If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)

When I'm looking at the "Children" page for a person, it'd be nice to see all that person's children - perhaps greyed or something for the ones that aren't the children of the currently-shown spouse. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)

I am looking at (i. e. in edit window) a child of the second wife; the correct father and mother are shown. I click on Father. Father is brought up - with Spouse 1 shown. (I presume the same would apply for second husband, too.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)

But when looking a list of names on a printed sheet of paper or in the index of a register report it's not too useful to see 100 unknowns. Another method I use for unknown females is for example if the husband is Jim Jones I name the wife Mrs. Jones?? That way I know her husband is a Jones. Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of hjbrisbois@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 9:02 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? I may have 100 Unknowns in my database but each one has a specific number which denotes their specific place in the database. When a name becomes available the Unknown is simply replaced with the name and the number is not changed. Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Dell" <dellji@yahoo.com> To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:26:38 PM Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? Just leave the unknown as not entered by clicking on cancel when after entering the known parent, that way you don't have 100 UNKNOWNs. Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of N & K Chestnut Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:11 PM To: G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk; bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? Yes, UNKNOWN can be used. However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN when that kind of situation comes up, again. It may be strange to have 20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary. Don't use an UNKNOWN a second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in both cases. Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you use the name), but the maiden surname is not known. Thus, you could have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN. Don't forget the gender; only in this day and age could it be confusing, like Mr. Mom. I have made errors on gender, male & female, I mean. The correction can be made, although it takes several steps. I like to make surnames in all capitals. It makes scanning easier and faster. Kay C. ----- Original Message ----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: 2012-07-08 02:39 Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com 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 BK-request@rootsweb.com 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 BK-request@rootsweb.com 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 BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Michael, Use the defaults. I am running on Windows 7 64bit Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Palekaiko Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 8:54 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] Bk 6.5.11 install using Windows 7 I remember this topic, but I can't find it in my archives, so please excuse the redundancy. After over 7 years, I've made the leap to Windows 7, leaving behind my very stable Windows XP Pro. So now the question is "Are there any special items I need to pay attention to, when installing BK 6.5.11 in my new computer, running Windows 7, 64 bit, Home edition? Or do I simply follow the install instructions? I have two program folders, Programs (x86) and Programs? To which folder do I install BK6? If any of you out there are willing to give me step by step instructions (should that be necessary), please be specific. Thanks, Michael Diamant Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just leave the unknown as not entered by clicking on cancel when after entering the known parent, that way you don't have 100 UNKNOWNs. Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of N & K Chestnut Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2012 6:11 PM To: G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk; bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? Yes, UNKNOWN can be used. However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN when that kind of situation comes up, again. It may be strange to have 20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary. Don't use an UNKNOWN a second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in both cases. Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you use the name), but the maiden surname is not known. Thus, you could have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN. Don't forget the gender; only in this day and age could it be confusing, like Mr. Mom. I have made errors on gender, male & female, I mean. The correction can be made, although it takes several steps. I like to make surnames in all capitals. It makes scanning easier and faster. Kay C. ----- Original Message ----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: 2012-07-08 02:39 Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com 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 BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

BK has the option to add "secondary" names - aka, nicknames, etc. - in the "names" tab. It doesn't appear as though that information exports in a gedcom, and I also can't find a way to create a report showing who has other names attached. Can anyone tell me how to do so, please? Even better, is there a way to include that information in a gedcom when exporting? Thank you, Greg Martin greg@bryan-martin.net

Yes, UNKNOWN can be used. However, don't forget to add another UNKNOWN when that kind of situation comes up, again. It may be strange to have 20 different UNKNOWNs, but it is necessary. Don't use an UNKNOWN a second time, unless you are certain that it is the exact same person in both cases. Also UNKNOWN can be used when the lady's first name is known (and you use the name), but the maiden surname is not known. Thus, you could have a Jane UNKNOWN, or an Unknown (Mr.) BROWN, or an UNKNOWN. Don't forget the gender; only in this day and age could it be confusing, like Mr. Mom. I have made errors on gender, male & female, I mean. The correction can be made, although it takes several steps. I like to make surnames in all capitals. It makes scanning easier and faster. Kay C. ----- Original Message ----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: 2012-07-08 02:39 Subject: [BK] can I enter second spouse without first? If I know someone was married before, but have no details of their first spouse, is there any way of indicating that the spouse I am entering is the second one, without having to make up a dummy person? (I seem to remember *UNKNOWN*, or something like that, being valid as a placeholder of this sort, but can't now find it in the help.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT) Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I remember this topic, but I can't find it in my archives, so please excuse the redundancy. After over 7 years, I've made the leap to Windows 7, leaving behind my very stable Windows XP Pro. So now the question is "Are there any special items I need to pay attention to, when installing BK 6.5.11 in my new computer, running Windows 7, 64 bit, Home edition? Or do I simply follow the install instructions? I have two program folders, Programs (x86) and Programs? To which folder do I install BK6? If any of you out there are willing to give me step by step instructions (should that be necessary), please be specific. Thanks, Michael Diamant

To Jim Ball I will try to fix that. Until I do, you can set a Left margin that is larger and it should fit. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Ball" <jd_ball2001@yahoo.com> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 9:19 AM Subject: [BK] Length of Event/Fact Not sure this has ever come up. The fact "Number of children (family)" because it is right justified to the colon delimiter runs off the left side and loses the beginning letters on a family group sheet. Can this please be fixed? I've been entering the number in the "location" field and use this fact when the number of issues is known, but don't have knowledge of all to present them as separate entries. I noticed a similar fact "No children from this marriage" would have the same results, but prints simply as "No children", which is fine. --- Please visit The Ball Family of Carter's Run http://www.ballsplace.com Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For those of you researching in the USA... Ancestry.com currently is running a promotion allowing free access (through 8 Jul 2012) to some of their records pertaining to the "13 original colonies." You might have to sign up your email address, but you don't have to be a paid subscriber for this. I found that the 1915 New York State census records are included in the available records. Regards to all, And Happy Independence Day, but take it easy with the fireworks. We don't want any more forest fires! Roy "Find the red, white, and blue in you. Did your family fight for your freedom or work to establish our great nation? FREE through July 8th, make your connection to early American ancestors in nearly 65 million carefully selected historical records from the 13 original colonies and more, including: • U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970 • Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, 1800-1900 • Historical Newspapers, Birth, Marriage & Death Announcements, 1851-2003 • And many more "

Not sure this has ever come up. The fact "Number of children (family)" because it is right justified to the colon delimiter runs off the left side and loses the beginning letters on a family group sheet. Can this please be fixed? I've been entering the number in the "location" field and use this fact when the number of issues is known, but don't have knowledge of all to present them as separate entries. I noticed a similar fact "No children from this marriage" would have the same results, but prints simply as "No children", which is fine.   --- Please visit The Ball Family of Carter's Run http://www.ballsplace.com

In message <000601cd58a8$a6e79fc0$f4b6df40$@yahoo.com>, Jim Dell <dellji@yahoo.com> writes: >Is my name in a computer? > >In my genealogy travels I have met people that said they didn't want their >name in a computer. Well I am sorry to say that regardless if they are in >my computer here, there are other computers in which their name might appear [snip long list of computers] It's not just being "in computers": some genealogists don't want their work to be made widely available. Although I don't feel that way - if only because I feel propagating _correct_ information will reduce the amount of incorrect doing the rounds - I would like to obey their request because: (a) I generally try to respect other's beliefs, even if I don't agree with them, and (b) I'd receive a lot less information if I got known as a sieve. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We shall never - never! - allow foreigners to run our economy. They might cure it. (George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" [1977].)

I have more and less the same problem as mr. Gilliver. I have a main group withe Title "Mail diversen" In the line Page/reel number I type the name of the person and the date of the e-mail. Some people do not like to see their name on my site. So I use in "Print where" Never print in all the cases of "Mail Diversen". But I have to be honest sometimes I forget Never print. I get many e-mails and I add every week between 100 and 200 people to my database. It would be very helpful for me if I had the option that information with the main source "Mail diversen" did not come in my gedcom. I think also that it is very difficult to realize an option like this. Max van Dam ----- Original Message ----- From: John Steed To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [BK] Can I exclude a source? Multiple sources? from a GedCometc.... To J. P. Gilliver BK does not have the option to exclude just certain people or just people with certain sources. It will exclude Notes attached to people if the Notes have the Print Where column set to Never Print. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:40 PM Subject: [BK] Can I exclude a source? Multiple sources? from a GedCom etc.... > Some of the information in my tree is from people who have made it a > condition of giving it to me (or had such imposed on them by other > people who have given it to them) that it is not "published". > > While I don't agree with such views, I respect them - after all, I > wouldn't have the information at all (until I corroborate it from other > sources) without them. > > It would be useful if BK could - say, when creating a GedCom - omit > information from a specified source - or, better, sources. Can it, and > I've missed it? > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to > prove > that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are > right. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956) > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com 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 BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message <0084v7999fiu2gm203v7aerk09sheec9kj@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: >On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:40:00 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>It would be useful if BK could - say, when creating a GedCom - omit >>information from a specified source - or, better, sources. Can it, and >>I've missed it? > >One easy way is to copy the database to a temp database and there >remove those person you will not print/make to a Gedcom. > >Then you can keep your complete database, but for this situation a a >separate database. Certainly not "easy"; perhaps I didn't make clear, but the information I am not supposed to publish covers many people; the person placing (or passing on) the restriction applies it to all the people s/he gives me information on. And when more than one person makes such a request, the only practical way would be to block the export of data items with that particular source. Which is not currently available (I can see it'd be difficult to implement). > >You can also make Biography not to be printed, but it is not easy to >add and remove each time (if there is many places) It is (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

In message <468F769468304412B9D99BF5DC2ACDB6@Dell4600>, John Steed <brothers_keeper@msn.com> writes: >To J. P. Gilliver (Name's John BTW!) > >BK does not have the option to exclude just certain people or just >people with certain sources. Thanks for replying - I didn't think it had that. I could see that it'd be quite complex to add (you'd need to decide what to do in the case of multiple sources for example). > >It will exclude Notes attached to people if the Notes have the Print >Where column set to Never Print. I presume "print" includes "make GedCom". > >John Steed [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:27:00 -0700, Jack <john.cook58@verizon.net> wrote: >These notes reminds me of questions I've had for some time. Is there an >archive of discussions regarding privacy issues? Or a link? I don't >want to rehash it all if that's available. Standard policies that I >should be aware of? > It is not easy, You can serach, but will have many links. One of the large problem is that we users are not clever to make good subjects on our problem. And we do not start a new subject with a cllean and new email. Now all is mixed up and you have to read a lot to find the "good one" -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:40:00 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Some of the information in my tree is from people who have made it a >condition of giving it to me (or had such imposed on them by other >people who have given it to them) that it is not "published". > >While I don't agree with such views, I respect them - after all, I >wouldn't have the information at all (until I corroborate it from other >sources) without them. > >It would be useful if BK could - say, when creating a GedCom - omit >information from a specified source - or, better, sources. Can it, and >I've missed it? One easy way is to copy the database to a temp database and there remove those person you will not print/make to a Gedcom. Then you can keep your complete database, but for this situation a a separate database. You can also make Biography not to be printed, but it is not easy to add and remove each time (if there is many places) -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

Some of the information in my tree is from people who have made it a condition of giving it to me (or had such imposed on them by other people who have given it to them) that it is not "published". While I don't agree with such views, I respect them - after all, I wouldn't have the information at all (until I corroborate it from other sources) without them. It would be useful if BK could - say, when creating a GedCom - omit information from a specified source - or, better, sources. Can it, and I've missed it? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)

In message <1341241347.77791.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, R L Brown <wiseguy_wv@yahoo.com> writes: >I'm running BK 6.5.11, registered, on Windows XP.  For years, I've done >frequent backups without a problem...  until now. >  >When choosing to COMPRESS the data files, I get the following BK error message: [] >I then chose to COPY the data files, and that worked.  But the result >is more files taking up 3-1/2 times the space.  I use the [] >What may have caused this sudden problem, and how can I fix it? [] Can't help with what caused it, I'm afraid, but as a patch while we wait for someone more knowledgeable to come along: you can always zip them yourself, outside BK, to make the files (well, one file) smaller for copying between computers. (I tend to use 7-zip, but there are lots of zip/unzip utilities around; I think XP even has some zip-handling capability built in.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)