User:DMaxwell/talk page archive 2012-3

Watchers

Contents

Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 15:41, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [8 April 2012]

You're not done yet!

WeRelate is different from most family tree websites. By contributing to WeRelate you are helping to create Pando for genealogy, a free, unified family tree that combines the best information from all contributors.

Now that you have uploaded Maxwell-Scott Family Tree.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.


--WeRelate agent 05:48, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

(Parentage is unsourced and unproven. Removed) [5 June 2012]

I know nothing about Person:Augustine Walker (1) and so am commenting merely on methodology. I find the practice of removing information without providing replacement information to be less than ideal collaboration. I will try to quickly list several points that I think apply, hopefully without staying on my soapbox too long:

  • You did not provide a source: Ideally the actual parentage, but since that is not always known, at least a source that surveyed known research and concluded that the parentage is unknown.
  • You did not provide any evidence that the given parentage is unlikely. It appears to be merely an expression of your belief. But in a collaborative environment involving essentially anonymous users unknown to each other, your opinion will not necessarily be convincing to other WeRelate users.
  • Remembering that, if the data was entered, somebody thought so, providing source information would probably be helpful to the others watching this page, even if the situation is clear to you. Plus it will avoid somebody else re-entering wrong information in the future.
  • The parentage and birth and birth location seem tightly correlated. You removed the parentage but left the birth alone. This raises questions about how thorough your work was.
  • When data is not known, but cannot be shown to be wrong, I do not believe it is appropriate to remove it. If you cannot disprove it, by either providing provably correct information that is different, or showing conflicts with provable facts, then you really have no business removing somebody else's work.
  • I deplore that so much data is entered without sources. The correct way to combat this is to enter sources, not to engage in the same practice. --Jrich 10:06, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

I think that your heart is at least in the right place, and I'ld rather have folks jumping in and giving their best effort rather than hanging back and being afraid to engage discussions. I also think you're in an area where the balance isn't obvious. Eventually, when sources for assertions can not be found, the assertions simply have to be dropped. It's also both unfair and problematic to allow user A to assert a fact without support - and then expect user B to come up with specific support that the assertion isn't true. Still, Jrich is right - whoever comes second to a matter has a higher burden of proof. We also try to assume the best of our peers - that they offered the information on a basis that, at least, seemed good to them at the time. We try to do that even if they are sloppy and don't offer sources. You can always dispute things benignly using appropriate talk page(s). If the page of interest was created by someone who isn't active enough to notice your comments - reach out to anyone who seems to be working "near by" - or in a pinch - anyone. Even a limited consensus to remove/delete/modify is far better than nothing. When the assertion you want to dispute is actually an attached person or family page - that is otherwise empty and unconnected - the best approach is to mark the page you want junked with the speedy delete template (which also lets you note the rationale). This at least means that an administrator has to agree with your rationale - though it also will get the attention of anyone actively watching such content. It also means you won't cast adrift empty and useless pages (cutting a connection doesn't remove the connected page). But really - thanks for being here and jumping in with both feet! --jrm03063 12:53, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

Regarding "Eventually, when sources for assertions can not be found, the assertions simply have to be dropped." Why? It is one thing (probably a valuable thing) to add a note saying proof for this cannot be found, but removing it is something else. It is the same as saying it is not true, and doing so without proof is no better than what the original user did in asserting it with no proof. I don't believe it should be removed if there is no specific conflict or disproof or area of unlikelihood that can be cited. Lack of proof is not disproof. If there is no evidence against it, the error is not in showing such a connection, but rather in not making the speculative nature of the connection clear to the reader. --Jrich 13:43, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

A quick search online and in printed material gives no parentage for Augustine Warner, but alot of guesses that people have entered into gedcoms. The guesses are legion, I can find over 10 different ones. I believe leaving unproven parentage for especially important lines like the Warrens is a disservice to those that are coming here seeking correct information. By doing so, we continue to spread junk genealogy and error.

As for the talk pages, I have gone on there and posted my concerns a few times, but never get any answer. In the meantime, error is spread. Fortunately, in the one case where I changed someone else to the correct parentage, I had a source handy. I intend to be fairly iconoclastic about these sort of things, as for years I when I was a young genealogist and I was chasing false lines online because someone wouldnt tell me that it was wrong.--DMaxwell 13:18, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

So fine, post a note saying there is no proof for this or add the citation needed tmeplate ({{cn}}). That there are 10 answers on the Internet doesn't mean one of them isn't right. If you haven't found evidence to disprove it or at least suggest it is unlikely, in my mind, you aren't qualified to say it is wrong. It is simply your arbitrary decision. That is no more fair to other readers than the thoughtlessness of the original poster who gave no sources. --Jrich 13:43, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

The burden of proof should be on the one making the claims of parentage for an important line. Let me say if the correct parentage for Augustine Warner were discovered, it would be a major discovery - not something that an internet user would be able to keep secret. Im not sure what the problem is here. The parentage listed was wrong, I removed it. Is it because it was 'your' page? If I uploaded a gedcom (i started to but didnt, just in case I had any mistakes in it) I would be pleased if someone removed something that was wrong or totally unproven. I wouldnt want to mislead anyone.--DMaxwell 13:54, 19 April 2012 (EDT)


Wanted to add - I keep saying Augustine Warner, I mean Walker.--DMaxwell 14:02, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

The burden of proof is on anybody/everybody making a change. Two wrongs don't make a right. How is making a change without giving proof going to combat unproven genealogy?
It is not my page - I wasn't aware I was watching it - I haven't studied him. But as one of several watchers, I feel it would have been nice to have had a justification of your changes, since I have no clue as to the type of work you do, especially compared to a couple well-respected WeRelate users I see in the watchlist. You are a new user to WeRelate. Perhaps your perspective is still the self-orientation of other Internet websites instead of the reader-orientation that WeRelate needs?
I did my own "quick search" and I found that there is an article in 2003 TAG proving that Elizabeth Warren was Augustine Walker's daughter. Obviously this new, it is not online, so I can't say what it says. If it happens to say anything about Augustine's parentage, it would be a great item to cite to justify this change. Or some similar well-respected source along the same lines.
I also find an IGI record derived from a parish record (Film 1696649, item 6: "Historical notices and recollections relating to the parish of Southam, in the County of Warwick: together with the parochial registers from A.D. 1539..."), showing the baptism of Augustine Walker in 1564 to John and Katherine Walker. Perhaps slightly younger than might be guessed for the father of a daughter baptized in 1683, but at least they had a son of the right name within the range of possibility. There's some proof, admittedly circumstantial. So now the ball's in your court to actually provide the reason it is not true. --Jrich 15:52, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

That is exactly why there are so many bogus trees floating around. See what appears to be a match (almost always solely by name and appx age), add it anyway, when they lack the corroborating evidence.

But since you've gotten so offended by my iconoclasm of - at the least - dubious genealogy, I think I can see right away why genealogists of New England dont consider it to be the same Augustine Walker. When Mr. Walker was buried, he was called 'Austen Wallkar of Amwell street an owld man'. Maybe the the NE genealogists feel that the age isnt right for it to be the same man. I suppose its possible, but unlikely. Let me be clear. I dont oppose putting down that he may be the son of X and X, as long as this is not given on the top of the page as though it were fact. Short story - there is a Dodson researcher whom I intend to work with to clean up the line of Charles Dodson of Virginia which we share. There is a conjecture, though probable, for his parentage that is at this point nothing more than that - conjecture. So what we are going to instead of putting his 'parents' at the top, linked, as though its been proven, we are going to instead place the couple within the notes of his entry so its at least there.

So how does this relate to Augustine Walker? I would change the entry for his maybe but unlikely parents (note that I didnt delete them - they existed after all) to be a bit more of robust entry based on what is known about them, and in the notes for Augustine Walker, include a note with something like 'there is a Augustine baptized ______ son of X and Y, but seems to be too young to be the same man'.

What I oppose, and the entire reason why I came here, is someones guess being written into the site as proven when it isnt. Its a guess, and there are much worse examples out there. There are even articles here with sources listing 'origins unknown' or '____ ancestry disproven' that will STILL list this disproven parentage anyway because someones gedcoms said so. But this is exactly what I thought WeRelate was supposed to be in opposition to.

And no, I dont view this is a 'vanity' site as I have made clear when you seemed to be offended over a WP:OWN-like arrangement. I came here so there could be a one stop source for accurate free genealogy that people could trust, as I wanted to contribute to it.--DMaxwell 16:18, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

---

I came here so there could be a one stop source for accurate free genealogy that people could trust

The way to make people trust this website is to put sources justifying the facts entered. Besides the fact that the nature of the sources cited offer a good indication of how trustful the information is, it shows a certain amount of diligence, as opposed to various websites out there, that are merely the author's copy of the first website found.

The burden of proof should be on the one making the claims of parentage for an important line.

Comment: every line is important to a descendant of that line.

I am looking at Person:Abigail Severance (7), which was just attached to parents yesterday, and suggest that following this guideline would be as easy as citing the History of Northfield source listed on the father's page. It is readily found on books.google.com. This book appears to have been written using town records, which are not generally available on the Internet, an information source that lends it some reliability. It would have the added advantage of providing the birthdate (27 Apr 1696), marriage date (21 Jun 1716), and a precise deathdate (17 Dec 1770) for Abigail. The page would then look much more like the person was actually studied. (This would have the added benefit to the reader of possibly introducing them to useful sources they weren't aware of, further solidifying WeRelate as their first stop for useful and reliable information.)

Another characteristic that makes pages look like some level of care was put into it is to show the other siblings in the family. When all siblings are studied, it makes it more likely that several sources were consulted, and all facts were reconciled, both of which tend to enhance reliability. A side benefit of adding the siblings is that it adds hooks that are likely to attract people interested in the siblings, who, of course, all share an interest in the parents. This then will lead to more people reviewing the parents' information which means it is less likely that important information is overlooked in comparison to single researchers. --Jrich 09:43, 5 June 2012 (EDT)


I've made it clear in my earlier edits that I am adding stubs that connect to my line first. This isnt just me being lazy. I dont and will not upload a GEDCOM, so doing this by hand takes longer. So yes, I will get to adding dates/sources in good time. Once I've got my line all on here, then I will probably work my way up starting from more recent ancestors and do siblings eventually. You'll note that I have a ton of edits so I have not been a hit and run contributor.

Im starting to think however, that you are picking on me, or dislike my editing, because we havent seen eye to eye..--DMaxwell 09:50, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Picking on you, no, I am responding to changes in my watchlist. Dislike your editing, that might be fair, at least based on your work so far: the changes I have been notified of seem pretty consistently unsourced and lacking in detail. Even still, that happens all the time. But your words seem to say something different, so I was attempting to communicate the impression your edits are making, hoping you might reconcile things. Doing the easy things first, and leaving the hard things for later is not an approach I have ever had good experiences with. Somebody else usually ends up doing the hard work later. Further, I don't understand the logic of leaving an under-documented page for weeks or months until you get back to it, if you ever do. I don't believe this is an easier approach, probably actually harder than adding the sources at the time you create a page. And for months, readers will come here and instead of finding genealogy they can trust and getting good impressions of WeRelate, they will find genealogy that looks like all the other crap that passes for Internet genealogy. Personally, I would rather they didn't find a page, than that they find bad pages. --Jrich 10:51, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Just to give you an example of where I am going, I have just about finished and sourced up the family page for my great-grandparents and both of their children (including my grandfather). I still need to add their marriage date, findagrave information, etc:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Family:Howard_Scott_and_Christie_Elliott_%281%29

But when it comes to the complicated picture of other siblings, I intend to work back as it will prove harder to source.--DMaxwell 10:30, 5 June 2012 (EDT)


Everything I have is sourced. I am actually insulted you would think I am adding guesswork, considering we've already butted heads on my impatience on removing bad lines. For another example, I'd like to throw lightening bolts on most of the Mayflower/Plymouth lines on this site, which are mostly very poorly sourced and are riddles with myths. I had some trouble understand how to add the sources to this website at first, and I still find adding census records clunky (especially those that are behind paywalls). But the reason I am extended my line with stubs is so I dont duplicate people later on, a problem I had when I first got here. At no point have I left stubs for more than a couple of months without at least adding dates; there are alot much more worse pages on WR, but yet you come after me.

At this point I am nearly done linking my lines through stubs, so dont expect to see a ton more from me. An exception to this rule might be future sibling pages, which may just be a name, birthplace and birthdate (as I am not going to research down lines that are not mine unless it pertains to my books/articles).--DMaxwell 11:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Most bad pages on WeRelate were entered by inactive users and I have been trying to fix some of them for over 3 years - tens of thousands, so far. You are active. I am getting notified of your changes on my watchlist. I don't believe anybody does guesswork, but my experience cleaning up other people's pages suggests that (many, if not most) people choose bad sources and use poor research practices that practically guarantee they have errors. Your stubs create that impression because they are incomplete and sourceless, typical characteristics of pages I correct all the time. If that impression isn't one you want to create, it may be useful to create a better documented page from the start. I don't really understand what function stubs serve, as I have not encountered issues creating duplicates when matching pages exist, but maybe you could explain the problem more. It may have something to do with indexing lag. Otherwise, I will look forward to seeing your upcoming edits adding your sources. --Jrich 12:30, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

John Warner (87) [20 July 2012]

Just missed a step in the process; not intended. I guess that qualifies as hasty.--jaques1724 16:07, 20 July 2012 (EDT)


Oh I know. Thats why I added a smiley face at the end of my edit comment. I like your work, so keep it up.--DMaxwell 16:13, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Article sources [22 August 2012]

Hi Daniel: Just wanted to make sure you're aware of the criteria for creating sources for periodical articles. Not all of them need a page. If an article's only going to be cited for a handful of people and/or there's nothing much of interest to discuss on the source page itself (as opposed to in the citation detail), the article title can just be in the "Record Name" field.--Amelia 00:46, 22 August 2012 (EDT)


Personally, I find it a bit of a hassle to have to readd the same source for every single person cited. (ie readding the entire title on multiple pages) But the vast majority of sources Ive added are used for perhaps 10+ people at a min. Those that are not, there is a good chance I just havent gotten around to finishing adding all the sources.--Daniel Maxwell 00:51, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Need sources [4 October 2012]

You have changed several names to Unknown lately without even the courtesy of adding a source to justify your conclusion. This is especially bad when there are sources available that do assert something other than Unknown as in the case of William Smead and Judith Stoughton. Such a situation makes it likely a new user will view the page, and based on the absence of a source, assume the poster was less well-informed than they, who know what the name is based on one source. Even if there is no source justifying the old position, to change it without sources, sends several unattractive implicit messages. To make genealogy better, it must be disciplined about providing sources, or else it is no better than the mistaken-ridden mythology you want to fix. --Jrich 10:57, 3 October 2012 (EDT)


I just checked the several changed to unknowns that I made. I added sources for 2 of 3 - Joanna (---) Kingman and Sarah (---) Lyman. I hadnt gotten around to Smead yet because I am gathering the sources for the rest of the Stoughton extension. In fact I have never seen a source say that anyone claims the identity of who (---) Smead was beyond unsourced GEDCOMs. I didnt realize this was controversial. Yes, I am a (proud) iconoclastic about unproven names, but when its in doubt (not in these cases) I will usually say something on the talk page. Look for instance at Sarah (Chandler?) Simonson, wife of the immigrant Moses Simonson. The two sources I have say her name is unknown, but there is so much material out there on Plymouth colonists I wasnt sure.

I think its unfair for you to imply that I am ruining the site when I am one of only a few users who bother to challenge the old myths and guesswork. Yes, I tend to hope around on what I work on, but at no point do I EVER change anything unless I can prove it.

Its true I have a few unsourced pages I need to finish. Which is why I asked for an options for them to auto tagged in case I forget any, but I got no response from the site staff.

There are alot of other users who add 'sources' or just plain unsourced material, myths, guesses. I am not sure why you come back from your quitting just to come after me.--Daniel Maxwell 13:24, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

I still monitor my watchlist. Why I posted was because you changed the husband of Judith Stoughton from William Smead to Unknown Smead and I was notified. No source was added. When a page one is watching is changed, isn't the natural reaction of any active watcher going to be to want to know the justification? As in, say, as soon as one is notified of the change? So the thoughtful thing would be to provide sources for any change you make at the time you make it.
Proving a negative is hard to do. It usually requires that an exhaustive search be done, chasing down the origin of various myths and refuting them. In the case of Person:Joanna Unknown (142) you cited Anderson and assumed he did that, probably a reasonable assumption, though he never discusses the name Drake. Unfortunately he did not cover Judith Smead except to discuss whether she is Israel and Thomas Stoughton's sister. So now it is us that need to provide the sources that suggest the husband was named William and refute them, whether those source an assumption that the first son was named after the father, or whether it is because Banks says Judith came in the 1630 Winthrop Fleet with a William Smead and her son was not yet born. There can be 100 sources saying the husband is unknown, but it takes only one source with valid evidence otherwise, and those 100 sources are simply wrong and amount to nothing. Since no one (not even Anderson) can be sure they have seen all the pertinent sources, it might seem less presumptuous to merely add a note explaining that William may not be the correct name. --Jrich 14:44, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

The way I look at it is this - if Henry Kingman's place of origin is unknown, and he didnt marry in the US, then how could anyone possibly know the identity of his wife's surname, unless she had other relatives that immigrated? The burden of proof ought to be on those making the surname claim, not for me to have to disprove sometime fantastic claims - often times I cant even find the supposed evidence for (usually there is none). In the case of the Kingmans, information and sources are thin. Thats the only time I rely on GM sketches, which are about 99% reliable and usually up to date with the latest info from my experience. Otherwise, I might look at them and go to the sources that they used (see for example, the case of the Lyman family - a WIP).

Ultimately we have the same goals, but I just work differently than you - yes, slower, and less forgiving. As I said, I dont just edit something unless I have a source. I wont just blank or neglect pages without coming back and finishing them up. You are not the first to say something to me about my style. You critiqued me early on for adding stubs to connect with earlier families, most of which I have since cleaned up. There are plenty of questionables I probably would remove surnames from but I dont have much to back that up with. As far as I can tell, William Smead was just a guess based on his only sons name. A reasonable guess perhaps, but still a guess.--Daniel Maxwell 15:02, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Who is the William Smead mentioned by Banks then? --Jrich 20:18, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

A complete guess on his part. The burden is on him to prove it, and all the later genealogists show that he has failed. No record has ever been found for this other Smead man. Not even a sliver of evidence, and alot of different researchers have looked at this because the Stoughton is a line that is shared by several Presidents. Im happy to be disproved, but we're talking about 70 years of Stoughton genealogy that hasnt budged on this issue one bit.--Daniel Maxwell 01:43, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

We'll see. Not all genealogists show that he has failed, as the Winthrop Society has accepted the Smeads, and I am not aware of one that explicitly refutes him in this (though that could very possibly be a reflection of my lack of research - if you know such an article or source, it would be helpful if you can cite it). Further, Banks does not say William is the father. I'll hold my judgement until I can see the complete source, and do a little more specific analysis on what evidence or failings I find there. --Jrich 10:39, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Winthrop accepts William Smead the son because his widowed mother Judith is supposed to have arrived in 1630. I doubt they would accept in light of his father, setting aside that he ( ?? Smead) is not believed to have ever left England.--Daniel Maxwell 10:57, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

William, the son, is not believed to have been born by 1630 and the wording of Pope's will (calling him a little boy in 1646 doesn't make sense if he was born by 1630) and other dates in the son's life suggests this is correct also, so the William in the passenger list does not appear to be him. Thus there is a major problem that needs to be explained. Either they weren't on the Winthrop Fleet, or it was a different family, or William was an earlier son who died, or Banks wrongly assumed William was the son and he was the father. Since the Winthrop Fleet's website says her unknown husband d. about 1639, it would seem they lend towards Banks. Without Banks, I know of no evidence to suggest that Judith was here before 1636, so if the Winthrop Society thinks she arrived in 1630, it would seem to be based on Banks, which says she travelled with two other people named Smead, to which I add, possibly neither one the son William. --Jrich 11:23, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes, thats an interesting problem. The solution that the Stoughton researchers have suggested is that Judith really didnt come in 1630, but sometime after 1635. William the son is usually assigned at abt 1635 birth date, which sounds about right, and if his father didnt immigrate as no evidence has shown that he did, this would put the immigration date around 1636 or even later. Judith died in 1639. Those that have thrown it into doubt didnt make a strong effort to disprove her coming in the Winthrop Fleet, so it remains at about the same state it was in the 1950s, when the last new Stoughton discoveries were made (the parentage of Rev. Thomas Stoughton, etc), yet Judith and William are still accepted as Winthrop ancestors. Its a contradiction, but alot of these ancestral societies have them (I personally know people who have DAR/SAR membership to lines that have been disproved or there is little evidence for).--Daniel Maxwell 11:31, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, it's a nice suggestion except for one minor problem, lack of knowledge and evidence of the actual migration. Which means it is speculation. Meaning, nominally, it has no more basis than Banks (if you think Banks is a guess), possibly even less basis (references to "Stoughton researchers" and "70 years of Stoughton genealogy" are somewhat vague and hard to verify). What one really needs, to contribute to this is, say, to cite a well-sourced article countering Bank's and/or Torrey's and/or Scott's claims,and not just championing one speculation over another without any sources. So back to the original points: sources and proof are needed. This website is not intended to represent any single person's viewpoint, and some objectivity (meaning evidence) should be needed to present or change evidence. --Jrich 12:37, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

'Stoughton researchers' I refer to the series of articles over a 20 year period in TAG, last one in 1963 IIRC. I am not going to dig them out for you. You can do it yourself in a Google search. One version over another? I took no position on the Winthrop Fleet problem. No, in fact we're at square one - there is no proof for Mr Smead's name. Burden of proof was on him, he flopped, and the newer research makes no mention of 'William' Smead. In the world of professional genealogy, newer means better.

It seems to me the issue is you dont want to remove 'research' that has shown to be without basis. I already added one source saying his name is unknown, but if you want to make this an issue - which it shouldnt be, once again making me think you want to troll me - I could add several more.--Daniel Maxwell 12:57, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

You're right, I don't want to remove research without basis, I want to add sources or notes showing it is without basis, because otherwise you won't stop the flood of people that believe it: what you profess to want to do. When a source tells a reader the husband is unknown, and they have a website telling them it is William, it probably just makes them sure they've unearthed some big discovery! Here, I am interested in resolving the issue with the Banks source. I am trying to determine exactly what his basis is for including Smead in his list, because if true, it turns some of the accepted facts on their ear. This is a collaboration site, but if you don't want to collaborate, don't. I am not trolling you, I am asking for specificity and hard facts, but what do you care about trolling, if it gets the right answer out there? I did see that you added one of the sources I mentioned in my note on the Family page to the Person page an hour later. That is good. The other TAG article I mentioned was newer, of course. I'll probably be adding more commentary to my note soon. Feel free to troll all you want. --Jrich 15:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

You were the only person who 'oversighted' a couple of my edits (when I was WIP on the Allen of Deerfield family and this), and I took it as a sign of nitpicking when you may have just been trying to be helpful. I think I am on guard on Wikis because of my bad experiences with Wikipedia. Thats probably why I come across as so grouchy. I thought you were trying to force keep the bad info (Ive had people who will argue and argue that the IGI or some random GEDCOM website is a 'source'). I am happy to collaborate, in fact I have done so with Jaques on Connecticut genealogy, whom I regard as a grade A contributor who surpasses me by a mile.

The whole reason I came here was so all of the good info would be in one place - everything I put on here goes into my own tree as long as its a direct ancestor (I usually only keep family groups for more recent generations). I hated searching and wasting hours of my time chasing lines into England that turned out to be without a lick of proof. I want to save others this headache by not misleading them that their line continues when it ends at the shore like most of the colonists. Before you quit I thought you might want to collaborate on the Holbrook/Reed line, which we seem to share, but then you quit suddenly.--Daniel Maxwell 15:28, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

Person:John Brockett (4) [24 October 2012]

I've just spent the last three hours working in the spot you mentioned, and have removed something over 160 pages lacking any useful support - and for which I could not immediately find sources. The pages appeared to have originated mostly from big GEDCOM dumps extracted from the ancestral file and/or ancestry. You would be well advised to add some commentary to the other John Brocket page, indicating that prevalence of problematic genealogy for that individual. --jrm03063 01:09, 24 October 2012 (EDT)


A swath of that area that I have tentatively preserved, even though it is very weakly sourced, begins with [Person:Thomas Reade (3)]. Perhaps you will inspect that to see if it contains any further problematic Brocket content? --jrm03063 01:20, 24 October 2012 (EDT)


You took what I said the wrong way. I gave up trying to change Wikipedia years ago. Most of the editors there dont understand genealogy, and I wasnt going to step my foot in the minefield of deleting things.

When I tried to edit WP a few years ago (under a different name), I ran into users practicing WP:OWN (I wasnt allowed to edit 'their' page) or WP:UNDUE (I tried to remove fringe info giving huge weight in a few articles). Instead of trying to hammer out the differences with me, they would instead revert any edit I made even when sourced. I didnt want to play the WP talk page game with a bunch of teenagers, so Ive had to just let the errors stay put.--Daniel Maxwell 04:38, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

I understand the frustration - but I think posting the concern on the associated WP talk page is a good way to go on record with an issue - even if you don't want to grow old trying to persuade folks that aren't listening. When you just walk away from it without leaving any trace - the next person who tries to fight the good fight doesn't have the support that they deserve. Even if you don't want to do that, I think we all have some responsibility to WR when any external source is purveying flawed information - that is - to call out the source on appropriate person pages (and their talk pages) to get the flaw visibility.
If you've done the work or the analysis to draw a conclusion that runs counter to what WR or WP assert, I really think you sell yourself short to walk away from that without leaving it for the next guy to build on. --jrm03063 08:47, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

One more thing - I'm sorry if I came on a little strong here and elsewhere. I try not to be too invested, but I've done a lot of work to make werelate a much better place, and my efforts and intentions often seem to be misunderstood. WP definitely isn't great genealogically - but if you think about the quality of the Brocket stuff you referred to - and then multiply that several hundred times - you start to get the idea of what things looked like four years ago. Overwhelmingly - WP pages on historical figures particularly - are far better than the crap that came inbound from the various GEDCOM dumpers. Maybe it's a back-handed tribute to that effort, that some folks now see us as WP-centric instead of being a GEDCOM dumping ground. The ills of the former are less than those of the latter.

Also, I really do get the dusty historical society archive / original source principles of the best genealogy. If we havn't done the work on a person XYZ yet - then having the WP page as a basic reference/place-holder isn't the worst sin. I'm just struck that we can't fix the problems inflicted on the world by badly done WP pages and often repeated errors such as those in Savage - by ignoring them. I see it as a sort of research corollary of the adage, "keep your friends close - and your enemies closer".

Thanks again for being here, thanks for listening. --jrm03063 12:48, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Hume [6 December 2012]

Got your meessage regarding the Hume/Home family. I didn't use the website involved as a "source", I noted it as "citation" instead. The "sources" are noted on the webpages. Just thought I'd add what seemed to be fairly well researched, so if you'd like to correct any of it that you find to be in error, feel free.  :)

Just thought since no one else had added this family that I'd help.

Best regards,

Jim--Delijim 14:36, 6 December 2012 (EST)


Yes, like I said I intend to do a major reworking of his entire line as soon as I get ahold of the two part article in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, which remains the definitive source on his descendants. There is an earlier, badly badly flawed book on the Hume family which thankfully wasnt used as a source except on the website I brought up in George Home's talk page.

I have no such excuse for his own ancestors (covered in the various Peerage books - but WR has very poor coverage of nobility) so maybe I will work on it.--Daniel Maxwell 14:43, 6 December 2012 (EST)

speedy delete [19 December 2012]

When you detach a child like Person:Unknown Andrews (19), rather than leave it dangling, you should mark it for speedy delete. See Help:Speedy Delete. --Jrich 15:36, 18 December 2012 (EST)


Good point. I checked two different Andrews sources and they both only had 9 children. Usually in the case of an 'extra' kid I will convert it to another child in the family but they were otherwise all added. I wasnt sure if they would do speedy deletes for 'castaway' children?--Daniel Maxwell 19:32, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Jonas (Jonah) Austin [2 March 2013]

Daniel, I noticed in the watercooler discussion your mention of posting the ancestry of Jonah Austin who migrated to America and ended up in Taunton, MA. While this is not my line I am familiar with it. Back in the late 80's or early 90's, Dennis Austin of Woodside,CA worked and lived in England, during which time he researched his ancestry. The results of his efforts and that of others can be found at http://www.afaoa.org/cgi-bin/display_poi.cgi/n=Dummy?Jonah_Austin_MA@119. His wife was Constance Kent, the widow of William Robinson.

DNA testing has shown his descendants are of Haplogroup J2 as are the descendants of Robert Austin of Rhode Island.

Attempts have been made to link him to various families in Kent without success. So far no one has been iidentified for DNA testing in England. See: the treatise by Pam Griffeths below. An attempt at untangling the Austens of Yalding, Goudhurst and Horsmonden http://www.genealogycrank.co.uk/pdfs/austen_evidence.pdf

If you have real interest in this family, let me know. Scot Austin scotaustin@comcast.net--Scot 12:19, 2 March 2013 (EST)

I have completed his ancestry on WR, all the way back to what is known, including all children and all family groups. What is up is the most current information (though sadly now 100 years old), though if they are able to find anything from the DNA project perhaps a new article will be written. The source itself mentions that records relating to this family aside from parish records were scant. Records didnt reveal a maiden name for his wife (called only widow Constance __________ Robinson in both the source and GM, whom I generally trust). It is not my line, though I suppose I have an interest in all older NE lines. I did his family to improve WR and the other GM immigrants generally (see my heavy involvement on the GM sketches page, which I hope to bring to featured status within a few months). His family is rather small which is probably why there wasnt a Jonas Austen (issue through only one child) family at all on WR before I created it. Daniel Maxwell.

articles [31 March 2013]

Help:Source page titles: "...most articles have such a narrow focus that they do not really need to have separate source pages devoted to them... a source page may be created for the individual article, using the rules for authored sources. (Use your best judgment.)"

As in many help pages, the very effort to be accommodating creates a recipe for disaster by providing vague and unspecified decision criteria. It should really be revamped by the source committee. Personally, I interpret this to mean that the source page should be created when there is a need to discuss the article, so that having a central page serves a purpose. Since that rarely happens, article-type source pages never were common, hence, I do not look for them. Until jaques1724 and you started creating them, they were practically unknown, most people putting article author and titles in the record field. Additionally, personally, I dislike source pages for articles because if you are in edit mode, there is nothing to tell you the source is an article or a book, so if I am trying to verify something while editing, before saving, I tend to waste a bunch of time searching for a book. I also have a long-standing complaint about the lack of methods for citing a reprint differently than an article, finding that the reprint often contains corrections not found in the original article, and so is significantly different, and should be cited differently. Because of all this, I do not use article pages, nor do I look for them. All this might be suitable as a discussion on the watercooler. --Jrich 10:46, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

We do not create them for every article we use as a source. I tend not to make them unless I will use a single article for more than >25 citations. Jaques I believe follows a similar rule, and I believe 'DataAnalyst' follows something close to that as well. That Chase article is the key source for most lines of the Yarmouth Chase family (of which my grandmother is a member) - I intended to use it more heavily, but AmericanAncestors pulled the free access to the Register archives as I was doing it. At some point, I will do more work on it but it will be a major project. Then you might ask, why we do it at all? Because it is a hassle to reenter the long title every time for every citation, especially when the source is going to be used heavily. Maybe you could argue that there should be hard rule as to the minimum number of citations needed before creating a source. Amelia asked me not to create them for articles that would be used only for <10 citations, and I have followed her advice. As for the rest of your comment, I cannot speak to the problem of different reprints, though I have had this issue before - even today, I was citing the Vital Records of Freetown Mass, but there were 3 different versions of it on WR, and it was unclear which one referred to the common one online.

Carol Ann Price is Living [1 August 2013]

I'm sorry but I could not find the "More, Delete" options. You are right. Carol Ann Price is living and should not be listed. Please delete.

SemlakGirl--SemlakGirl 12:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

If you are the only person who edited that person page, you should be able to delete it yourself (as long as you created it). It is in the menu on the left screen under 'contributions', in the 'more' tab. I have admin rights otherwise, if you cannot find it I will delete it 18:33, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Family:Harry Lyle and Frances Arnold (1) [23 August 2013]

Harry Lyle and Frances Arnold had three children. They are all deceased. I suggest removing the third "Private Lyle£" and replacing with a Note stating "Harry Lyle and Frances Arnold had three children, all now deceased."

On Ancestry, people duplicated my tree and added the children from birth registrations. I do not want this to happen here while I am still a member.

At the moment I am trying to figure out why the enumerator in the recently published 1921 Canadian census provided them with a fourth child. This child's existence is a complete mystery and he has no birth or death registration. Try putting that kind of fact on a family tree.

--Goldenoldie 02:56, 23 August 2013 (EDT)

Did I delete part of that group? I try to move quickly (I have deleted tens of thousands of these in the last 2 months) but I will tag cases that are not totally clear. But we cannot leave livings/private people on WR, and this is something I have been working hard on cleaning up. If you'd like to keep these children off the site (despite all being dead), I will delete this child when I get around to it. I just now realized some 'living' people were listed as 'private ________' but the result will be the same. Daniel Maxwell 03:11, 23 August 2013 (EDT)
I read your instructions in the message immediately above this one after sending my message. Now that I know I can delete Private Lyle myself, it will be done within the day. You can cross it off your "to do" list. --Goldenoldie 03:16, 23 August 2013 (EDT)

Wallingford Castle Deletion [6 September 2013]

Glad you agree on removing Wallingford Castle.

Your consideration of Windsor Castle and a number of royal residences in London would be appreciated. At the moment Buckingham Palace is in Westminster, but St. James's Palace (just down the road on the Mall) is in London. Needless to say jrm0363 (not exactly sure of his number) disagrees on these deletions.

Regards and /cheers --Goldenoldie 12:13, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

Most of the non person/family deletions are self-added, I delete them right away when I see them. I don't take a position on those issues since I don't deal with the royal lines on WR for the moment that would need that kind of thing. But to be honest, it sounds like that is something that WR should have a clear policy on. Daniel Maxwell 13:03, 6 September 2013 (EDT)

why? [24 September 2013]

remove the burial date from Person:Elizabeth Walker (11)? The narrative seemed to be quoting an authentic document saying she was buried on that date, and indeed, 2 minutes of searching finds it in the PCR, say here. In fact, the interesting thing, as indicated by Bowman's footnote, is that perhaps the death date is wrong. If you want people to prove things with evidence, a goal I totally share with you, you must do at least that much yourself, even when you are removing data. --Jrich 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

An oversight. All sources give the death date but not the burial date, and don't mention the improbable distance between them being a problem. I assumed (wrongly) that the burial date was erroneous. I see this sort of thing quite often on important lines like Mayflower related ones - a 'burial date' is added when it isn't known at all, sometimes they put them in cemeteries without proof. So maybe I should have double checked, but I had thought there would be a discussion by Anderson with such a long (and not believable) time lapse between death and burial. Anderson is not infallible of course, just careful, and maybe sometimes I should double check on him more than I have. Daniel Maxwell 03:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cowan [12 October 2013]

Hi Noticed that you had merged data for Jane a child of Andrew Cowan of Jefferson County TN, with that of Andrew Cowan Justice of Washington County TN. These two individuals are commonly confused, with many thinking that Andrew of Jefferson is the same as Andrew the Justice. The two were contemporaries of each other, but not the same person, as Andrew the Justice continued on in Virginia until well after the death of Andrew of Jefferson County. The child list of Andrew of Jefferson County is reasonably well worked out, though perhaps not documented on WeRelate as well as it needs to be. The child list of Andrew the Justice of Washington County is not at all well worked out. If you have specific evidence that he had a daughter Jane, I would appreciate knowing about that evidence. In the meantime I've unmerged the two articles.Q 01:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fraid I don't know what you're talking about. Someone marked one of them up as Speedy Delete. So I instead merged them since they have the same parents. Don't unmerge them and just leave them as they were if you say they have different parents. I don't know, I don't know the family, I have really no ancestors from TN so this isn't an area I really concern myself with. What you say makes no sense since as far as WR was concerned they had the same parents. I thought I was doing someone a favor. Whoever speedy delete marked it needed to merge it or change parents themselves to be honest. I won't be spending any more time on it. Daniel Maxwell 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What I'm talking about is two families that were merged that are in reality two independent lineages where there is nonetheless much confusion. Jane may have been marked for speedy delete (I might even have don that myself, though I don't recall) for which there may have been sufficient reason. I'd recommend that you leave the lines alone, as they are a perennial point of confusion. Unless you know the lines well, mis-steps are likely. Note that this isn't the first time the lines have been merged and then had to be unmerged. I will go back in and check to see why Jane may have been marked for Speedy Delete. 02:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, Checked Jane Cowan (10) and (11). I misinterpreted. The issue is that there were two separate entries in the same family for this person. Only one was needed. That's why there was a speedy delete request. I think I assumed that you merged her card with the the other Andrew Cowan =Mary. That's what's happened in the past. The two cards are identical so deleting Jane (11) should be fine. The entire child list for this couple is very suspect, but that's another matter. Q 02:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw you commented and then backed away... [4 December 2013]

I saw that you offered a comment of concern on my WC idea, but then backed away on it. Wondered if you had anything you wanted to contribute or concerns that you might still have? I've added a bit more in on-point response to Jrich, to which I would ask you to refer. I'm enthusiastic about the possibilities - since it has potential to break down some barriers to new contributors.

I know that your comments and review, when offered, come in good faith and I want to solicit as much constructive discussion of the idea as possible.

Thanks! --jrm03063 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It was of a different issue. You were talking about the wikipedia link pages, i was (wrongly) thinking about people pages on the site itself. I misread the whole thing, I don't have to do with the Wikipedia page part of this place so I let others take care of it. I removed it not because I backed away but because I was talking about something completely different. Daniel Maxwell 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigation Templates versus Categories [15 December 2013]

There was a period of time when Amelia, in particular, but others too - were interested in creating groups/categories by way of the template categories. They're all very pretty - and they add character to their pages - but they are trying to accomplish things that maybe ought to be facts. GeorgeW being President - that's a pretty navigation template - but the more correct thing would be for it to be a fact - dated to the range of his holding the office. While maybe a little more genealogically correct/useful - it's also a little less visually striking.

Wondered if you had given this any thought...Thanks!

--jrm03063 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. If I want to look at all of the Governors and see them linked in order, I prefer infoboxes both here and at wikipedia. There is no reason we cannot have both in addition to the facts. I intend to create infoboxes for all 50 state governors (ie a GovofTexas box, etc), even if they don't yet all link to a person page. I have to comb the site to see if several were added. Maybe Amelia stopped creating the infoboxes as much, but maybe it needs to happen again more often. Daniel Maxwell 18:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying I'm trying to see them eliminated - but when several pile up on a page - I wonder it there's too much of a good thing going on there. I do think they always indicate something that should really be keyed to a fact - which in turn - should be associated with the supporting source. It also often means that someone has to perform per-entry maintenance of the template page - which is automatic with an actual category. As a matter of process, a template citation seems a little orthogonal to good research practice.
How far do you go? Is there a way to describe what things should be allowed as a navigation template and which aren't? --jrm03063 21:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC
How many pages would that ever apply to? The handful of people who signed both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution? Or perhaps someone like Thomas Jefferson, who was President, signer of the DofI, and governor of Virginia? The number of people that may have several will not be many, but it doesn't bother me either way and I don't know why you are making an issue of it. No one is excluding any facts from the page, nor using them as a surrogate for page research; I have created very few of the person pages that will go in the infoboxes myself and the pages speak for themselves. if you have followed what work I do do on this site, most of it is properly sourcing New England pages and removing erroneous English 'origins' and not spending time on celebrity genealogy. I am only doing this because one of the things that attracts the average laymen to genealogical sites is, sadly, political genealogy, and I want to have some of it represented better here because now it is quite scattered. But it is a fraction of the work I do here. I came back to the Constitution and Confederation templates because I started them several months ago and had left half finished ones on both Sam Adams and George Washington's pages. I wanted to at least have them tidied up.
And I must say, I am actually a little insulted by this comment of yours: "..should be associated with the supporting source.." as if I am the sort to leave up large amounts of unsourced information. Daniel Maxwell 22:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I apologize! I meant nothing like that at all! I'm really not meaning it that way AT ALL! No - I'm just sort of enthusiastic about how easy is has been to do it the way that I've been - and anything that makes things easier seems like it's the sort of thing we ought to pay attention to.
Oh, I will try and see maybe about reducing the size of a couple of the templates, maybe so they don't dominate the pages so much. A little tinkering with the pic sizes will fix that. I am happy to work with you but I think your concerns are unfounded, considering I am probably one of the worst source-nazis on this entire site. Daniel Maxwell 22:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, mine isn't a huge complaint and not meant as such! I really was looking to engage someone else and toss around the relative merits. Maybe there are situations where one is to be preferred over the other. I don't know - I'm really asking you what you genuinely think.
There are lots of people that can be looked at multiple ways, especially if you use navigation templates for various "tapestries". But even if you restrict yourself to universally interesting groups, such as presidents, supreme court justices, secretaries of state, governors, senators, mentioned in this book, mentioned in that book, fought in this battle, fought in that battle, etc., it is not hard to imagine some people to have 2 or 3 or more. Anything that is a category, some particularly focused researcher could feel the need to add a navigation template. Who gets the top spot? Personally, I think all navigation templates should be restricted to the category page only. Some people might even resent them, diverting too much attention to one aspect of a person, sometimes when that is not even the most important thing about them.
LOL over the "a fact - which in turn - should be associated with the supporting source" remark. I'll need to save that for quoting back at people. --Jrich 22:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Could we keep your grudge with JRM off my talk page, please? Thankfully, there is more than one view at this site and I will continue to create some of the more useful templates for notable people. I never intended to go beyond Constitution/Articles of Confederation/Governor pages. Though Supreme Court is one I hadn't considered. Daniel Maxwell 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
What a slippery slope! And now we're doing governors and presidents and Mr. Livingston (below) is of course in two. And of course, other people will want to do theirs, perhaps a coat of arms, or a military unit insignia or medal, and so on and so on until the whole page is navigation templates. And of course, genealogically speaking these groups are rarely related genealogically, and so a person looking at their ancestors probably has zero need for the navigation template, which is why it belongs on the category page, where the readers presumably go because they are interested in the group. --Jrich 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a solution for the multiple templates for a handful of people is to have a 'hide/collapse' option on them. I know the wiki already supports this. For some that will have more than one, maybe have it so that only the most notable one is opened (so for Jefferson, the Presidency infobox, and the Gov of VA and DofI are closed). Daniel Maxwell 22:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said above - I don't have anything against them fundamentally - but I wonder how far one goes with the approach. --jrm03063 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I guess I didn't understand your purpose is all. I am only doing (some of, for now) governorships and the three main American Founding documents (Amelia already did the DofI and the President and VP boxes years ago) signers. As I have said, I am not a big fan of wikipedia for a number of reasons, but I think the political boxes might help traffic a bit since political genealogy is fairly popular. The other day I was going through a batch of blank livings marked with 'private' dates and one of them was a blank Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas. I think that is what kickstarted the effort again on my part. Don't worry - I am not going to go crazy with them and I am going to keep them together with the categories. But one thing I am going to do is a different approach from wikipedia, where the colonial gov's are not mentioned in the infoboxes...I am considering combining them and seeing how they look (separated with 'Colonial' and 'post Independence' maybe). Daniel Maxwell 00:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that categories are a good way to encourage interest. Better still, they bring together people coming at the same material from different directions, which can lead to better overall information. I've created something over 180 categories, associated with different families of European nobility, with more to come. I don't think I'ld want to create navigation templates for them generally - but I assume that's just fine. For individual tighter groups of people - Amelia did some for inheritance of a monarchy and important nobles - maybe the navigation template approach is a nice extension.
Perhaps the way this goes in the future, is that if someone wants to propose a template beyond those that are most obvious, they start it with a simple fact-category until there's enough information to make a case for something more? --jrm03063 17:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Person:William Livingston (3) change [15 December 2013]

Hello. Contacting you here since you made a change to Person:William Livingston (3) but aren't watching the page. You removed "1st NJ" from his Gov title without explanation. I am the one that put it there as part of his preferred title, since it is a quick way to distinguish who he was when looking at family pages, search results, etc. without having to click thru to the actual page. I find such context very helpful when navigating around, so if you continue working on the political templates, you are going to see a lot pages where I have done the same. That is my reason for putting it there, and I really can't see the harm in including brief clarifying info to either the name prefix or suffix boxes. Would you be so kind as to share your reason for removing it? Respectfully, --Cos1776 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it is against the naming conventions of the site, so far as I know them. But you will also see I am working on governor templates right now so this navigation problem would be solved shortly. You created the page for Ambrose Burnside, so you will see his RI gov. template there now. If you like, I can create New Jersey's next so he will be included. I wasn't trying to step on your toes - I was gathering signers of the Constitution together for that new template and he was just next in line. Daniel Maxwell 22:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Saw you have moved conversation to my talk page, so I will follow. --Cos1776 22:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RI Govs [15 December 2013]

I can't find the sandbox work, but this was what I had in mind. Turns out the question of who was a colonial governor of Rhode Island is rather complicated, but I'll leave that to you.

Governors of Rhode Island
Colonial Governors: Bull • J. Easton • Carr • W. Clarke • S. Cranston Jenckes • W. Wanton • John Wanton • R. Ward • Greene • G. Wanton • Greene • G. Wanton • Greene • Hopkins • Greene • Hopkins • S. Ward • Hopkins • S. Ward • Hopkins • Lyndon • Joseph • Wanton • Cooke

State Governors: Nicholas Cooke • William Greene • John Collins • Arthur Fenner • Henry Smith • Isaac Wilbour • James Fenner • William Jones • Nehemiah Knight • William Gibbs • James Fenner • Lemuel Arnold • John Francis • William Sprague • Samuel King • Thomas Dorr • James Fenner • Charles Jackson • Byron Diman • Elisha Harris • Henry Anthony • Philip Allen • Francis Dimond • William Hoppin • Elisha Dyer • Thomas Turner • William Sprague • William Cozzens • James Smith • Ambrose Burnside • Seth Padelford • Henry Howard • Henry Lippitt • Charles Van Zandt • Alfred Littlefield • Augustus Bourn • George Wetmore • John Davis • Royal Taft • Herbert Ladd • John Davis • Herbert Ladd • D. Russell Brown • Charles Lippitt • Elisha Dyer • William Gregory • Charles Kimball • Lucius Garvin • George Utter • James Higgins • Aram Pothier • R. Livingston Beeckman • Emery San Souci • William Flynn • Aram Pothier • Norman Case • Theodore Green • Robert Quinn • William Henry Vanderbilt • J. Howard McGrath • John Pastore • John McKierman • Dennis Roberts • Christopher Del Sesto • John Notte • John Chafee • Frank Lichy • Philip Noel • J. Joseph Garrahy • Edward DiPrete • Bruce Sundlun • Lincoln Almond • Donald Carcieri • Lincoln Chafee

--Amelia 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed that the NJ gov at wikipedia has more what I was getting at. See at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Livingston I wanted those little colored side columns like that and that is what I kept screwing up. Thanks for your help though. Daniel Maxwell 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That requires an embedded table:

Governors of Rhode Island
Colonial Governors Bull • J. Easton • Carr • W. Clarke • S. Cranston Jenckes • W. Wanton • John Wanton • R. Ward • Greene • G. Wanton • Greene • G. Wanton • Greene • Hopkins • Greene • Hopkins • S. Ward • Hopkins • S. Ward • Hopkins • Lyndon • Joseph • Wanton • Cooke
State Governors Nicholas Cooke • William Greene • John Collins • Arthur Fenner • Henry Smith • Isaac Wilbour • James Fenner • William Jones • Nehemiah Knight • William Gibbs • James Fenner • Lemuel Arnold • John Francis • William Sprague • Samuel King • Thomas Dorr • James Fenner • Charles Jackson • Byron Diman • Elisha Harris • Henry Anthony • Philip Allen • Francis Dimond • William Hoppin • Elisha Dyer • Thomas Turner • William Sprague • William Cozzens • James Smith • Ambrose Burnside • Seth Padelford • Henry Howard • Henry Lippitt • Charles Van Zandt • Alfred Littlefield • Augustus Bourn • George Wetmore • John Davis • Royal Taft • Herbert Ladd • John Davis • Herbert Ladd • D. Russell Brown • Charles Lippitt • Elisha Dyer • William Gregory • Charles Kimball • Lucius Garvin • George Utter • James Higgins • Aram Pothier • R. Livingston Beeckman • Emery San Souci • William Flynn • Aram Pothier • Norman Case • Theodore Green • Robert Quinn • William Henry Vanderbilt • J. Howard McGrath • John Pastore • John McKierman • Dennis Roberts • Christopher Del Sesto • John Notte • John Chafee • Frank Lichy • Philip Noel • J. Joseph Garrahy • Edward DiPrete • Bruce Sundlun • Lincoln Almond • Donald Carcieri • Lincoln Chafee


--Amelia 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rose family [30 December 2013]

Birth & death info added to Doris Ellen (Rose) Henderson--Limerickman 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Birth & death info added to Clyde and Ollie (Hockensmith) Rose.

OK, thank you. I will remove those templates later today. If any of those others of yours I tagged are not living, try and find the dates. Daniel Maxwell 06:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)