What have I done? (Henrikson-88)

Question

I only saw this profile - Henrikson-88 - as I was struggling sorta successfully through Data Doctors suggestion list; but I have no idea how I did this.  Fumblethumbs, I guess; totally empty, unconnected, but last name the same as my maternal grandfather, so I must have made him. Can any experienced soul take a gander and tell me how I did this, and what to do with him?

Comments

What you did was add a sibling to another profile.  The system doesn't like siblings without a connecting parent, so it automatically generates a profile for the father.

If you check your change log on that profile, you will see it tells you just that :

(Father created automatically to enable sibling.)

---

Don’t worry, it’s an oopsie many of us have done! Thank you for taking the time to ask and learn (there might be others reading this that have done the same, but didn’t query it).

---

Thank you, Marion. Spent the afternoon cleaning up oopsies - but as must happen a lot, in that clean-up, I found several more relatives, and their memorials and gravestones. Your kind words are very appreciated.

Answer 1

Ted, do you know what sibling you created when you created this Unknown Henrikson profile ? You can merge the profile into the profile you created and not use the name Unknown Henrikson since no other info was entered for the profile.

Comments

Mr Selman, no I'm afraid I don't; near as I can tell, I was working on Karl Henrikson's siblings, but everything there looks fine.  Well, maybe not fine, but let's say the mess as I made it, and not any surprising messes. Fairly certain I wouldn't have made an 'unknown' Swede! I rather think Ms. Paul's suggestion is likely, trying to do too many things at once and got lost. So - do we just off this particular fatherless child? Just spent several hours cleaning up (mostly successfully, hooray!) find-a-grave booboos, and feeling more than a bit woozy. Thanks for the help, and kind words.

---

Yes, I think I figured it out; what I was working on when I made Henrikson-88.  And it would be this one.  Some things we discover about our family's past are sadder than others; I was adding this one just a few minutes before the orphan child I made by mistake.  Poor child: [[Kissick-87|Michael Kissick]]

---

For young Michael you can add the Died Young sticker {{Died Young}} below the == Biography == header, and the category for child mortality, Michigan - [[Category:Michigan, Child Mortality]] above the == Biography == header.

If you wish to give a little something extra to his profile, you are free to add any of the images on the RTC project images page : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:RTCimages

See also the RTC Project page : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Remember_the_Children

--

Also, just a note -  the burial citation doesn't belong under  a see also.  It should be attached as inline, or simply placed underneath the <references /> tag that should be directly below the == Sources == header.

---

Just got done merging them, successfully. Somehow I didn't have the heart to ask someone else to do it.  And isn't it silly; crying like a baby.

---

Thank you, Ms. Paul. I'll make those additions; but tomorrow, I think.

---

I'm not Ms Paul.  Just call me Melanie. 

If you'd like, I can fix the burial citation so you know what to do another time.

---

Thank you, Melanie. The 'See Also' was the result of a suggestion from another G2G discussion about the uncertainty of find-a-grave dates, and how best to deal with that. I'd checked 'certain' on some profiles I'm working on where I only had FAG (which acronym also led to a conv. in which my being both gay and light-hearted - no, let's be honest: silly - played a part) dates to go on. In those cases, I rather liked the suggestion of the 'See Also' way of dealing with that uncertainty; but of course we're trying to adhere to community standards and not - well, let's say more than - personal preference, though I read that the latter has a place. At least that's what I've picked up in my newbie stumbling about. And in the midst of trying to fix an accidental orphaning, along comes this 80-year-old tragedy. Why that hit me so hard, who can say. The mother of this poor child was my maternal grandfather's sister, and my mom would have known him, of his death and why it happened, but she's passed now, and there are none of that generation left to tell the stories.  Which is a large part of what we're doing here, isn't it; to discover and tell stories so that our descendants can know them. Thank you again - thank all of you gentle people, over and over - for your amazing patience and understanding. As to fixing the burial citation; please do so. As there was other evidence of dates, I removed the 'Also See'. I've found the lad's gravestone, and am going to put it on the profile, which will be my first photo added; and last night, all full of this sadness, I made an attempt at an appropriate bio. I would appreciate it if you would feel completely free to edit this as you think best; which is of course also what we're doing here. I really like that part of WikiTree; the collaboration, the sense that a profile I may make is not mine but ours, and even, in the case of those who are gone, theirs. (By the way, there's also the difference between in-line refs and refs listed under 'Sources', when to do the one and when the other; much to learn.)

---

And in the midst of trying to fix an accidental orphaning, along comes this 80-year-old tragedy. Why that hit me so hard, who can say.

commented by Ted Fisher

.

Ted, I can PROMISE you, you are not the only one to get all weepy over a deceased baby/child.  I have wept over 200-year-deceased infants (and mourned with their nearly 200-years-deceased parents, especially when they lose a number of their babies before they can walk or talk).

Giving them a presence is why I have created profiles for them since I joined Wikitree -- and why I so readily jumped aboard the Remember the Children project. 

.

(FYI/disclaimer : I never abbreviate Find a Grave, out of respect for those who are offended by the acronym, and because of years of conditioning to "chastise" those who use it as a slur.)

---

Right on both counts, Melanie. Previous generations suffered the loss of children much more than we, but I don't suppose they ever really got used to it. Stories, stories to tell as best we can.

(FYI/disclaimer; just me, and I'd never suggest anyone else should feel this way: but far from offense, it just made me laugh so hard to keep seeing it, and in all caps. As I say - silly!)

---

Melanie: Thank you! That looks much nicer, and the addition of categories makes sense; clearly, I have much to learn about categories. But can you tell me what you did to add Michael's name to that - what are they called, labels? Banners? Oh, stickers. Helps to find Helps if you know what a thing is called. I did think those ellipses must be showing a place for a name, but couldn't work out where to put it. Is it added automatically? Tried using a WWII sticker in my dad's profile but it showed up as ellipses, which looks a bit goofy. So much to learn - which itself is fun! Thank you thank you thank you.

---

Yeah .. where names are added to stickers, mostly it is done automatically.  The . . . appears when the system has not yet updated - OR when you are looking at a profile in preview mode.

Sometimes removing the sticker, then adding it back can help if the . . . is still there a while after saving.

As you can see, Michael's name is where it should be :

Categories -- my nemesis, and bane.  I am still learning the "how to". 

I want to add correct categories, but can't always find them - and when I have a list yea long *indicates with hands* I hesitate to put in requests for them all, so usually don't.

Mostly if a category already exists - as for Michael - if you click the  and start typing, a selection of categories will show up, and you only have to choose the correct one.

If nothing shows, then there is no category for that place.

---

Oh, and -- the Military and War stickers can be problematical if you don't get the parameters exactly right.

You can ask a separate question about the one for your dad (if you haven't figured it out by now), tagging it military_and_war (the underscores are important in order to get the attention of the Project).

---

David; just noticed the re-tagging. Thank you; I can see the logic of them. Most appropriate! Much to learn; and for all that the mistakes I make are humbling, they lead to so much learning, and interesting discoveries - and a lot of fun as well! I decided as a child that there are three things one should do every day: learn something; do something for someone else; and have fun. And when you can combine all three - pure bliss. Also, in this discussion we did rather move on to poor Michael Kissick-87. I'd love to know what you think of how it's progressing; Melanie has helped considerably, but I hope to find out a lot more about him and his parents. Thank you again, muchly and in large amounts.

---

You are welcome, Ted! You might be interested in this about the Kissick families of Kentucky, 5 generations.

---

Thank you for the long read on Kissick families, David; will read it later, and I think it will lead me to Will Floren; meantime AAAAAAAH! Henrikson-88 returns! Look at Esther Marie Kissick - Henrikson-89; she is shown in the biography as - oh. Never mind. Panic not necessary. Just a bit of editing, and problem solved. Calm returning. I'm in my happy place; I'm in my happy place . . .

---

That was an informative panic, though; the brief biographies for Ben Henrikson-92's three children had links to their 'father' Henrikson-88. So that was where I made the original booboo: that little box at the bottom, where the children can be un-linked to the spouse of the mother in case it's some other father, got itself un-checked and I didn't notice, thereby forcing the software to make a spurious Henrikson. Does that sound logical?

 Or do you think it's the lutefisk? Year after year, my German grandmother would make lutefisk for holiday meals, and year after year, only my grampa Karl and I would touch it. Logic suggests un-ticked box as explanation; but don't discount the lutefisk. Powerful stuff.

(Say. You don't think Ben's wife Anna Fallman had a spurious second marriage created, do you? New panic! -No. No phantom husbands. Whew.)

---

You'll think it's the lutefisk when you encounter your first ghost. 

Attaching profiles can be kind of tricky at times.  Sorting out tangles can be quite .. interesting, and challenging.

You're doing fine.

---

Not to invite dead-horse-flogging, but: Have I simply made a new blunder by merging Henrikson-88 with poor Michael Kissick-87 when I should have merged it with Ben Henrikson-92? (Remember, I finally worked out that the empty profile was created by accident when adding three children to 92's wife and not noticing the box to make Ben the father was unchecked, thus forcing the creation of a spurious father.) Or, since 'Unknown Henrikson' 88 was empty and unattached, does it not matter?

---

Probably would have been better to merge Henrikson-92 into Henrikson-88 (lower number and all), but it is moot now, as a merge once completed cannot be undone.

---

Well, it's like you said about ghosts. Henrikson-88 could pop up again anywhere! It's got me a little twitchy.