. I get the following error message - Error 482 - printer error Procedure stack - GRPFORM.FRM (Start Click) GROUP6W.BAS (Group) GROUP6W.BAS (PrintHeaderG) Any ideas I've tried getting out of BK and back in and still have the same problem. Thanks, Patty Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message