User talk:DMaxwell

For talk before 2015 see: User:DMaxwell/talk page archive 2012-3 and User:DMaxwell/Talk_page_archive_2014


New categories needed [23 January 2015]

Hello Daniel ! Please, see here ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What do we usually do with Spam? [27 February 2015]

Hi Daniel. I came across this Spam-like page and was wondering if you might know if there is a protocol in place for apparent spam. I thought that you were one of the ones involved in the deleting part of the Speedy Delete process, so you might know. Does anyone ever add an SD template to an article - and do you think we should in this case? Thanks, --Cos1776 14:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This guide under "Blocking spammers" outlines how users with admin rights can delete the pages with spam and block the users. For those without admin rights, I think it makes sense to tag them with a SD template with a summary mentioning the page is spam. I'll go ahead and delete the above page and block that user. --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I just now saw this. For some reason I wasn't notified. Usually JBS or Amelia has handeled spammers so I haven't had to get involved before. Daniel Maxwell 23:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete added to page [4 March 2015]

Daniel, I noticed you added a speedy delete notice on the family page associated with the current WeRelate Featured Page. The specific person page of the living person is "Living Lorig", cleary in compliance with the WeRelate policy, what is your issue with the Family Page?

Please advise.

Thanks.--Delijim 19:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it is in compliance with the policy. If it were, there would be no reason to have it named 'living'. If that man's wife is notable, and our definition of that *usually* is similar to that of wikipedia's, then you could have her under her actual name. But has it been established that the woman is notable in of herself? Could she justify a Wikipedia page, or biography? The main difference I can see WR having with Wikipedia on notability is the definition of a public figure. Wikipedia doesn't consider Governor's spouses notable most of the time, but they are arguably are, being the 'first lady' of the state. Aside for that small difference, I mainly concur with their definition. We're trying to eliminate Living pages here on WR, in fact I've spent several years doing this, but there is still alot of work to do. We shouldn't be creating more of them. So pages like hers need to be justified (ie proven that she is notable in her own right) or deleted. The given exception on the WR page for Livings is 'notable' not 'married to a notable'. This had nothing to do with it being on the featured page, I was going through livings that had most recently been edited and I saw it. If you think I am wrong, and the wife would quality as a public figure (though I doubt she would), then she should be renamed to her actual name.Daniel Maxwell 19:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Daniel, we cannot remove ALL pages with a "Living" designation without also removing family pages where some persons that are attached have died and some may still be living. Deleting those family pages would create "orphan pages" that would be un-linked, which would create a different problem. The person in this instance is not "noteworthy" or "famous", except within her own family, but she is still living (although in her 90's, and as such still deserves to be linked to her husband on their family page and listed as "Living" on her current Person page (in accordance with WeRelate Policy) until she dies. As a long-time Administrator here, I'd think you'd give a little leeway in cases like this versus a strict interpretation. I'm sure you have many more pages to work on than this one.

Thanks and best regards,


The policy that Daniel is referring to about living people can be found here. It follows how Dallan has programmed GEDCOM imports to behave. If a family has a living spouse and all living children, a family page is not created for them, and the living spouse and living children are not imported. As that help page mentions, "If you would like to link pages to others that would otherwise be linked through living people (in-laws with living children, for example), do so by creating direct links in the body of the pages." --Jennifer (JBS66) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[11 March 2015]


Under "My own ancestry" you mention Berselem, Staffordshire. The place is Burslem ([[Place:Burslem, Staffordshire, England]]). Since 1910 it has been part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent.

Regards--Goldenoldie 15:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, though that isn't the problem with linking the families. If Levi Sawyer was called 'Joseph Sawyer' in England, I could find no proof of it. Basically I am not willing to do anything more on it until I could prove that link, which I cannot. I couldn't find him in the 1841 census, or 1851, nor anyone close to him. In fact he is ghostlike in the US too; he only appears on the 1860 census, and then never again, despite dying in the 1890s. I suspect this is because he was a polygamist, but I don't know for sure. Still though, I was able to find more for his supposed Sawyer family in England than I was with my Gloucester ancestry, which thanks to lack of scanned records, I could do almost nothing. Daniel Maxwell 15:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Gloucestershire coverage has improved over the years. Originally family historians (particularly of the LDS persuasion--I'm not one either) had some trouble persuading the bishop, but times have moved on. Read through the GENUKI notes, or what I have gleaned from them on WR place pages. Gloucestershire place pages only got so far done. Bristol moved out and so did some of the northern edges, and I left too <smile>.--Goldenoldie 17:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but the old indexes have almost nil and as far as I know, you still have to do parish searches 'the old fashioned way' ie being there in person or having an agent and trusting in his ability to transcribe them accurately. Hopefully, someday, something will happen with Gloucester like it did with the Devon records on Findmypast - a nearly complete selection of them INDEXED no less with just a few missing, and several of which were never scanned by the LDS at all. I was able to take my Devon Lee line and expand it by several generations overnight. Daniel Maxwell 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GedCom Dumper [12 May 2015]

The GedCom dumper we were discussing the other day...? Be thankful for what little we got. Their full tree contains over 380,000 names, but that tree they keep updated it seems. I am working through the names though, bit by bit.--khaentlahn 22:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Although it isn't up to me, that tree is so bad I think it would be better to just delete it all. Almost no sources, very generic places (death place: 'PA' and no other info), many missing dates, etc, etc. It's too bad that it's so large we can't. To make it worse, it seems like he just copied the trees of a ton of unrelated Ohio families, so finding people interesting in cleaning it up would be a task. Daniel Maxwell 23:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Daniel, you wrote "It's too bad that it's so large we can't [delete it?]" How does its size affect whether or not it can be deleted? Returning after a long absence and trying to reorient myself, Jillaine 10:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Because with the larger it is, the more likely it is to have crossover with other people's trees. I don't think I have ever seen a tree with 1000+ people in it that didn't have overlap with other user's work. This is why the site now limits the size of the trees you can upload - when this site started, there was none, and in fact I have found a couple trees larger than 'JonJays' that are just as bad. Daniel Maxwell 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel re: What type of person... [20 April 2015]

Thanks for your response re: 'What type of...'. I admit I still bristle a little when the topic of restricting new users comes up, and someone has 'a way with words' that pushes a few of my librarian buttons. Your explanation appeases me; sincerely hope 'new user' guidelines is a friendly process. Neal --SkippyG 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Neal, new users who go and make radical changes are the main thing I want to prevent. Just a few months ago, I had a newbie 'fix' a person whose wife's last name was unknown. He renamed her to the 'Ancestry/OneWorldTree' answer that had no support. Right now it is an annoyance, but if we had double the number of members it could become a real problem. All of us started out as learners; some people want to learn (the user who I was giving an example as someone who improved was 'FranklySpeaking', who was at first rather - hasty), and others never do. I argued with a woman once until I was blue in the face that the fact that she had wrong parentage for someone, showed her the source for why and how it was wrong, but I kept being told that it 'conflicted with her data' (ie what she copied). Maybe if we had a grading system, it would be 'Pass' and 'Fail'. The latter type of user we wouldn't want anywhere near a serious genealogical site if it involves editing other's data, especially pre-census. Daniel Maxwell 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thavies Inn [18 May 2015]

Hi Daniel

Thanks for getting rid of Thavies Inn. There's a whole lot of changes I want to make to London. One is to merge all references to the Inns of Court together. If we were exclusively into legal history, we would want all the inns as separate entities, but that is really OTT for our purposes.

I am working through the outside boroughs and will do the City of London last, after I get the rest of the clutter out of Greater London and London.

My plan includes renaming early parishes or churches with the name of the borough in which they were located preceding the dedicatory name of the church, i.e. Southwark St. Saviour, Stepney St. Mary. This moves them back to a three-tier name and they ought to be more easier to find that way. I must pass this on to the Place Portal people. I hope they will understand.

The next problem place within WR is [[Place:Braintree, Essex, England|Braintree]] which, no matter what I do (since I can't exactly delete it), persists in showing up as an inclusion within Braintree Rural District. Because it was relatively urban, it was never in [[Place:Braintree Rural, Essex, England|Braintree Rural District]], but some gremlin in the system keeps leaving it there.

/cheers, Pat aka --Goldenoldie 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)