Person talk:William Edmiston (10)

Redirection

I believe that at this point simplicity is best served by combining this card with Person:William Edmiston (5). While I personally have no problem with having two or more versions of the same person card (each meeting different peoples needs and views), we don't really need two exact duplicates. The bulk of the informtion on this version is taken from the William 5 card. About the only thing unique to the version 10 card is the designation "part of the Logan Family pages". I believe we can accomodate this addtion on William 5. I think I've spoken at one time or another with each of the persons interested in this card, and have come away with the sense from each that a) the main concern is getting the data right, and b) no one objects to merging the cards one way or another. If I'm wrong in this let me know, and we'll work to correct any problems. In anycase, at least for the moment, I've redirected to William 5. Q 19:57, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I am with you all the way --Dlbradley1 00:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)

From William Edmiston (5): Military Service [18 February 2009]

Both Draper's "Heros of Kings Mountain", and Source:Thwaites and Kellogg, 1905 (based on the Draper MSC), provide considerable information about William Edmiston's military career based on accounts of his contemporaries. Their information conflicts to a considerable degree from that provided in the cited DAR application. The DAR application may have drawn on information for another William Edmiston. Q 20:48, 25 January 2009 (EST)

again I would suggest you email Prof. Howard V Jones he is one of the most respected researchers on the Edmondson Family..what he has is well documented....howard.jones@uni.edu...--Dlbradley1 10:23, 18 February 2009 (EST)

From William Edmiston (5): Original Home [18 February 2009]

The photograph of William Edmiston's home shows it to be very well preserved. It would be useful to have something on the homes history, and anything available on its restoration, current use and ownership. Also would be useful to get information on the photograph itself: date, photographer, etc. Is it on the National Historic Properties list? Q 15:36, 26 January 2009 (EST)

The Photo was taken around 2000 by my Cousin who visted there, it was restored according to my cousin but I do not know when... I do not know much more about it...--Dlbradley1 10:19, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Surname [20 February 2009]

User:Delijim, I see you've redirected the link from William Edmiston (5) to William Edmonson (1), and transferred information from the former to the latter. While I've no problem with that per se, the fact is that the records of Washington County do not include any instances that I've seen where Col. William Edmiston gave his name, or had his name recorded as "Edmonson". While some descendants did change the spelling of the surname mostly to "Emondson", and others to "Edmonds", and I've no doubt some used "Edmonson", nonetheless, as far as period records are concerned, Col Edmiston name is almost always given as "Edmiston". For example Summers, 1903 History of Southwest Virginia, gives 43 entries for William Edmiston, none for "William Edmonson". Most of those 43 enteries seem to be related to Col. Edmiston, though some undoubtedly relate to his cousin by the same given name---and some may deal with other family relations---but in anycase, the spelling used there (which would reflect county records) is Edmiston. Draper's King's Mountain and its heros gives his name as "Edmiston", and the letter from his grandson to Governor Campbell gives it as "Edmiston" Do you have ANY basis for adopting the "Edmonson" spelling? 12:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I agree the page should be William Edmiston as that is the way all records have it that I have seen...he could be listed as an alternate spelling of Edmonson... --Dlbradley1 18:50, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Don, Since DeliJim has not responded to our comments, I believe we should simply revert this, and return the tile to the Edmiston form. Q 13:34, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Agree with both of you, I've updated the page to "Edmiston", per your recommendations. I guess I didn't notice which name ended up being the "dominate" name in the merge.

Also, I moved one of William's sons to the correct set of parents.

Best regards,

Jim:)--Delijim 17:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Good. However, this is not the way a reversion should be done. The reason being that this destroys the creative history of the article. It now appears that this article was written by MizLiv and you. Which is definitely not the case. I've no problem if you want to continue with the same information under the name MizLiv used (Edmonson), but the orignal article needs to be restored to show the history of the articles development. Q 19:00, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Q, I've reviewed your changes and now there are two different William Edmiston/William Edmondson's, instead of just one. Is that really what you wanted to do? Sure seems like a duplication, when you have the same person listed TWICE under two differently spelled surnames..... Isn't the goal here to find a collaboration of effort to only list a person ONCE and list the alternate spellings for those with surnames that are sometimes spelled differently? I believe most Edmiston/Edmondson researchers are pretty well versed with the "spelling dilemma" at this point.

As far as the content concern, I'm sure we can separate the contributions by different submitters and place a "submitted by" heading before each one. Would that alleviate your concerns?

Thanks.--Delijim 19:34, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Delijim, I've no problem in simplifying the data set by eliminating duplicate entries. While it it doesn't personally bother me that there's multiple cards for the same person on WeRelate, arising from the importation of separate genealogies, other's it seems would like things tidier. If folks want to merge or combine cards that's fine, but I think its usually best to discuss changes of that nature beforehand, particularly when a lineage is being actively worked by several different persons. I've no problem with combining the various versions, but that should, I think, be discussed prior to the merger, as there may be incompatibilites not recognized. Different people do have different opinions about "facts". Where such differenes occur it may be necessary for the system to support to separate cards, each with their own version.

In this, since the most developed article is the one initiated by Don, (not to mention the fact that it has the name spelled matching contemporary usage), I think its the most reasonable candidate for being retained. I had two issues with the merger itself. The change in spelling of surname was very problematical. That's particular an issue for me since that change confounded one of the objectives of the Southwest Virginia Project. The second issue is that for my purposes I need to keep the history of the articles evolution intact. That's important for the longterm goals of the Southwest Virginia Project. That's the reason I unmerged the article.

Now, as far as the "Edmonson" version that was created, as I say, it doesn't trouble me if it persists independently of the "Edmiston" version. That said, I think it would make sense to connect the lineage being worked on by you and MizLiv with the one developed by dlbradley1, and incorporated into the southwest Virignia project.

Eventually, I would have approached MizLIv with the idea of connecting her lineage with the more expansive version in the Southwest Virginia Project. What I would have suggested was that we mark her William Edmonson card for Speedy Delete, and reattach her lineage to William Edmiston (5). It wouldn't have been needful for the SWVP to do this, but it might have been useful to those, such as yourself, to have their lineage connected to the project. Indeed, had MizLiv's version been a) more complete, and b) used the correct name for the person, I might very well have asked her for permission to incorporate her line into the Southwest Virginia Project. it would then have been her card that would have been the starting point for this particular lineage. (Its actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the core of the situation, even if specific facts are a little off kilter.)

And since we've reached this discussion, I'd like to ask your permission to incorporate other cards in your tree into the Southwest Virginia Project. I do not know at this time how much overlap their might be between your lines and those of D1bradley1, but I know there's more than just this one instance. I don't, at this point, have a recommendation about how that might be best done. I do know that it should be done with consultation with all parties before hand. I'd REALLY like to establish a working relationship with you and MizLiv, as I have been D1bradley1, and several others. We DO have similar interests here---developing information about the people we are looking at. I think its always possible to go farther faster by working together on problems of mutual interest, than to try to slug it out by yourself. The real advantage of WeRelate is that it can, in theory, foster collegial working relationships. Indeed, that's one of my goals for the Southwest Virginia Project---to foster such working relationships. Q 20:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Q, I have no problem if you'd like to merge whatever additions I've made in the past few weeks since I've been on this site with the pages you've indicated. Since I have MANY ancestors in Southwest Virginia (especially in Augusta County), I have no doubt that I have many overlaps with others here. In fact, where possible, I have linked my pages with other's here, where an obvious linkage exists. Understanding that some of us that have spent quite a few years compiling (what we'd like to think is "accurate") information on our ancestors, I'm sure we all take a certain amount of pride in our research, but I have no problems with the pages/ancestors I've added being merged with others, especially in the sprit of cooperation and collaboration. Obviously, if there were a point where we have two differing "opinions" about ancestors (i.e. - two different sets of parents, different spouses), there needs to be some discussion and dialogue before changes are made, which I totally understand.

Hopefully, we can all add to the collective information contained on this site and come up with something that is much better than what I see when I visit Rootsweb, Ancestry or Family Search, which are filled with inaccurate and mis-leading information.

Feel free to contact me anytime regarding our common lineage. (Delijim@aol.com)

Best regards,

Jim--Delijim 00:44, 20 February 2009 (EST) --Dlbradley1 00:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)