Thanks [15 February 2012]
Hi, Thanks so much for adding the people list. It is a great addition.--Beth 18:44, 15 February 2012 (EST)
That's very kind of you, Beth. We have some other projects in the pipeline that should be pretty exciting. :)--Jdfoote1 18:56, 15 February 2012 (EST)
Nice Pickup! [9 March 2012]
Thanks for catching my astonishingly weak media-wiki formatting practice! Any comments on the Savage Transcription effort and the practices that I'm proposing would be greatly appreciated. It's an effort that's obviously beyond any individual - so the methods need to be reasonably simple so as to appeal to a wide audience. --jrm03063 11:36, 8 March 2012 (EST)
You'll have to give me a little bit more time to get my head around what the project is, and how I might be able to help. It looks very cool, and it looks like you have done some great work to get it on here!--Jdfoote1 17:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Featured Page Nomination [21 September 2012]
Hi Jeremy, I noticed the Featured Page nomination of John Redd. Thanks, there's good information and narrative on his Person Page. I did some minor editing and added some "section headings" to make it a little easier to read.
Thanks again, It will definitely be in the rotation as the Featured Page in a few weeks. If you see any other good pages worthy of consideration, feel free to add them, too.
Jim:)--Delijim 18:08, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Oh good - I'm glad I put it in the right place - it isn't terribly clear how you're supposed to nominate pages. Your changes look great - this isn't actually a page that I've worked on, I just came across it. - Jdfoote1 21:16, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
wp angst [22 October 2012]
There's a lot of latent angst about WP in the genealogical world. I think it has more to do with a traditional "wikipedia is bad" thought process - that doesn't spend two seconds thinking about why a WR page would fundamentally be better than a WP equivalent. The answer to the second question of course, is that there really isn't any reason to believe that one is better than the other - but the discussion usually doesn't get there. Even if the discussion does get there - then folks grab at straws and make claims about differing community standards, intentions, focus (as if WP standards are weaker than those that are generally in place around here!). There's always a chance that there is information better suited to one than the other - say a will or something of that nature - but I've never seen a situation where the WP inclusion precluded doing anything anyone wanted to do with the WR page.
The thing that really gets me though - is the idea that somehow we're in a position to discount the useful content and contributions of nearly 100,000 WP pages and the contributors behind that. I mean - where are the contributors going to come from on WR that will replace that content? We've been parked at a little over 2M person pages for quite a while. That's not a hugely bad thing - I think it means we're adding content instead of bare names - but I don't see that we're so flush with contributors that we can jettison things for no better reason than genealogical arrogance.
Oh well - I guess we'll see... --jrm03063 23:41, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
Language variants of WP and WP<->WR [18 April 2013]
Wikipedia (WP) seems to generally have a good handle on when there are language variants of "the same" article present in different versions of wikipedia. But of course, these aren't really the same articles - they can have different development paths, contributors, sources, and even, present different conclusions. This leads me to a few questions:
--jrm03063 19:42, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
In the news [29 July 2013]
Hi Jeremy, thanks for your support for this idea. Would you be interested in contributing? I figure it would need a core group of at least three people to maintain the section. AndrewRT 18:25, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
Re Template:Buckinghamshire unions of parishes [16 August 2013]
Many thanks for working on the template. I am surprised that you can use abbreviations in the "formulas" without defining the abbreviations.
As I said, I have gone back to working with the See Also box, but I do follow your explanation. There are plenty of places where a series of tables like this would be so appropriate.
Unfortunately, since I put my query forward, life with living relatives has suddenly come up the priority stakes. How much work I can put into PlacePages for WeRelate in the next while is an unknown.
Regards --Goldenoldie 17:16, 15 August 2013 (EDT)
Giving up on the template was a matter of impatience. I wanted to get down to the nitty gritty of tackling the place pages themselves.
I should think there would be plenty of census templates possible--not necessarily for users who insist on the full 30 columns or so, but for those of us who like to provide maybe half a dozen salient facts for each member of family group. I know some of these have been built for some United States census, but British and Canadian ones would be helpful. In both cases the censuses are nationwide with no changes to the questions from area to area (except maybe Scotland 1841). Person:Elias Arnold (5) was done using "templates" built on Sticky Notes.
A lot of my genealogy files are compiled in Excel and some in Access, but getting around html code is something I have never tackled. --Goldenoldie 02:31, 16 August 2013 (EDT)
White Hall School help [25 November 2013]
Thanks for showing me how. I guess i steer clear of the Box at the top for entering names. thanks Mike M--Mm103 03:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)