User talk:DataAnalyst

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:

1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
2. Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
3. Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:31, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [19 August 2010]

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 richard odell - small file.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.

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 lines 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 18:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

richard odell - small file.ged Imported Successfully [20 August 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 09:25, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Dutch duplicates [30 August 2010]

Hello DataAnalyst. You must be working through WR's duplicates list... I am working on a project that created a number of duplicates which I am working on daily. Is it at all possible for you to skip the Dutch duplicates? I don't mean to sound rude in any way, it's just that I have a bit of a process when I merge them. Thanks, --Jennifer (JBS66) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Sure. I already decided to skip all the ones simply marked as duplicates and started working through the duplicate parents, but I'll skip the Dutch ones there as well. I did another one today, but I'll skip them from now on. Thanks for letting me know. --DataAnalyst 21:08, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

Merging of duplicate parents' files [31 August 2010]

I believe you said the Gardiners are not your family lines. I spent a lot of time earlier today correcting established genealogical errors on the Gardiners that were created by your merging duplicate files. Now you have merged another Gardiner file, Isaac, son of Benoni and Mary and resurrected the disproved parents, George and Sarah (Slaughter) Gardiner for Benoni. You made no comments to justify your resurrection of the duplicate parents for Benoni.--Bill Wright 20:36, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Please have some patience - I am in the process of updating the records, and will correct the problem. I am in the process of reading the article so that I can get it right. --DataAnalyst 20:39, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

The records have been fixed now. It is hard to track through the history of this family and figure out exactly the state at any given time, but the merge (which was correct) simply brought the incorrect parents (that were already in WeRelate) onto the same page as the correct parents, and it was several minutes before I could fix the records. I wanted to create the source first, and my other webpage was being very slow, so that took quite a while.

I'm tempted to start putting comments on Talk pages when I am in the process of correcting records, because it can take quite a while to cleanup pages after a merge. Maybe I'll start doing that. --DataAnalyst 23:07, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [23 October 2010]

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 ormsbee - 251.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.

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 13:00, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

ormsbee - 251.ged Imported Successfully [24 October 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 12:27, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Person:Thomas Knowlton (2) [30 October 2010]

I findSource:Knowlton, George Henry. Errata and Addenda to Dr. Stocking's History and Genealogy of the Knowltons of England and America somewhat unconvincing about the death date of Thomas Knowlton. It may be worth a note explaining that there is some disagreement, but I don't feel he has proved his case enough to remove the death date from the page. I believe 2 Nov 1711 must still presumptively apply to Thomas Knowlton unless further evidence is produced.

G.H. Knowlton's main argument seems to be the "poorly written" figures in the record. I say welcome to colonial writing. I have seen ones written like Continental ones (almost like 7's). I have also seen ones written in a squiggly line that looks almost like a 5. It depends on the style of the town clerks. What matters is what was intended, and that seems to be a matter of interpretation. And here, Knowlton's argument isn't any stronger than the others. In fact, one might be inclined to feel that the compiler of the published records would have a better feel for the clerk's personal style.

To me, the biggest problem is the use of Junior (because of Thomas' age: who was Thomas Sr?), which isn't even noted by Knowlton, and is completely left out of one of the two "quotes" of the town records given on p. 6. (I say "quotes", because it is clear that Knowlton only paraphrased the records as his own two quotes differ, and both differ from the published version.) But in the published version [1] the death record is right next to the death record of Hannah, which is right in line with the colonial practice of recording family information as a unit. And Thomas' son, called "Thomas 3d" in the original history didn't die until 1730. This raises minor doubts, but I don't feel this is a show-stopper.

Finally, Knowlton suggests this death record belongs to "History (77)", referring to Thomas, b. 1692, son of Nathaniel Knowlton and Deborah Jewett. (The corrections also note that the family of Thomas (58) really belongs to Thomas (77)). With a good alternative, Knowlton's argument would be made stronger, but this choice is so bad, it calls into question his judgment. Thomas-77 appears to have spent his entire 26 year life in Ipswich having his birth, marriage and death all recorded there. We are supposed to believe that a date of 2 Nov is mean to refer to a person whose death in Ipswich is recorded as 28 Feb (regardless of Knowlton's complaints about the poorly written year).

Cautionary and noteworthy, not convincing. --Jrich 11:25, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. I have added the death date, with appropriate citation and note, back in. I wasn't sure how much to trust Tingley, not having used the source for very much, and the 'Jr.' in the death record threw me. Of course, not having seen the original handwritten record, I suppose it is possible that it said Sr. and was mistranscribed. Thanks for the correction. --DataAnalyst 11:44, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

I don't claim to be an expert on this family, so take any of the above with the appropriate grain of salt. I just think G. H. Knowlton (didn't really look at Tingley) was a little too strong in saying without qualification that the death date did not apply, when he presented no real evidence to contradict it.

I also want to add a thank you for documenting your sources! --Jrich 15:40, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 December 2010]

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 franklin - 242.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.

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 11:16, 4 December 2010 (EST)

franklin - 242.ged Imported Successfully [8 December 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 20:25, 8 December 2010 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [28 December 2010]

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 carpenter - 333.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 15:14, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Merging Sources [29 December 2010]

Hi Janet, hopefully this will give you some insight into merging sources... You wrote:

I found 2 pages for what I believe is the same source: Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams, of Braintree, Mass., and His Descendants and Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams of Braintree, Massachusetts and His Descendants the difference being in whether or not Massachusetts is abbreviated. When I look at the details, the first is clearly the book I used - published in 1898 and available as a scanned book at Ancestry.com. (Massachusetts is abbreviated on the title page of the book.)

The second source is possibly a reprint of the book, as it has a different publisher and a publish date of 1965. Without getting my hands on the book, I don't know if it is a reprint (with the same pagination) or a second edition. My guess would be that it is a reprint rather than a true second edition, but the pagination could still be different if they threw in a new introduction or errata page.

Should these 2 sources be merged?

As a general rule, yes, especially if 2nd book is just a reprint. It is also acceptable to create two sources, each with the publication date at the end of the page name, in order to distinquish between two sources. So your instinct about how to distinquish between editions is exactly right. It can be in the form of (1898) or (1898 ed). For some reason I generally use the latter (perhaps because it seems like with the ed. the number looks more like a year).

When multiple editions are combined, the user has to be certain to distinguish which edition has been used in the specifics of the citation on the Person or Family page, in case there are page numbering or other changes.

If so, is it as simple as editing the first source to add info from the second (e.g., surnames, repository) and then adding #REDIRECT to the second source? 

Yes, mostly it is that simple. But I can give you some more hints on how to determine what's a duplicate and what isn't...

First, using a browser that allows tabs, I open up both source pages, AND then I open up the links under the repositories for both source pages. In your example, that is the Ancestry search page and the Family History Catalog page.

That will give you a great deal of additional info - the Ancestry page will allow you to view the title page and confirm the publication info (Ancestry often has errors in their publication info). The FHC page clarifies that the 1965 date reflects only the date they filmed the original book, and thus isn't a "publication date" for the combined source page purposes. When combining source pages, the protocol is to use the earliest publication data in the form, adding later publication info or distinquishing information in the text description box.

There is also default language you can cut and paste to show that there is more that one edition of a book, in case a future WeRelate user wants to create separate source pages for each edition:

This source may refer to multiple editions of the same book. If it is important to you to refer to a specific edition, you may create a separate Source page for that edition with the year of the edition in parentheses after the title.

From looking at the Ancestry title page, I decided to add the printer to the publisher area and fixed the place of publication. I also selected the "type" (book) and the "subject" (family tree/history).

At the moment, there are no links to either source (other than some other redirects), but I have just uploaded a GEDCOM file and matched to the first source (so please don't choose to redirect it).

When I merge duplicates, I generally decide which to retain based on which one has the fewest redirects, because I like to keep things neat and tidy. Thus I generally will take the page I DON'T want anymore, and then open up all the pages that link to that page and fix the links so that they now redirect to the correct title.

In your example, that means opening the linked page, selecting edit, and then replacing #REDIRECT [[Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams of Braintree, Massachusetts and His Descendants]] with #REDIRECT [[Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams, of Braintree, Mass., and His Descendants]]. Now nothing links to the duplicate page (except my talk page, because of your question).

If there is a good reason to keep the duplicate page (for example, it was set up to use a variation of the author's name that is an alternate to the correct name, and that might be commonly searched for), I use the redirect. Often, and in this case, I would go to "more" on the command menu and select delete, and then verify that this is dupe page and there are no links here. I think you should have that feature for source pages, but if not, you could also use speedy delete.

Finally, I tend to go the extra mile and look for alternative repositories to add as well. My favorites for books out of copyright are the Internet Archive and Google Books. For recent books, I try to add a link to WorldCat, which will help people find the book in a library.

I hope this helps! I'm not sure there is a good set of instructions on merging duplicates anywhere on WeRelate; perhaps I will try to take this example and turn it into a help page? Let me know if it makes sense to you. - --Brenda (kennebec1) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (EST)Brenda

Thanks, Brenda - this made a lot of sense to me. And I see that you have done all the work except for deleting the second source. Thanks.

In terms of writing up instructions - yes, that would be very useful. I did not know that the FHL catalogue had that much info in it - I have been using Ancestry.com and AmericanAncestors.org most of the time lately. (I wish that AmericanAncestors/org included title pages in their scanning - I'd rather see the real title page than their citation info, even though their citation info can be useful.) If you incorporate the instructions you wrote for me into more formal instructions, I would not use the word "redirect" in talking about changing links on pages that point to the source to be deleted. (Once you have updated the link, they will link to the correct page without a "redirect".) Also, include a link to the help text for speedy delete (http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:FAQ#How_do_I_delete_a_page.3F), since a lot of people will not know how to do that (or exactly what it means).

Thanks for adding info to sources. I have not focussed on adding surnames and place names to sources I create (mostly journal articles) or sources I match to, because I have been working full tilt to get my records properly sourced and loaded. But some day, I may go back and help with improving the source pages (or other volunteer work - there is no shortage of work to do). Gotta run - my family wants me to watch some TV with them. Thanks again. --DataAnalyst 19:47, 28 December 2010 (EST)

carpenter - 333.ged Imported Successfully [30 December 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 14:34, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Nice clean up you're doing [31 December 2010]

Just wanted to thank and acknowledge you for the data clean-up you're doing on Bowen and related lines. Thanks!

Jillaine 16:52, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Thanks. You never know when you're going to offend someone who is very attached to "their" data, so I appreciate the feedback. --DataAnalyst 16:59, 31 December 2010 (EST)

If people are too attached to "their" data, then they shouldn't be on a wiki. ;-) Jillaine 17:16, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Carpenter

I like the changes! Looks good! Jrcrin001 13:35, 3 January 2011 (EST)

Disproven versus not accepted? [16 January 2011]

Hi,

Your change comments on Waitstill Unknown alias Snow say "Snow" has been disproved. That suggests evidence that her name is not Snow, or that she has other parents than Nicholas and Constance, or that her age or location at some point rule out her connection to this family. Are you aware of that evidence? Because it would be really nice to put that evidence in a note on her page so subsequent readers don't say, "Wait! Still unknown? Well, then, I can help here! Her maiden name is Snow." Except for one unsupported statement that it is unproven, I haven't found either the reasons people think she is a Snow or the reasons why this is considered disproved. Or, is it more accurate to say it is not accepted? For this, one can merely cite the lack of supporting evidence, and GMB as a reasonably current indicator of informed consensus, in a note whose purpose is to inform readers that Snow has been considered and rejected, and thus need not be reasserted without good proof. --Jrich 10:00, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Sorry, I don't have the argument where her maiden name and parentage has been disproven. Nor do I know the origin of the speculation that her maiden name was Snow. My suspicion is that her identity was disproven before Jacobus wrote his article on the Ingraham family in 1943, since he does not mention her maiden name. If it was still uncertain whether or not her name was Snow, he (and probably Torrey) would have at least mentioned the possibility of her being a Snow. So either it was convincingly disproven, or the whole speculation came up since then. Not sure which. Since the citation (from what appears to be a fairly recent book) emphasizes that her maiden name has not been discovered and that Snow has been disproved, I would say that her name should be listed as Unknown, just like all the other wives whose maiden names have never been found. I felt that both the note still on her page and the argument on her Talk page were sufficient to cause a person pause before changing her back to a Snow.--DataAnalyst 11:30, 16 January 2011 (EST)

The problem with the Talk page is that I don't think it is visible during merge or during GEDCOM upload. I will strengthen the note that is there because my lambasting of the author for not providing proof could be construed as casting doubt on it. --Jrich 14:36, 16 January 2011 (EST)

It also occurred to me to put Waitstill Snow as an alternate name with a note indicating that it has been disproven. I've seen that done on other records. This might also forestall someone from "correcting" her name to Snow (and is more visible in a merge, but maybe also more confusing). I'm not sure if Search uses alternate names - I think it does. If so, that is another advantage, as it might prevent the creation of a duplicate under the name Snow. I'll leave that to your discretion. --DataAnalyst 16:06, 16 January 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [30 January 2011]

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 battles - 246.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 17:55, 30 January 2011 (EST)

battles - 246.ged Imported Successfully [3 February 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 08:19, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Followup on Benjamin Washburns [7 February 2011]

I know we have been going round and round on the Washburns based largely on my faith in the work of George Bowman. It was frustrating not to be able to find a fuller article giving all the details after the promise made in Pilgrim Notes and Queries cited in one of my postings. I was getting ready to order some films and try and find the evidence myself, but I ran across a fairly good, well-documented website on the Wasbhurns (perhaps you have seen it, but I generally search the general Internet only as a last resort - this website was a real find). For example, it lists the deeds of Benjamin and Bethiah with references to the Plymouth volume where they may be found, which would make checking into them really easy. Based on what they have posted, the clearest piece of evidence that Bowman was right is under Benjamin and Martha (here), which says that Martha refused administration on her husband's estate, so it was granted to Cornelius Washburn. The website says "his brother Cornelius", and I am not sure if this is explicit in the document, but brother would be more likely than, say, granting it to his cousin, which would be the alternative if it was not his brother. Cornelius was a son of Jonathan (VR Bridgewater, p. 1:327, b. 1702), so Benjamin who m. 1729 Martha Kingman would appear to be the son of Jonathan, and he could not be the father of Henry. The source is Plymouth Probate, 8:261 and 16:408,413. I assume the second one is the distribution of his estate, and the first one probably has the granting of administration to Cornelius. So it should be easy for someone to verify this and I am much happier knowing the actual basis for this conclusion, even if I haven't personally verified it. P.S. there is also a deed (Plymouth deeds 43:269) where the heirs sold land "derived from our grandfather Jonathan Washburn, deceased, to our father Benjamin Washburn". --Jrich 23:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)

I was hoping I could help you as I have a Plymouth colony wills, etc. film currently on loan, but it's vol. 1-4: Plymouth Colony records, wills, 1633-1686. I have it until 2/22 (and could extend it), if you need anything looked up in those volumes. Jillaine 08:39, 7 February 2011 (EST)

wikipedia consistency [10 April 2011]

Don't worry about perfect consistency between wikipedia and our extracted templates. Dallan gets a snap shot of Wikipedia once or twice a year. That is the basis for the templates - so changes in WP are not going to immediately reflect on the WR templates that are then constructed. The updates will - eventually - get through, just not instantly. --Jrm03063 14:11, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. I figured it must be something like that after my attempt at update did not work. Good to know that the references are refreshed periodically. --DataAnalyst 14:33, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

Hello! [14 June 2011]

I have been very pleased to see someone else actively working in the medieval spaces. I've struggled with the WeRelate data base for a couple years now - merging out the duplicates and using wikipedia, thepeerage, and medieval lands as a rough and ready source set (I know, the real genealogists scoff at wikipedia - but it's way better than nothing - which was pretty much what we had). I see you're taking the time to clean up a lot of the cosmetics that I didn't take the time with, which is just great! I hope you're finding the experience interesting and at least somewhat satisfying. For my part, it's not so much that I'm hugely interested in this time period - but I like the werelate model and felt it was sort of embarrassing to have that space looking weak when there were so many wikipedia pages that could be drawn upon.

Anyway, I did want to say hello and thank you for wandering around out there!

Best Regards... --Jrm03063 22:17, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

Let me echo JRM's thoughts, I am interested in medieval genealogy but much that gets uploaded here is the subject of scholarly research which can be used to validate and correct in what we have. I have held off for the time being as separating the wheat from the chaff seemed a monumental task. The efforts of JRM and others like yourself has geatly improved things. One comment, though I see you adding surnames. This an anachronism in most cases, as surnames did not come into use until into the 14th century and in some case much later. While many place names, patronyms and other bynames eventually became surmames, They were not within this timeframe.--Scot 18:53, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes - I am aware that surnames are anachronistic, but I assumed that the surname field was being used to capture some sort of differentiator, since it appears to be fairly common to retroactively assign those differentiators. I've used Medieval Lands as my guide in most cases, but guessed in others where Medieval Lands did not provide a guide (or I missed the hints). I have also hesitated about completely getting rid of the differentiators that others have assigned - even when I have been uncertain of them. For one thing, if I am uncertain, I don't feel it is necessarily my place to correct them - for another, leaving a questionable differentiator might prevent someone from adding the person yet again.

If there is a discussion about the "best" way to represent medieval names, you might direct me to it - I can't remember having searched for such a discussion, but simply followed what appeared to be common practice. And I can't claim to be completely consistent, even in the degree to which I clean up records - as you say, it is a monumental task and my energy for it wanes at times. I've been focusing on one line (which of course branches all over the place), and occasionally fixing tangential lines or lines that got confused with my line. I've spent several months on this and the end is not yet in sight - not sure if I will finish. I'm sure it would have been easier to start from scratch with a good source - but sometimes untangling the threads is like a puzzle and it gets me going.

I hope others will join the task at some point, because the existing quality of medieval records really lowers the value of WeRelate. --DataAnalyst 20:54, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [14 August 2011]

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 kempton - 237.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 19:16, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

The Great Migration Begins [4 December 2011]

It's a bit of a nit, but the bindings and title pages use roman numerals for volumes, not arabic.--jaques1724 07:05, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

FWIW, Jacques, the use of roman numerals is no longer standard bibliographic practice, nor is it required for "accuracy." The two forms are interchangeable but arabic numerals are preferred for volume numbers in both book-sets and periodicals, as being more quickly readable. See the Chicago Manual, and most other current sources. --Mike^Talk 08:13, 4 December 2011 (EST)

kempton - 237.ged Imported Successfully [17 August 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 11:48, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Duplicate parents problem [22 August 2011]

A merge on Person:Ada Mallison (1) has given her two sets of parents. Please see if you can remove whichever one is an error. Two is definitely an error. --Judy (jlanoux) 20:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [27 August 2011]

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 etheridge - 83.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 11:13, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

etheridge - 83.ged Imported Successfully [28 August 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 10:52, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

flipped main and alt name - consistency with siblings [29 August 2011]

This is personal opinion on my part, but I tend to think the above is a poor reason for making a change. At some point it leads one into an unresolvable conundrum. To be consistent, do you have to use the modern spelling so all the children and their parents consistently show the same spelling back through all the generations? Changes in spelling happened, where are such discontinuities allowed to show up?

Many cases I can give where one child chooses one spelling different than another sibling; or where a name tended to be spelled one way in one generation, another in a later generation; or where a name has 20 or 30 spelling variations. Foreign names are also tricky. Some of my Sontag ancestors chose to use Sunday (the English translation) so I have a family with parents named Sonntag, some children named Sontag and other children named Sunday.

Striving for consistency is impossible, and in some cases, introduces errors. It is really questionable whether we can determine the correct spelling anyway, barring a signature. Since many people were illiterate in colonial times, that means it often can't be done, and one case I read about, the person themselves changed how they spelled their own name over the course of their lifetime. (Of course, with modern names, say 1850 and later, spelling was much more rigorous and reliable.)

So, suggestions:

1. Try to be flexible and allow alternate spellings to exist since in some cases, since those Merricks may have been named that way to match their children, instead of your perspective of their siblings. Unless it appears to be misleading, why change it? In some ways, displaying a family with both spelling is useful because it reminds readers they have to consider both variations when searching for information.
2. When prominent spelling variations exist, add Surname: pages to make sure search treats both spelling equivalently. For example, Surname:Merrick should probably have Mirick, Mirrick, Myrick, Myreck, etc., etc., added to it as alternate spellings. And vice versa.
3. If you have to change a name, instead of renaming the page, merely change the name fields. The displayed names will ignore the page title and use the name fields. It is simpler to clear changes out of one's watchlist without having follow all the redirects back. --Jrich 13:32, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [14 September 2011]

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 cleveland - small test.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 19:24, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

cleveland - small test.ged Imported Successfully [16 September 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 06:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [17 September 2011]

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 cleveland - 267.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 16:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

cleveland - 267.ged Imported Successfully [22 September 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 10:52, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [26 November 2011]

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 tracy - 278.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 21:12, 26 November 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 December 2011]

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 tracy - 278.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 11:48, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Peterborough Rollback [4 December 2011]

Just so you'll know what happened, Janet, I rolled back the place-name change you made on Family:Thomas Lord and Dorothy Bird (1). Peterborough is, in fact, still part of Cambridgeshire -- as much as the new administrative boundaries allow it to be part of anyplace. In any case, WR uses 1900 as the "official date" for place names. I have a lot of problems with this policy myself, as I hate the idea of, for instance, someone being shown as born in a place that didn't even exist at the time. (And the insistence on present-day place names in ALL circumstances that some folks on WR show produces such inanities as "Czar of the Soviet Union.") Anyway, I usually prefer to add new pages for people not yet on WR rather than get involved in nit-picky arguments on American colonials who have been over-studied, so I don't imagine you'll bump into me very often. :) --Mike^Talk 08:24, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Pardon me for butting in, but I'm confused. Currently, the family page in question shows Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, England but due to a redirect, links to Place:Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England. Also, we allow the "pipe trick" to show both how a location was at the time of the event, as well as properly linking to the place page. What county was Peterborough a part of at the time of the event? --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:38, 4 December 2011 (EST)

If you go to a map of Britain prior to the massive administrative reorganization in 1974(?), Peterborough was in Cambridgeshire and always had been. If you check Wikipedia now, they have Peterborough in both Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, presumably because it's much larger now and overlaps both counties. However, WP also says it's still regarded as being in Cambridgeshire for "ceremonial" purposes (whatever that means . . .). Anyway, I simply rolled it back, I didn't pipe it, or de-pipe it, or whatever. --Mike^Talk 21:34, 4 December 2011 (EST)

The redirect of the Peterborough page from Cambridgeshire to Northamptonshire, was accompanied by the description "Use historic counties", but was not done by the werelate agent, so who knows if this page follows the convention or somebody's particular idea of how it should work. But searching the FamilySearch catalog (I'm assuming this website followed the 1900 convention too???) for Peterborough, England only gives results in Northampton, nothing in Cambridge. --Jrich 09:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Just so you know, I did not personally make any entry to do with Peterborough. I merged an uploaded GEDCOM record with an existing semi-protected record, which included an event (marriage licence) in Peterborough. So if there was a change, it must have been an automated one. I just now checked the history, and it looks like the marriage licence event has been Peterborough, Cambridgeshire all along - although maybe it only looks that way - I couldn't say what has been going on "under the hood". The reason I point this out, is that if something happened to the place name as a result of my merge, it could occur again. --DataAnalyst 10:02, 4 December 2011 (EST)

That likely happened because when pages are saved, the system matches the places. This will happen if I open and save any page, not just during gedcom upload. Since the current place page's title is Place:Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England, and the family page previously said Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, England, the system matched the place, keeping the original wording. This is the same as if a person had Tolland County, Connecticut on their page (or in their gedcom). This would be changed to Tolland, Connecticut, United States|Tolland County, Connecticut. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:57, 4 December 2011 (EST)

Torrey's marriages [5 December 2011]

Sorry, didn't recognize the name Janet Bjorndahl the other day.

I noticed you having been citing Torrey's marriages a lot. As you can tell from Family Talk: Thomas Wilder and Hannah Eames (1), I am not a big fan of this particular work, though I have known him to write some excellent articles.

The one saving grace of this work is that he does list sources. This makes it more of a research tool, but rarely a good source in itself. I feel the proper way to handle him is to cite the actual source, and so he should rarely be cited directly.

As the Wilder case makes clear, he basically propagates garbage when he doesn't know, and when he does know, the reason he knows is more important than his saying it. For example, Family:Joseph Allen and Anne Brazier (1) already had the Watertown record on the page. Citing Torrey doesn't add anything: I don't think a reasonable person would believe him over the Watertown record unless there are other sources supporting him, and in that case, it is those other sources that are needed on the page.

Even citing Torrey with his source list is pretty useless, since a fair number of the sources he names may simply be (for example) secondary sources saying Nathaniel Wilder was the son of Thomas and Anna Wilder, i.e., not useful in establishing the wife's maiden name or marriage date, and not as authoritative as citing Nathaniel's birth record directly, and so basically a waste of time to look up. To be useful to a reader, one should go through Torrey's sources, and cite the really essential ones he provides, culling out the ones that are simply repetitious with no higher authority or new information, or are unsupported secondary assertions.

Just one person's opinion, of course. --Jrich 18:26, 4 December 2011 (EST)

That's interesting. When I started getting into New England ancestry, I noticed how frequently Torrey was cited and inferred that it was a standard authority for early New England research. And maybe that is more true of the intermediate amateur genealogist (serious enough to cite sources) than of the truly serious scholar. One of the advantages I have seen in a work like Torrey's is that the breadth would help to eliminate incorrect information (i.e., A did not marry B, because she married C) - of course, the opportunity to do so did not always mean that it was taken, but it appeared to me that at least some attempt had been made to eliminate overlapping marriages. And I understand that Torrey was meant to be more of an index than anything - not meant to be a definitive evaluation of the sources.

I have cited Torrey in my own records whenever possible, assuming that there are many who would ask whether the information is supported by Torrey - again, because I saw it used so frequently. Another reason I cite Torrey is to leverage his birth and death date information - it helps to support that I have the right John Smith married to the right Jane Doe. A VR is a better source for the marriage date and place, but Torrey supports the identification of the parties when they are not identified in the VR, or the matching of the marriage VR with the death VR. This is useful for someone who does not have time or inclination to sort out all the John Smith's within one town. I think the latest citation I added to WeRelate included a death year - the only reason I added the citation was for that purpose. Some people might find it of value - during a merge (especially a timeboxed one such as reviewing a GEDOOM), it is hard to take the time to evaluate every citation on the page to determine if there is sufficient other information to "prove" that the right death record has been associated with the right marriage record. Hope that is clear - I have to run. --DataAnalyst 18:55, 4 December 2011 (EST)

It is exactly the hard cases like sorting out John Smiths (e.g., the John Smiths of Long Island!!) where it is more necessary, not less necessary, to work hard, and requires identifying the primary evidence and explaining all assumptions, because invariably the secondary sources get corrupted by confusion and mistakes. Torrey does not do this. I was looking at pages I have worked on where Torrey was cited, and can provide examples of errors where the answers are actually known and not that hard to find, but thought Family:Edward Adams and Lydia Penniman (1) was useful because this page contrasts his entry and approach with that of Robert Charles Anderson. Torrey wasn't attempting to provide a definitive statement of what is currently known, he was trying to build an index to information at a pre-Internet time when it wasn't so easy to find information. Thus he did not do several of the steps that would be necessary to be reliable. He wasn't selective about his sources, didn't chase information back to its primary origin, didn't try to resolve contradictions, didn't do enough analysis to ferret out misleading assumptions, etc. Torrey's marriages is meant as a starting point, not a finishing point. Since one of my goals at WeRelate is to try and counter the vast amount of misleading and mistaken genealogy on the Internet, my research has usually matured past this point before I post and I can't justify citing Torrey when I have far more authoritative sources in hand. In fact, most of my cites of it are for the purpose of refuting it. --Jrich 09:56, 5 December 2011 (EST)

OK - I will keep my eyes out for records you are watching and be very careful about what citations I add. You realize, of course, that you are a relative rarity in terms of the research you do. I will try to remember to honour that and leave well enough alone.--DataAnalyst 20:34, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It doesn't take many people putting research based on primary evidence on the Internet before the lazy genealogists will mostly be copying respectable genealogy instead of junk. They might even learn what to look for if they read enough arguments taking the time to explain why such and such is right or is wrong, instead of the all-too-easy-to-do unsupported assertions. Your work on Person:Elizabeth Grout (2) and Person:Joanna Kempton (4) has been like that. Thanks. --Jrich 22:50, 5 December 2011 (EST)

tracy - 278.ged Imported Successfully [19 December 2011]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 11:52, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [8 January 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 kilborn - 462.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 12:13, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Clean up of Olmstead pages [13 January 2012]

DataAnalyst - recently you have been very busy refining and removing many of the citations and ancestral file numbers that I added to the family members of Capt. Nicholas Olmstead. I am not bothered by the clean up and I am never bothered by the addition of information to the pages... but... I am deeply disturbed by the removal of ANY information without a clear explanation and analysis. As far as these Olmste(a)d pages go, my two biggest concerns are the removal of ancestral file numbers and the alteration or removal of cited text.

First - ancestral file numbers - Please provide an explanation as to why you have chosen to remove only the GOFA numbers from these pages and to leave the other ancestral file numbers? I disagree with this change. The GOFA numbers refer to the numbering used in the Genealogy of the Olmsted Family in America. This ancestral numbering system is widely recognized among Olmste(a)d family researchers to identify unique individuals and has worked well as such for many, many years. I see that the GOFA number is not always cited/tied to the source on many of these pages, but that is an easy enough fix. What I don't see on these pages is a source or explanation for the other ancestral numbers. If they are from a GEDCOM dump, I hardly think that makes them more relevant.

Second - altering/removing cited text - I have transcribed the citations word for word and you should not alter them, typos aside, or insert your own text into them without clearly identifying it as such. If you have a comment on the citation, please note it outside of the quoted text. The amount of text in a citation is a matter of personal preference and surrounding text, especially that which contains info about an individual's relationships, can often provide important clues. There was no harm in including the few additional lines of text from GOFA about the immediate family members of these individuals and I think it should remain on the page. That is the way that you would see the information on the page of the book. Your method of citation took the one line out of context, chopped off related information, and inserted your own notes/assumptions without identifying which words came from the source and which came from you.

In closing, I want to be clear, that I am all for the individual attention to these pages and bringing as many sources to the table as possible. Your attention to these pages is appreciated, but please remember that one person's trash might be another person's genealogical gold and, in the case of these individuals, so little is known, that any relevant information should be included that might provide clues to the circumstances of their lives. Please do add to the pages as you see fit, but I respectfully request that you cease deleting GOFA numbers and altering/removing cited text from the sources on these pages.--Cos1776 12:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I have found DataAnalyst to be a very careful researcher so spot-checked some of the individuals mentioned and I think the changes that were made look very appropriate to me. The GOFA number was labeled as an AFN, looked like an AFN, and would have been an invalid AFN, so it would be only natural that it be deleted. There may be some value in documenting it but a more appropriate way would be to add something like "[#11]" to the text of the GOFA citation so the reader has an idea of where if comes from, GOFA not be an abbreviation at the tip of everybody's tongue. As far as editing the citation from Olmstead Family in America, it is certainly not necessary to include long passages when the person being documented only takes a line or two. If the page is about John, for example, it is not necessary to provide his father's whole entry with all the siblings included. That is redundant with the infoboxes on the family and unnecessary, and usually is a symptom of a page that has been built by blanket cut-and-pasting. The citation I see there now is more customized specifically for John, and hence in my mind less redundant, more focused, more concise, and to be preferred. (And using square brackets to insert one's editing of passages for readability and comprehension, is very much a standard practice, and quite recognizable as such.). --Jrich 14:01, 13 January 2012 (EST)

JRich is right about the GOFA numbers not being widely recognized. I had no idea what they were until I happened to notice that one of the numbers matched a page number of the citation, and then I figured it out - and even then, I thought it was a page number reference (I guess that was a coincidence) - and therefore redundant with the citation. From now on, I will try to remember to move the GOFA number to the citation. Otherwise, my reasons for changes are as JRich has indicated. It should also be noted that times have changed, and what might have been valuable additional information on other family members no longer needs to be cited here, as the book is freely available on the web (at Internet Archive). --DataAnalyst 18:40, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I am fairly certain that I did include the GOFA number in each GOFA citation, but you have deleted most of them. I do not have a problem with the numbers appearing in the citation only and not the AFN, but I do think they should be included. As far as the amount of cited text goes, you are both missing the point here. These folks are not fully researched yet. The door is not closed. The process is still evolving and different researchers are bringing their pieces of the puzzle to the table for the community to evaluate. First of all, you deleted the text that provided the source for the parents of many of those individuals, albeit a secondary one. Second, citing source text on the person page is helpful at this stage of the game, not redundant, and not all of the cited information is automatically reflected in the infoboxes. It may very well spark a connection that had not been previously investigated. What you did was to toss out a piece of the puzzle because you judged it to be irrelevant. It is precisely that type of thinking that has kept many researchers behind their brick walls. Not everyone conducts their research in the same way or looks at a problem in the same way or brings the same background to the table. We need fresh eyes for some of these old mysteries and censoring the information is not helping.

You are right about the citations showing parentage - I was not always careful to include that part of the citation. I have gone back and done that and added in the GOFA # at the same time. As far as I know, nothing else of relevance to the person's web page was removed from their citations - only information that should have been (and in some cases, has been) cited on another page. Citations about a person's siblings and their siblings' marriages do not belong on the person's web page - it only leads to difficulty in picking out the information in the citation that is relevant to the subject of the web page. Citations about the marriage of the person's parents, if already on that family web page, are not required. If I accidentally removed something of relevance to the subject of the web page, and it is not reflected in another citation, by all means, correct the citation. I try to be careful, but sometimes miss things, as we all do.--DataAnalyst 23:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I agree about keeping the information on the page relevant to the subject individual. And it is redundant to describe Nicholas' whole family on each and every one of his children's page. It is not necessary to put information about siblings Sarah, Rebecca, Mary, etc., on John's page, because people know that each person has their own page, and they will go to the person's individual page if they want to know about them in detail. The problem with redundancy is, if somebody wants to change information on one of the siblings, they will probably not think to change John's page, meaning the siblings' information that is on John's page will not get updated and become out of date and inaccurate. For this reason, redundancy should be kept to the minimum possible.

With this particular source, it is always possible to include a link in the source citation that points to the online scanned image of the page in the book, so an interested party can read as much as they wish. For example,

[http://books.google.com/books?id=qkJEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=%2211.+John%22 Google Books]

[http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924029843244#page/n59/mode/1up Internet Archive]

which give Google Books or Internet Archive, respectively. The transcription or abstract is really more of a finding aid, giving the reader a quick idea of which facts the source supports, but it is not meant as a substitute for serious research. --Jrich 00:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

kilborn - 462.ged Imported Successfully [17 January 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 19:42, 17 January 2012 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [16 February 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 griswold - 546.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 20:29, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [5 March 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 griswold - 546.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 18:38, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Francis Barnard married Hannah ? (Merrill or Marvin)? [9 March 2012]

Looking at Family:Francis Barnard and Hannah Merrill (1), and see that Savage and Sheldon (see Person:Francis Barnard (2)) are claiming this is Hannah Marvin. Still, there seem to be some solid references on the page proper. Do you think this is a case of an error in Savage? (I'm trying to be diligent about noting such issues in the transcript I'm working on). Thanks! --jrm03063 13:24, 9 March 2012 (EST)

According to Marvin Descendants, 25-26, Matthew and Reinold Marvin had three sisters: Margaret, died young; Mary, married John Hayse and Richard Wood; Elizabeth, married Robert Edwards.

Page 15 of Hartford VR (americanancestors.org) [Barnard] Frainces, m. Hanna Meruell, Aug. 15, 1644 [Book of Distributions:21]; [Barnard] Francis, m. Hanna Merrell, Aug. 15, 1644 [Frank Farnsworth Starr manuscript:26]. Barbour's Families of Early Hartford follows the Hartford VR.

The other secondary sources I was able to check call her Hannah Marvin.

Francis Barnard is not mentioned in the "Merrill Memorial"

Conclusion: The Hartford records are closer to the primary source than the others. For that reason I'd say Francis Barnard's wife was Hannah Merrill, origin unknown (not related to John Merrill of Hartford). The absence of any evidence of a Hannah Marvin sister to Reinold and Matthew reenforces that conclusion.--jaques1724 15:15, 9 March 2012 (EST)

I'll just add that Sheldon really doesn't add any weight to the scale, since he gives no explanation of where his conclusion came from, and most likely he was relying on Savage. Hence he is only a reflection of the object already seen, not anything new. The lack of evidence for the sister is pretty striking actually, since she was not named in the alleged father's will, and his death in 1615 constrains her birth to be on the far reaches of reasonable given a marriage in 1644 and 5 or 6 children that we know about.

It seems likely that this was a mis-reading of the record, as double r and interior vowels are always tricky, and some colonial writers make a double-ell look like a small-n, especially if blotted, faded, stained, torn, etc. So "Marvin" may be understandable. In fact, a researcher might want to keep a slighly open mind, and follow the History of Hadley, which says "Merrill, Meruil, or Marvin". But it seems pretty definite she was not a sister of Matthew and Reinold Marvin and even if Savage read it as "Marvin", he should have qualified this with a "perhaps", since it does not appear that he could have had any evidence of such a relationship, merely an assumption. --Jrich 16:26, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Great! Thanks! I'll add this to the documentation of another defect noted in Savage... --jrm03063 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Error importing griswold - 546.ged [15 March 2012]

We had an error while attempting to import your GEDCOM. This is most likely our fault. We will review the error and should have your pages ready tomorrow (or Monday if tomorrow falls on a weekend). There is no need to re-import your GEDCOM file.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 22:13, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

griswold - 546.ged Imported Successfully [15 March 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 22:46, 15 March 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [22 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 benedict - 756 - dry run.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 17:09, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [29 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 benedict - 756.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 19:09, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

benedict - 756.ged Imported Successfully [11 May 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 15:53, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Elizabeth Payne Citation [12 May 2012]

Nice! Interesting that Jacobus missed it when doing the Payne/Paine sketches in 1930--jaques1724 17:35, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

See William Odell talk page [31 July 2012]

Hi Data,

I've left a comment on the talk page for William Odell, whom you worked on a couple years ago. Let me know what you think. I basically agree with that web page I linked, but I am reluctant to put down it as 'definite' since its still just a theory advanced on a webpage.--dmaxwell 13:51, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 August 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 snyder - 160.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 22:04, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

snyder - 160.ged Imported Successfully [4 August 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 23:48, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [13 October 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 stroheber - 423.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 19:52, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

stroheber - 423.ged Imported Successfully [20 October 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 23:01, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [27 October 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 stroheber update - 61.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 11:31, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

stroheber update - 61.ged Imported Successfully [27 October 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 15:18, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 November 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 stewart - 330.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 16:55, 4 November 2012 (EST)

stewart - 330.ged Imported Successfully [10 November 2012]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 22:46, 10 November 2012 (EST)

Merge of my suggestion with yours [11 November 2012]

Even though my suggestion wasnt that popular, it isnt the same thing as what you merged it with. I dont upload GEDCOMs so my suggestion doesnt concern them.

I still hope they will have an auto unsourced category, regardless of whether or not it came from a gedcom. It should probably stay up as I think it will prove to be key to improving this site.--Daniel Maxwell 09:07, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Sorry - I clearly didn't get enough sleep last night - I selected the wrong page to redirect. I have undone that error, but you are no longer watching your suggestion page. Sorry about that.--DataAnalyst 09:09, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Age of Deacon John Loomis at death [16 January 2013]

The age comes from his still-existent tombstone, the oldest Loomis tombstone in America. Most Loomis genealogies give ca 1622 as the birth date:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=17820293--Daniel Maxwell 06:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Ormerod sources [22 February 2013]

I was just changing some Ormerod souces to the 1819 edition that I had originally incorrectly put as the 1882 edition, and I think I may have inadvertently changed a couple that you put in. Sorry if I have messed something up.--Werebear 22:16, 20 February 2013 (EST)

It happens. Was that just Feb 20, or earlier than that? I still have the email notifications from Feb 20, so I can check them out - there weren't many. If it was earlier than that, I can go through my deleted emails. It would just be good to know how far to look. Thanks for letting me know.--DataAnalyst 10:26, 21 February 2013 (EST)

Never mind - I realize now what was done. I will use my database to find the citations that need to be corrected.--DataAnalyst 19:09, 21 February 2013 (EST)

I believe I have fixed all my references so that they point to the 1819 edition.--DataAnalyst 13:38, 22 February 2013 (EST)

breaking my GEDCOM into uploadable pieces - Volunteer Partners! [28 February 2013]

Thanks for inquiring. Since I wanted to give you details, I thought I should post it here instead of mingled with Mr. Rolls' discussion.

My Jackson database is 26,500 individuals. The early Colonial folks are intertwined but the later ones are not so much. I think my difficulties were two-fold. I am wiki-challenged and thought it would be easier to learn. Then I didn't know enough geography to realize that Hempstead was not only a village but a Town full of lots of villages. So I had to stop and study the geography and history of the naming of the areas. Then I tried to upload from my earliest ancestor down. Robert Jackson died in Hempstead, Queens (now Nassau), NY in the late 1600s. Perhaps I should have started with a more recent ancestor and worked up. (Dallan did give me permission to post these early folks.)

The database is a combined effort of a lot of Jackson folks who have sent me either their research or their family records. So some is original research and some is info has been gleaned from others to help weave all these folks together. It is sourced but all sources are not equal! My http://www.jacksonfamilygenealogy.com web site shows all of Robert's descendants but there are a lot of early NY folks who are not his descendants in the db that I had to learn about just to understand the relationships between these folks. The whole db is posted at rootsweb but so much more can be done at WeRelate if I just had the skill and energy. I would be happy to send you a GEDCOM of the whole database if you think you'd be interested in seeing what you could do with it. I'm about to have an 84th birthday and don't think I'm going to get this done. I've done bits and pieces of it and I lose track of what's been done and where to pick up again. I even started a user's page just as an index. When I first started (several years ago) I created a category 'Janie's tree' just to try to keep track of the pages I've created, but when working on categories, the consensus was that we shouldn't have personal categories, so I deleted them.

Let me know if you would be interested in having a GEDCOM of the database. I believe it will be easier for me to work on supplemental articles that would link to the person pages than in struggling to get the GEDCOM divided properly and then uploaded with the right locations. I am currently unable to devote full time to this, though I can see it can easily take a full time commitment to do it properly. If you don't have the time for this right now, perhaps you could give pointers on how to do it and keep track of what's been done.

Thanks so much for your interest. --janiejac 01:43, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Sure, send me the GEDCOM. It is about 5 times as large as my New England database, which took me somewhere between 3-6 months to load. I'm not going to promise to load your GEDCOM into WeRelate, but I should at least be able to divide it into manageable chunks and maybe determine what you have already loaded into WeRelate and what is outstanding. Once I've taken a look at it and divided it up, we can make a plan.--DataAnalyst 18:52, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 March 2013]

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 temp.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 07:49, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 March 2013]

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 test Jackson.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 16:27, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 March 2013]

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 test Jackson.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 17:50, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [5 March 2013]

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 test Jackson.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 18:40, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [5 March 2013]

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 test Jackson 1335.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 18:55, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [5 March 2013]

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 test Jackson.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 20:37, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Person:Oliver St John (25) [11 March 2013]

Hi DataAnalyst, thanks for tidying up this person. Have you any view about which of the two hypothesised parents are more likely to be right? I didn't know if you had any more evidence than was up there already. Thanks AndrewRT 18:46, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Sorry - I've got nothing other than the citation from the Bulkeley Genealogy. He is the brother-in-law of a direct ancestor of my husband - just on the edge of my scope - so I did not attempt to find his parentage.--DataAnalyst 22:09, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Source:Whiting, William. Memoir of Rev. Samuel Whiting, D.D., and of His Wife, Elizabeth St. John, p. 39, does not seem to provide sources but agrees with Foster's Royal Lineage and provides a line (again, with no evidence presented) several generations back from there. One would think for such a prominent line, it might be covered by one of the "visitation" sources where (as it appears to my limited understanding) the church surveyed the important people in each parish. --Jrich 22:41, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

My understanding of the Visitations is that it was for the purpose of heraldry - to prove that a family had a right to a particular coat of arms, based on descending from the person to whom the coat of arms had been granted (or, I suppose, at least from someone who had established a right to the coat of arms). It was the heralds that conducted the Visitations - and they are not particularly reliable, because people had a vested interest in "proving" that they were entitled to a coat of arms by self-reporting their ancestry (still, they get used for genealogy in the absence of any other evidence proving them wrong). I have no idea if St John had the right to a coat of arms - if not, it would explain why he was not reported in a Visitation.--DataAnalyst 23:08, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for the correction. I don't do much work in England, so apparently misinterpreted the purpose. --Jrich 00:13, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

'Death' date of Joan Brooke, wife of Robert Foote [15 March 2013]

Data,

There is a discrepancy on the 'death' (or rather, last known to be alive) date of Person:Joan Brooke (17). Last date known to be alive is stated from will of her mother to be in Jan 1608/9, but her mother Elizabeth Whetman Brooke had a will dated 18 Jun 1599 and she herself was buried on 30 Jun 1599. So how can she (Joan) be last known to be alive in the will of her mother in 1608/9 when her mother was dead for nearly 10 years? I realize this could be a simple error, but if not I will dig out the source to correct it.--Daniel Maxwell 14:38, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

I think you read both citations and the latter one stuck in your head. The first citation refers to her husband's will (1608/9) not her mother's will.--DataAnalyst 19:51, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Ah yes I had mistagged it in my own tree and misread the citation. Sorry about that!--Daniel Maxwell 20:02, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [20 March 2013]

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 Edward Jackson - 991 - test places.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 22:08, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [15 April 2013]

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 James Queener - 1091.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 19:32, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [15 April 2013]

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 James Queener - 1087.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 20:48, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

James Queener - 1087.ged Imported Successfully [16 April 2013]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 17:32, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [20 April 2013]

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 Stephen Jackson - 1207 - first try.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 18:45, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [24 April 2013]

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 temp.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 21:18, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [27 April 2013]

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 Joseph Jackson - test.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 09:10, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 May 2013]

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 Stephen Jackson - 1205.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 18:57, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 May 2013]

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 David Jackson - 743 - check places.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 23:06, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [8 May 2013]

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 David Jackson - 742.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 20:08, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [8 May 2013]

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 David Jackson - 742.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 20:13, 8 May 2013 (EDT)

David Jackson - 742.ged Imported Successfully [9 May 2013]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 23:30, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [14 May 2013]

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 Joseph Jackson - 2154.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 22:16, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [19 May 2013]

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 Joseph Jackson - 2149.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 10:18, 19 May 2013 (EDT)