User talk:BakerBH

Chancery Records article
The introductory paragraph before the chart says "used by permission". Is that only for Ron's article, or for both TNA guide and Ron's article? It's not clear. The sentence refers this guide and that article. The "and" is confusing and may lead readers to think the permission is for both. I think you're only referring to Ron's article but wanted to make sure. Anne 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even remember writing the article! I changed the permission statement to be included in the source citation to Dr. Hill's article. I hope that clarifies to what it applies. Bakerbh 14:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What can be done with this?
Some users add a note about themselves. It can also be used for testing. Kip 12:55, 27 March 2008 (MDT)

Soliciting your opinion
Hey Barbara, will you weigh in on "Local Histories" or "Histories" heading on county pages? I want to reach consensus on this quickly in order to get a big missionary team engaged in FamilySearch Wiki:WikiProject Linking to Books in the BYU Family History Archives. I'm asking for your opinion because you notice issues I overlook. Thanks in advance! Ritcheymt 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We need your opinion
In order to help the community arrive at consensus on some issues impacting most of the pages on FamilySearch Wiki, I'd like to invite you to add your opinions to the following discussions:


 * FamilySearch Wiki talk:Format for Citing and Linking to Works in FHLC, Worldcat (OCLC)
 * FamilySearch Wiki talk:Consensus
 * FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats
 * FamilySearch Wiki talk:Disambiguation

Thanks! Ritcheymt 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolving two pages
Will you attend to the resolution of two conflicting pages

Staffordshire Probaet Jurisdictions for Parishes Beginning with C through G

https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Staffordshire_Probate_Jurisdictions_for_Parishes_Beginning_with_C_through_G

While recategorizing, turned this up. The first one has more recent additions. Two different persons. dsammy 01:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the problem by deleting the content in the first article and redirecting it to the second. I also made changes to the intro of the second article since the intro in the first was more as we would like them to be.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Bakerbh 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles that linked to the bad title have now been linked to the article with the correct title, including this talk page. Bakerbh 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Recategorizing
There are two conflicting categories Devonshire and Devon. If Devonshire is the intent, then the category links need to be changed on all Devonshire related pages from Devon to Devonshire. dsammy 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The decision was made to go with Devon and all links have been changed to Devon. Bakerbh 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What's your best work? And your favorites from others?
Hey there Barbara! I'm searching for the wiki's best content to highlight it during a presentation I'm doing soon. Will you link me to a couple articles you've contributed to that you are most pleased with? Also, could you link me to your favorite article(s) written by others? Thanks! Ritcheymt 17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mike. In my preperations to go to Britain for a month, I did not get around to replying to your request.  Hope you were able to find some good examples.  Bakerbh 14:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Where should wikiproject contributors communicate?
People who work on writing projects on the wiki are asking for an online venue they can use to talk about...


 * how to organize projects,
 * how and where to recruit contributors
 * how to motivate project members
 * how to track progress on projects
 * Manual of Style issues that we need to settle to avoid rework
 * ...and other stuff.

Could you go to the wiki feedback forum and give your opinion as to what tool(s) we should choose to communicate? The thread where we will discuss this is Which tools for wikiproject contributors to communicate? Ritcheymt 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please vote on new name for Reviewer role
The wiki community is voting on a proposed renaming of the Reviewer role so that we can give the role to anyone we trust to upload their own images without review. If you care about the name of this role, please discuss the issue and cast your vote at FamilySearch Wiki talk:Reviewer. Ritcheymt 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Weigh in on FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming a Project?
Project pages are getting hard to find because people are putting them in multiple namespaces and using all kinds of naming conventions. Would you mind weighing in on FamilySearch Wiki talk:Naming a Project? Thanks! Ritcheymt 00:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please vote on search result title link color
Some users have reported that the red color of the article title links in search results are confusing because in a Mediawiki site, a red link means a link to a page that has no content. There is a poll on the forums as to whether to make the links blue instead, which would also conform to what Google and Bing do. Please read the thread/explanation and vote. RitcheyMT 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the wiki:
The FamilySearch Research Wiki is pleased to inform you that the "Scotland" page you helped create was a Featured Article, 7/28/11, accessible on the Main Page of the Wiki under "see more featured articles." Thank you for your excellent work. You have made a difference in research! Glo Thank You once again for your efforts to improve the wiki. Your Ireland page is now a Featured Article, 10/10/11, accessible on the Main Page of the wiki. You continue to made a difference in research!

Glo

Thank YOU / Your Article is Selected
Hi BakerBH,

The FamilySearch Research Wiki is delighted to let you know that the Scotland Church Records Union Lists article you helped create will become a Featured Article that is highlighted on the Main Page of the Wiki. It will appear there for seven days. Thank you for your excellent work – you have given readers/researchers important access to records. Your contributions are appreciated and will assist others in finding their ancestors. You have made a difference in research!

Please note:

We invite you to do any enhancing, editing or changing to this article before we post it. If you are considering an edit we ask that it be completed by October 19, 2011. Within a few days of this date this article will post. If you feel that you do not want your article up as yet as a Featured Article please let me know. Thank you for your time and effort!

joy Wyzer17 13:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved Page
We found Sandbox 10 and Sandbox13 in the Maintenance-Requested Moves and have moved it to User:BakerBH/Sandbox 10, and User:BakerBH/Sandbox13 If not needed use the delete template. Sandralpond 13:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kent Parishes page has omitted some civil parishes. I would also welcome your view on guidance about the use of British History Online copyright text for Gazetteer entries in the parish history paragraphs for English parishes. There seems to have been widespread use of British History Online text by certain contributors and removal by moderators. Does FamilySearch have copyright holder permission to use the text or not? I feel that the use of gazetteer entry is inadequate as parish history; link to it as a cited element within the overall history but in many parishes it is offered as the sole content. The discussion page for Hatcham St James, Surrey may be of interest and reflects removal of gazetteer material in favour of mor relevant material. The question has been raised a number of times within the last year without resolution. Ps1964 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Orange County
Thanks Barbara. I rolled it back. Wouldn't it be nice if that many family histories had been published on English families as well! Are you on the Featured Page committee now? Murphynw 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Page too wide
Would someone please take a look at the Warwickshire (England) page and see why it is kicking the search and tools panel to the bottom? Thanks. --BakerBH 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We've fixed it. The image code was in the wrong place (in the header) averyld 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)