Difference between revisions of "User talk:TimothyNB"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
   
 
   
  
We do have contractual agreements with the record holder which allow us to post on-line. Our contractural agreements are confidential.  
+
We do have contractual agreements with the record holder which allow us to post on-line.&nbsp;Our contractural agreements are confidential.- TimothyNB<br>
 +
 
 +
So if I understood you right, FamilySearch has a contact with the PA Dept of Health that allows FamilySearch to post said state records from 1906 forward online? Or were you just talking in general about how contracts are made before records are posted? I am not trying to but in, but I just social media outreach for a group called PaHR-Access (People for Better Access to Pennsylvania Historical Records). I have been talking with the staff of several PA legislators for a few years now and it is clear that the law does not allow state vital certificates to be open access in any way... I understand you cannot give me a copy of said contract or outline exactly what it says, but I hope you understand my confusion at a wiki page that implies these records are qued to come online when I have been working with state legislators for a long time to try to make such action legal. Do you know what I mean? I'm sure FamilySearch must be aware of the laws in PA regarding access to these records. Perhaps you have the contract you need to allow you to post them, but have not yet posted them because you don't want to get into trouble with state law? That sounds smart to me. --[[User:Duty2serve|Duty2serve]] 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  
 
<br>Changing article titles  
 
<br>Changing article titles  

Revision as of 23:52, 31 August 2011

Tim,

I'm not familiar with User talk pages completely, but I assume it is a place for users to communicate to other specific users.

I am curious about the PA Statewide Deaths wiki article Pennsylvania Statewide Deaths (FamilySearch Historical Records) and I would like to know about any discussions FamilySearch has had with PA law or policy makers. I know we in PA have been trying to get the law changed for years so that you will be allowed to put this online. I was kind of shocked to find out this page shows that the FHL has these on microfilm. I am guessing FS had to sign a contract not to share them with anyone?

Thanks,

duty2serve --Duty2serve 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

 

We do have contractual agreements with the record holder which allow us to post on-line. Our contractural agreements are confidential.- TimothyNB

So if I understood you right, FamilySearch has a contact with the PA Dept of Health that allows FamilySearch to post said state records from 1906 forward online? Or were you just talking in general about how contracts are made before records are posted? I am not trying to but in, but I just social media outreach for a group called PaHR-Access (People for Better Access to Pennsylvania Historical Records). I have been talking with the staff of several PA legislators for a few years now and it is clear that the law does not allow state vital certificates to be open access in any way... I understand you cannot give me a copy of said contract or outline exactly what it says, but I hope you understand my confusion at a wiki page that implies these records are qued to come online when I have been working with state legislators for a long time to try to make such action legal. Do you know what I mean? I'm sure FamilySearch must be aware of the laws in PA regarding access to these records. Perhaps you have the contract you need to allow you to post them, but have not yet posted them because you don't want to get into trouble with state law? That sounds smart to me. --Duty2serve 23:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Changing article titles

Hi Nadine, I noticed that you copied the text of the article England, Lancashire – Cheshire – Yorkshire Church of England Parish Registers (FamilySearch Historical Records) to England, Manchester Central Library Church of England Parish Registers (FamilySearch Historical Records) before marking the former for deletion. This method results in the revision history being lost. Is there a reason why the article could not have been renamed/moved instead? --Steve (talk| contribs) 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 

We combined two articles which covered the same collection, but had different titles. The article with the hypens in the title was causing problems with the search feature so it was article targeted for deletion.