I am really sympathetic to the problem of errors on the Internet. However, we need to consider whether the error is in the orginal document or in the transcription of the original document. For example, Chalkley's Chronicles .... involved the scanning of three volumes of court records, about 1800 pages of material. There are errors made in the original text. We do not correct those errors even though someone comes along and points out that the spelling of a surname is wrong. Spelling was a relative thing in the 18th century. However, if what appears online is different from the original, then we change it. Hopefully there is not much of this because we did have a very careful system of proofing. None-the-less errors can creep in, and these must be fixed. Of greater concern to me is the total lack of any recognition on the part of the USGenWeb entity that we help spread around a lot of misinformation. The "project" takes no responsibility in trying to improve the lot of the flawed information which we help disseminate. Just as one small example, when the Augusta County started using GenConnect boards, I tried to stem the tide, at least for Augusta County, of posting hokey information on the system by giving some rules of good citation. http://www.rootsweb.com/~vaaugust/augusta3.htm Not sure it does any good, but it makes me feel better. :) Carmen Finley At 12:12 PM 05/12/2000 -0400, Alley Blackford wrote: >If the purpose of the archives is to always have info online for >researchers, then shouldn't that info be corrected if what was submitted is >incorrect and proof is offered for corrections? > >Two examples that I know of: > >1) 1850 Shenandoah Co census lists George McWilliams as George Williams. > >SK Publication has McWms listed as Williams in the index and the info online >duplicates the error. The proof is on the actual census page. I have a >copy and can provide proof. > >2) Linden Cemetery in Warren Co, VA gives incorrect date of birth for Annie >Showers. > >I have a picture of her tombstone. > >I wrote to two different people about these errors. One reply was that the >writer didn't know if the census online could be changed after it was >online. I didn't receive a reply regarding the tombstone. > >The tombstone records of Linden Cemetery have now been copied to another >website and the copy contains the same error. (The copying is an assumption >on my part because if someone viewed the tombstone they would see the >correct date. I think the submitted date of birth could be a typo.) > >Is it really impossible to correct errors in archives? > >Alley Blackford >Shenandoah Co VAGenWeb CC >alleyb@worldnet.att.net > > > > > > >

Did I miss something here? What does porn have to do with the USGenweb sites? I read this as an example. I can't imagine that any volunteer with the US Genweb would have "porn" on their pages. Isn't this proposal a result of the delinking by the NC of the original USGenweb Census project without a vote? Linda, no offense, but I think you could have used a better example for your proposal. Being specific and stating the actual problem and the reason for the new proposal would IMO be much more "appropriate." I am new to the project, but not new to personal political agendas, which I have seen from both census projects- your archives and the one that was delinked from the project. Is it true that you have control of the entire archives project and that the archives do not fall under the by-laws of the rest of the USGenweb project? Thanks in advance for clarifying this. I would *not* vote for the proposal the way it is worded. The new proposal is arbitrary and so is the previous one. IMO when too much power is given to one person, it can easily become a dictatorship. If "porn" is the issue, then why not word the proposal as such, so people do not misunderstand? The way the proposal is worded would make me afraid to post anything on my website, because an NC who didn't like something I had posted, or thought it was "inappropriate" could lock me out of my own page and take it over with no warning. "Inappropriate" is too arbitrary- and leaves the interpretation open to subjective opinions and whims. Best Regards, Dodie Browning CC-Tazewell County -----Original Message----- From: Rena Worthen <doreatr@rbnet.com> To: VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com <VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, May 12, 2000 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [VAGEN-L] Proposal >Porn does not have a place in a Genealogy website and should be removed >post-haste., better that it isnt there at all. >Rena, CC for Rockbridge, Botetourt, Craig & Patrick Counties in Va > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> >To: VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com <VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> >Date: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:23 AM >Subject: [VAGEN-L] Proposal > > >>It has come to my attention that a section of the By-laws prevent the >>Advisory Board from immediately correcting situations (a porn site >>replacing an XXGenWeb, for example). The way the By-laws read now, if >>XXGenWeb was a porn site, it could remained linked from the main >>USGenWeb page for two weeks or more. There are some situations when >>action has to be taken immediately, while allowing the offender to >>correct and be relinked. >> >>I propose the following change to a section of the by-laws, and >>encourage all state coordinators to forward to their county coordinators >>and sponsor the amendment in order to get it on the upcoming ballot: >> >>ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD >> >>Old: >> >>Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >>remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >>which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >>Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >>of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >>and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >>website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >>on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. >> >>------------ >> >>New: >> >>Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >>remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >>which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >>Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >>of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >>and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >>website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >>on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. The >>Advisory Board shall also have the right to immediately place a >>temporary page replacing the non-compliant website while the >>responsibile website coordinator brings the site into compliance. >> >>------------ >> >>Linda >>VAGenWeb ASC >> > >

Porn does not have a place in a Genealogy website and should be removed post-haste., better that it isnt there at all. Rena, CC for Rockbridge, Botetourt, Craig & Patrick Counties in Va -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> To: VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com <VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, May 12, 2000 8:23 AM Subject: [VAGEN-L] Proposal >It has come to my attention that a section of the By-laws prevent the >Advisory Board from immediately correcting situations (a porn site >replacing an XXGenWeb, for example). The way the By-laws read now, if >XXGenWeb was a porn site, it could remained linked from the main >USGenWeb page for two weeks or more. There are some situations when >action has to be taken immediately, while allowing the offender to >correct and be relinked. > >I propose the following change to a section of the by-laws, and >encourage all state coordinators to forward to their county coordinators >and sponsor the amendment in order to get it on the upcoming ballot: > >ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD > >Old: > >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. > >------------ > >New: > >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. The >Advisory Board shall also have the right to immediately place a >temporary page replacing the non-compliant website while the >responsibile website coordinator brings the site into compliance. > >------------ > >Linda >VAGenWeb ASC >

Hi Linda, I agree completely, also if the situation is not urgent and in need of immediate change, ALL of the efforts to make contact should be recorded thoroughly as well as any replies involved. You know where I am silently going with this <G> *Wink * Kell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Lewis" <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> To: <VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:14 AM Subject: [VAGEN-L] Proposal > It has come to my attention that a section of the By-laws prevent the > Advisory Board from immediately correcting situations (a porn site > replacing an XXGenWeb, for example). The way the By-laws read now, if > XXGenWeb was a porn site, it could remained linked from the main > USGenWeb page for two weeks or more. There are some situations when > action has to be taken immediately, while allowing the offender to > correct and be relinked. > > I propose the following change to a section of the by-laws, and > encourage all state coordinators to forward to their county coordinators > and sponsor the amendment in order to get it on the upcoming ballot: > > ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD > > Old: > > Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to > remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites > which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb > Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators > of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such > and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their > website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based > on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. > > ------------ > > New: > > Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to > remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites > which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb > Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators > of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such > and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their > website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based > on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. The > Advisory Board shall also have the right to immediately place a > temporary page replacing the non-compliant website while the > responsibile website coordinator brings the site into compliance. > > ------------ > > Linda > VAGenWeb ASC > >

Sounds ok to me, put it on the ballot Patricia Lewis & Upshur Co., WV, and Bath Co., VA. At 08:14 AM 5/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >It has come to my attention that a section of the By-laws prevent the >Advisory Board from immediately correcting situations (a porn site >replacing an XXGenWeb, for example). The way the By-laws read now, if >XXGenWeb was a porn site, it could remained linked from the main >USGenWeb page for two weeks or more. There are some situations when >action has to be taken immediately, while allowing the offender to >correct and be relinked. > >I propose the following change to a section of the by-laws, and >encourage all state coordinators to forward to their county coordinators >and sponsor the amendment in order to get it on the upcoming ballot: > >ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD > >Old: > >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. > >------------ > >New: > >Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to >remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites >which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb >Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators >of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such >and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their >website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based >on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. The >Advisory Board shall also have the right to immediately place a >temporary page replacing the non-compliant website while the >responsibile website coordinator brings the site into compliance. > >------------ > >Linda >VAGenWeb ASC

It has come to my attention that a section of the By-laws prevent the Advisory Board from immediately correcting situations (a porn site replacing an XXGenWeb, for example). The way the By-laws read now, if XXGenWeb was a porn site, it could remained linked from the main USGenWeb page for two weeks or more. There are some situations when action has to be taken immediately, while allowing the offender to correct and be relinked. I propose the following change to a section of the by-laws, and encourage all state coordinators to forward to their county coordinators and sponsor the amendment in order to get it on the upcoming ballot: ARTICLE VI: DUTIES/QUALIFICATIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD Old: Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. ------------ New: Section 5. The Advisory Board shall also have the responsibility to remove links from the national website, as appropriate, to websites which fail to meet the established guidelines/standards for The USGenWeb Project or to websites which display inappropriate content. Coordinators of any websites found to be in non-compliance shall be notified of such and shall be given a period of two (2) weeks in which to bring their website into compliance. The two-week time limit shall be flexible based on justifiable reasons presented by the website coordinator. The Advisory Board shall also have the right to immediately place a temporary page replacing the non-compliant website while the responsibile website coordinator brings the site into compliance. ------------ Linda VAGenWeb ASC

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dickenson, Va Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:44:46 -0400 From: "Millie Howard" <mhoward01@mediaone.net> To: <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> Linda, Is there a place where a message could be posted for one of your information contrubtors? The email listed is not valid?

Rena, PLEASE update your Rockbridge Co., VA page so that it reflects the correct address for Nelson Co., VA. The address for the Nelson Co., VA page is: http://www.rootsweb.com/~vanelson Your Rockbridge Co. page address where you have the broken link to Nelson Co., VA is: http://www.rootsweb.com/~varockbr/rock.htm Thanks, Wayne

The following Census images have been uploaded to the USGenWeb Archives: http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ 1880 Pike County KY http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ky/pike/census/1880/ 1880 Tazewell County VA http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/va/tazewell/census/1880/ Thanks! Linda

With the advent of Y2K ... I had the perception that there was an onslaught of new surnames being researched ... That is, I thought that there were more surnames being mentioned in queries I was posting that hadn't been mentioned before, that had been the case in 1999. So I checked and found that in the last three months of 1999 on my five county querypages, there were 190 of 483 surnames that were appearing for the first time ... roughly 40% and in the first three months of 2000, there were 244 of 694 ... 35% So I looked at the "Unknown County" QueryPages and found there were 217 of 627 versus 250 of 624 ... both roughly 35% So much for my perceptions ... 8^) Regards, Freddie S.

What's up with this? Jeannie >Pursuant to action taken by the USGenWeb Advisory Board >and to the passage of Motion 00-10, the USGenWeb Census >Project, Inc. and the USGenWeb Census Project headed by >Mr. Ronald Eason and housed at http://www.us-census.org/ >has hereby been severed from the USGenWeb Project. >Since us-census.org was a part of the Inc., the Motion >includes the .org even though the Inc is no longer in >existance. >Continued use of the term "USGenWeb" and/or use of any >USGenWeb logos is now in violation of the USGenWeb >Project's trademark/servicemark. >We therefore ask that you cease and desist displaying the >USGenWeb Project (or any of it's commonly known doing business as >names such as USGW, GenWeb, etc.) name, logos,and URLs on your >pages and text files on your pages at USGenNet and Rootsweb. >We further request that you cease and desist making >solicitations in the name of the USGenWeb Project. >Sincerely, >Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and the USGenWeb Advisory Board ************* Now Available: "The Descendants of John Thomas Clay, Jamestown Immigrant and son of Sir John Clay of Wales" Also available: "The Descendants of James Bailey & Lucy Simms" For more info: http://www.trellis.net/users/madamx

YAAY!!!! I will be there!!! Linda Lewis wrote: > I've been wanting to plan that long-awaited VAGenWeb get-together now > that I'm back in VA, and I've missed y'all. :) > > Thanks, Freddie. > > Linda > > Freddie Spradlin wrote: > > > > She's baaaAAAaaack! > > Yvonne in Burke, VA *** )O( ***

I've been wanting to plan that long-awaited VAGenWeb get-together now that I'm back in VA, and I've missed y'all. :) Thanks, Freddie. Linda Freddie Spradlin wrote: > > She's baaaAAAaaack! >

She's baaaAAAaaack! Freddie S. ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> > Well... I noticed you don't have an asc yet. If you want me back.... <g> > > I've been co-cc for Brunswick for a long time.. but Carol does the > pages. > > Will you put me on vagen-L instead of digest? > > Thanks! > > Linda >

----- Original Message ----- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@worldnet.att.net> To: <USGENWEB-ALL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 4:12 AM Subject: [USGENWEB-ALL-L] Looking Ahead > Hello, Everyone - > > According to the By-Laws, an Advisory Board-appointed Elections > Subcommittee must be ready to accept nominations in a little over three > weeks. That's not very far away. :-) > > This Elections Subcommittee will have the responsibility of announcing > opening positions. In fairness to the membership, I hope the announcement > will come sooner, rather than later, so members will have adequate > opportunity to consider who they would like to nominate. > > The election itself starts in only eight weeks. CC voter lists must be > drawn and affirmed, and a mechanism to handle the votes must be decided > upon and set in place. > > I hope that the SCs will consider bringing the upcoming election to the > attention of their CC's, and encouraging them to become involved. > > > Ellen Pack > Adams Co, MS CC > Wilkinson CO, MS CC > Early SW MS Territory CC > Greene Co, TN ACC > > > ==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ==== > The USGenWeb Project is not a commercial project. > >

Would someone please explain to me what is going on? What will happen to the census that is transcribed? Gayle

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [BOARD-L] Cease and Desist Resent-Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:25:03 -0400 From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Dear Mr. Eason, Pursuant to action taken by the USGenWeb Advisory Board and to the passage of Motion 00-10, the USGenWeb Census Project, Inc. and the USGenWeb Census Project headed by Mr. Ronald Eason and housed at http://www.us-census.org/ has hereby been severed from the USGenWeb Project. Since us-census.org was a part of the Inc., the Motion includes the .org even though the Inc is no longer in existance. Continued use of the term "USGenWeb" and/or use of any USGenWeb logos is now in violation of the USGenWeb Project's trademark/servicemark. We therefore ask that you cease and desist displaying the USGenWeb Project (or any of it's commonly known doing business as names such as USGW, GenWeb, etc.) name, logos,and URLs on your pages and text files on your pages at USGenNet and Rootsweb. We further request that you cease and desist making solicitations in the name of the USGenWeb Project. Sincerely, Tim Stowell, National Coordinator and the USGenWeb Advisory Board

Rena, Please update your Rockbridge Co., VA page so that it reflects the correct address for Nelson Co., VA. The address for the Nelson Co., VA page is: http://www.rootsweb.com/~vanelson Your Rockbridge Co. page address where you have the broken link to Nelson Co., VA is: http://www.rootsweb.com/~varockbr/rock.htm Thanks, Wayne

----- Original Message ----- From: ambaker2 (by way of Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net>) <ambaker2@netzero.net> To: <va@usgenweb.org>; <oh@usgenweb.org> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 8:27 PM Subject: Re: My Change of E-mail Address > Freddie, Allen: > > Would you kindly forward this note to the appropriate CCs so that this > ladies email address can be changed on queries she has posted there? > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > Tim, Thanks for writing. I'm really not sure about places that I have > posted but I think it would be Loudoun Co., VA and Licking Co., OH. Thank > you so much. Amy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > To: ambaker2 <ambaker2@netzero.net> > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: My Change of E-mail Address > > > > Can you tell me where your address might be posted - ie what county/state > > your queries are located so that I may pass this along to the appropriate > > folk? > > > > Tim > > > > At 07:38 PM 4/29/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >GENWEB: Thank you so much for your great site. I just changed servers > and > > >I don't know how to change my e-mail address on my queries, etc., for > > >genealogy. Do you know how I can do this? I am new to the wonderful > world > > >of the WEB. Thank you. > > >Amy Baker > > >New Address: ambaker2@netzero.net > > > > > >Old Address: ambaker2@prodigy.net > >

Dear Friends, Contrary to our previous report, the Dutch representative for ICOMOS, Mr. E. van Brederode, has today informed Dr. Jeremy Bangs that the Paris-based organization has been instructed not to take any action to prevent the demolition of the Onze Lieve Vrouwekerk in Leiden. In a stunning blow to an otherwise democratic process, the city of Leiden has "restricted comment on the plans by concerned citizens to allow only those who live with a view of the church to speak." Because of resident turn-over in rental properties, there is now only one such "qualified" person left who has been there since the process began in 1992. Incredibly, city officials are claiming a popular mandate to proceed with the demolition. Now more than ever, it is important to continue to spread the facts surrounding the plight of the Vrouwekerk. Towards that end, the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ has published a remarkable story and online petition on their website at http://ucc.org/. Please take a few moments to read this beautifully crafted report and sign the petition. Sincerely, Ren L. Reynolds LeVally Delano Kindred of America PO Box 2635 Duxbury, MA 02331 http://www.delanoye.org/