In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an entry. What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? Gay Davis

If you go into "help center" in nFS, on the first page under search. put in "when should I dispute?" and click search, you will get 117 answers dealing with disputes. most on the first page are what i recomend. the 3,5,6,7 are very helpful. this feature of nFS is little known by mosnew users of nFS . It is great use it, as well as common asked questions that is further down on that "find answers" page. these are not opinions, they are knowledge documents from the church on the subject. If you need help with any of the other products that the church supports, then check the second "radio" button after the blank space. Hope this answeres your question. Marian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gay Davis" <grdavis@centurytel.net> To: "LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT" <LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:48 PM Subject: [LDS-WC] Disputes > In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute > mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their > issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an entry. > What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? > > Gay Davis > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

At 09:48 PM 31/03/2009, you wrote: >In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute >mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their >issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an >entry. What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? >Gay Davis Gay, in my opinion you should not be using disputes at all. It will lock the disputed event and or record and will prevent the person that submitted the info to make the correction if he/she agrees with you. In all cases the first plan of action is to contact the submitter and discuss the info. You might remember one record in your Holladay line had 11 people putting a dispute on the same record. It turned out it was a honest mistake where the person entering the information knew what she did wrong, but didn't know how to remove it. It took a lot of effort to contact all 11 disputers and get them to remove their dispute before the mistake could be fixed. You might have noticed Family Tree does not have this function. Hopefully it will not come back. If you see wrong information contact the contributor, otherwise leave the information alone until a better way of adding a dispute can be found. Groetjes Peter "I'm not 50 something. I'm 49.95 plus shipping and handling."'

Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with inclusion of the correct name. Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. David Samuelsen > Gay, > in my opinion you should not be using disputes at all. It will lock the > disputed event and or record and will prevent the person that submitted the > info to make the correction if he/she agrees with you. > In all cases the first plan of action is to contact the submitter and > discuss the info. You might remember one record in your Holladay line had > 11 people putting a dispute on the same record. It turned out it was a > honest mistake where the person entering the information knew what she did > wrong, but didn't know how to remove it. > It took a lot of effort to contact all 11 disputers and get them to remove > their dispute before the mistake could be fixed. > Groetjes > Peter

Disputes do not prevent the original submitter from correcting the data UNLESS the dispute is on a relationship. If you dispute an event such as birth or death, the original submitter can make the change. If the dispute is still showing after the change has been made, it simply means that there are more submitters who have submitted the same incorrect information. If all of the original incorrect submissions get changed, then the dispute does not show anymore. But it is still in the system. If someone subsequently comes along and adds the incorrect information again, the dispute will immediately reappear - thus letting the new submitter know that the information they just added is incorrect. Having said that, even disputes on regular events should not be the first step. I think the first step should be to try separating records. It is possible that the incorrect information is there because someone incorrectly combined records from two different people. Once you have separated any incorrectly combined records, if the error is still there the next step should be to attempt to contact the original submitter and discuss the data with them. Perhaps they have conflicting sources. Perhaps they will convince you that your data is incorrect. Perhaps both pieces of data are correct, given the source from which they came. Names are notorious for changing over time. We should not presume that because we have one "correct" spelling of our name that the same was true in the past. Historically spelling of names was not nearly as rigid as it is today. As a last resort, dispute the event. If the problem is a relationship, look again for incorrectly combined records, try to contact the submitter again, contact FamilySearch support, do anything you can to get it resolved. Finally, as a last last last resort, dispute the relationship, making sure to provide good contact information so that when someone comes forward to fix it they will be able to contact you and ask you to remove the dispute on the relationship. In my opinion, disputing relationships is a broken feature. But disputing events is well designed and very useful. Aloha, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" <Family.History.Research@shaw.ca> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:00 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > At 09:48 PM 31/03/2009, you wrote: >>In my NFS class tonight, I discouraged the students from using the dispute >>mechanism giving them information about other ways to resolve their >>issues. I was asked when it would be appropriate to dispute an >>entry. What do you think is an appropriate time to dispute? >>Gay Davis > > Gay, > in my opinion you should not be using disputes at all. It will lock the > disputed event and or record and will prevent the person that submitted > the > info to make the correction if he/she agrees with you. > In all cases the first plan of action is to contact the submitter and > discuss the info. You might remember one record in your Holladay line had > 11 people putting a dispute on the same record. It turned out it was a > honest mistake where the person entering the information knew what she did > wrong, but didn't know how to remove it. > It took a lot of effort to contact all 11 disputers and get them to remove > their dispute before the mistake could be fixed. > > You might have noticed Family Tree does not have this function. Hopefully > it will not come back. > > If you see wrong information contact the contributor, otherwise leave the > information alone until a better way of adding a dispute can be found. > > Groetjes > Peter > > "I'm not 50 something. I'm 49.95 plus shipping and handling."' > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had a loop like this where a grandson had the same name as his grandfather. Someone had mistakenly typed the grandson's birth info in instead of the grandfather's, so the record showed the grandson was married to the grandmother. This was not just a combining error, a sealing (a duplicate, of course,) was done. The incorrect info was shared widely, and had been duplicated on PRF 57 times. I referred it through feedback to the family history missionaries and programmers. Took them a month, but they did delete the problem record and fixed it. Doris Bateman ----- Original Message ----- From: Jorge Todeschini<mailto:jorgetodeschini@hotmail.com> To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes One reason the grandparents could be listed as parents is that grandparents and parents were combined together in error. I recently helped a patron who had his grandparents listed as... parents of his (the patron's) grandfather. So, Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and Manuel was the son of Manuel and Joana, and so on. I went to combined records and separated Manuel married to Joana from Manuel the grandfather. The loop was corrected. Note that placing a dispute there would not solve the problem at all. -------------------------------------------------- From: "DC & Alice Allen" <dcaallen@pacifier.com<mailto:dcaallen@pacifier.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40 PM To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com<mailto:lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com>> Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Disputes > Okay, maybe you can help me straighten out my great-grandfather and his > parents. > > When I first was able to use nFS last June, one of the first things I > discovered was that my great-grandfather, John Peter Paxton, was showing > *his* grandparents as his parents. His real parents were showing as an > alternate set of parents. I managed to get his real parents in place, and > placed a dispute on the wrong parents. So, after reading the latest from > this list, I went back to his combined records, and note that there are 31 > records for him. I did some combining last summer, but I'm reasonably > certain that I didn't combine 31 records for him. I am hesitant to > uncombine them at the moment, without a little feedback from someone else. > > As near as I can tell, the majority of the contributors are "LDS Temple > Records." There are two other contributors who are not LDS Temple > Records, but neither of them seem to be registered with nFS. So in this > case, was the dispute the only thing I could have done? How would I > resolve this otherwise? The one who apparently contributed the wrong > parent information is one of the two I mentioned above, with a carryover > into the first LDS Church Temple Records. The rest of the records either > list the correct parents, or no parents at all. > > His ID# is KJJ4-PZ7, if anyone wants to take a look. > > Alice Allen > Oakhurst Ward Family History Consultant > Vancouver WA Stake > Portland OR Temple District > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 4/1/2009 at 9:47 AM dsam52@sampubco.com<mailto:dsam52@sampubco.com> wrote: > >>Same thing happened to my great-grandmother. Somebody disputed her >>spelling of her name. Took me several months of trying to get it >>removed. First step I did was to separate the record to find exact which >>record was tagged wrong way. The exact one had correct spelling and >>tagged as not mother of her 14 children while 52 other records had wrong >>spelling and were not tagged. Took me some months to contact the person >>who did the tagging. It turned out a helper goofed so my cousin supplied >>me her LDS id and birth date then I removed the dispute tag then >>proceeded to remerge the 53 records then went to the detail page, marked >>every other mis-spelled and mis-named ones as incorrect along with >>inclusion of the correct name. >> >>Greater danger is tagging the relationships for wrong reasons. The only >>reasons that can be used to tag relationships are two - wrong mother or >>wrong father, or even both parents, or the child with wrong sex. That's >>it. Dates, places, names, go to the detail page of that person instead. >> >>David Samuelsen >> > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message