Can someone please remove my 'pre-1700 certified' badge?

+4 votes
In light of a recent message I got about how I shouldn't be adding profiles with as the only source, and should coordinate with pre-1700 projects before doing anything in that era, I believe it's best to remove my ability to do so, so I am not tempted to keep doing it anyway.  

I understand the importance of both additional sources and of pre-1700 projects.  I will try to be better about finding additional sources.  I have little to no interest in joining a project.  I just like going with the flow of whatever strikes me as interesting.  

I do not think I'm a very good fit in this situation, so I think it's best to remove my ability to meddle in that era to prevent further offenses.  If anyone has the ability to remove my certification, please do.  

I apologize for what I've done, but is often my only lead to see behind a brick wall.
in WikiTree Tech by D. Botkin G2G6 Mach 3 (34.3k points)
While ancestry trees are not acceptable as sources, the records on Ancestry are acceptable. It is easier for Wikitreers if you can provide a source that is not behind a paywall, but those that are should still be considered as valid sources.
Lynda is right, but I think I see the problem, your ancestry links take me to a search for possible ancestry trees. I think the message you received was probably in reference to the Piltcher lines you added and then orphaned. Its absolutely fine to orphan profiles but really important they are sourced properly before you do, especially when they are of this age.

If you send Debi a PM she will be able to remove the badge for you if that's really what you want. I'll have a little look at some of those profiles and see if I can't find a source. Like Lynda says its OK if its ancestry, not ideal as its pay to view lol but it is OK.
There do appear to be some problems with the tree you've sourced the profiles from. Pilcher-977 Stephen Pilcher born 1675 shows on the ancestry tree as having parents Stephen and Jane which you have also added to wikitree. When you actually look at the baptism source used on the tree it states Stephen Pilcher was baptised 1671 and his parents were Roger and Elizabeth so there is definitely something not right here?
I decided to orphan those profiles after writing this post actually.  I orphaned them because I really can't do anything else with them and I'd probably only make things worse by trying.

Reading Lizzie's second comment pretty much confirms it.
Don't be deterred D. You have made so many contributions in a short space of time! You've had more thanks since April than I've had in 2 years! You've collaborated, merged, helped other and been awarded as a generous genealogist!

If your curiosity and research brings you again to older English profiles just post on here, those of us on here from across the pond are always really keen to help with sources for you... Every connection made across the ocean brings our tree closer together!

It might be more of a case of trying to expand what sources you are using. If for example I put as the only source then that is not a good source. If I use the FindaGrave citation provided on the memorial it helps others see the source and make informed decisions.

You say you were using as your source. Was it just the site or a citation that would help those with membership help find the source again? The citation may even help those without membership find a "Free" source as it would point to a collection. 

I appreciate your honest evaluation of your interests and abilities. It's a wise person who sticks to what they do well. Keep enjoying WikiTree.
D, as others have said, you'll do fine with pre-1700 profiles. It just takes a bit more work because the sources can be more tedious to find and cite.  as a source itself is not a source but what you find in/on  can be a source.  Sometimes there are a lot of sources, family photos, Bibles, death certs.. etc.  Please when you find those on sharing them and posting them for others to read is  great.  It's mostly because some of us do not pay to be able to get into ancestry so it is just a word... And please do not take offense when someone asks us to do our profiles more detailed and more in conformity.  I too have been asked many years ago to add sources when f-a-g  was my only source... Thank you Carole
It's quite nice that you care.

3 Answers

+6 votes
Best answer
Perhaps making use of sources contained in our Pre=1500 Resource page will help.  Some of these extend into the 1700s and beyond.

Another resource are the sources maintained by Rick Pierpoint on WikiTree
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (670k points)
selected by D. Botkin
This is great!  I had no idea these were available!  Thank you!

Thank you, Laura.  I didn't know about the Source Free-Space Pages, and am hopeful this may help in the quest for sources for some unsourced orphans I adopted.  I also see an opportunity to add sources for a page.

+5 votes
Don't worry, definitely don't limit yourself at this stage, just take time to grow into the Wikitree way of doing things. Perhaps just take a break and fill out some profiles a little more fully. I noticed that Luke Watson served in the Revolutionary War, that could be very rewarding to follow up -
by Valerie Willis G2G6 Mach 7 (79.3k points)
+4 votes
I think that it is important also to note that many of the records hidden behind Ancestry's and others' paywalls, especially the ones that they obtained early in the development these sites were sourced from records contained in the FamilySearch collection.

Most of these records were not available online at FamilySearch in the past. However, the recent change in FS's goals involving digitizing their entire collection by 2020 means that many of the films that Ancestry (and others) used are now viewable online at FS with a couple of caveats:

1. The images may be online but have not yet been indexed so there is no search function on them yet.

2. The images may be restricted in viewing to either a local FamilySearch library of an "affiliate" library. Since there are FS libraries in almost every LDS chapel in North America and I assume in many others around the world, this means viewing them is not any great ordeal for most of us.

3. There are a few, very few, records that are restricted to the main FS library in Salt Lake City. For most of us these are pretty-well unavailable unless you are rich enough to hire a professional genealogist.

The trick when looking at a source in Ancestry is to see if there is a FH film number or call-number. If there is, then the film exists in the FS collection. The next step is to go to FS and search the catalog for the film number. The entry found will show you whether the film has been digitized, whether the images are searchable and whether they are restricted or not.

I have been using this method to find free sources for Ancestry records for both my own family and as a Data Doctor and Unknowns Project member. One needs to remember that the FS search engine basically sucks. They have a lot more information online that their rudimentary search will locate. You often need to really get creative when digging for information you know is there, you just don't know where.

Another trick when running up against book sources behind paywalls, etc is to check both Google books and Many of the older genealogical books are online at either site and more are being added every day.
by John Morgan G2G6 (7.0k points)
Thank you so much for this information, John.  I didn't know about using the FH film numbers or call numbers when I'm trying to locate a record on FamilySearch that I've found on  And I agree with you about the quality of the FS search engine.

Related questions

+23 votes
4 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
0 votes
0 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
+54 votes
10 answers
+46 votes
4 answers


disclaimer - terms - copyright