User talk:Jillaine/archive

To Art Sikes about Eleanor Cooley Rue

Art, for some reason (part of which could include my own lack of involvement the last year with WeRelate), I am only now seeing your post to My Talk page about Eleanor Rue's paper. The copy of Eleanor's paper that I have is dated October 2000. I am happy to share it with you. I scanned it, converted it to Word and then PDF. As I've said elsewhere (and I'm not sure I've said it here), I received verbal confirmation over the telephone from Eleanor's husband's subsequent wife, to share the document. I asked for that permission in writing but never received it, so I have remained cautious about putting it online. I also sent a copy to Robin, the CFA genealogist, before she died. That means that the current CFA genealogist should have it, but from what you say, it sounds like he doesn't. I'd heard about the current CFA project to conduct more research in England, and I am a member in CFA, but have not received any updated information about the research project. --Jillaine 13:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

The Rue's [16 November 2007]

Both Eleanor and her husband are deceased. I did a lot of work with Eleanor when she was writing the paper because at that point she was almost house bound. I copied a lot of the data that she used and sent her copies. The article was intended for use in TAG but it was not accepted. The editor suggested some update to make it acceptable but Eleanor, probably known that she had only a short time to live, had some other projects that she wanted to work on.

What is the date on the copy of her paper that you have. Doug Cooley and I have met and he has a copy that has a latter date than mine but he has just the even number pages. My copy is dated July 24, 2000.

Are you aware of the project that the Cooley Association is doing, or maybe completed by now, in England trying to find additional Cooley records?

Art Sikes

ArtSikes@aol.com

1175 River Blvd Suffield, CT 06078--ArtSikes 13:38, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Banner [20 July 2009]

Image:OurSchwenningenAncestorsBanner.jpg Great Banner! Q 12:50, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks; i'm about to replace it with a better shot of the same painting.--jillaine 12:54, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Benedict Generations: Thomas B. and Mary [28 December 2008]

I just received an email notification from WeRelate.org of your new page on Thomas Benedict and Mary Brigham. However, there is some incorrect information there that you might want to review. The best source of information on the "original family" is from the website Benedict Topics, located at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~benedicttopics/index.html, run by Robert Benedict, a primary researcher of the Benedict ancestors. For information on Thomas's father and his story, go into the website to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~benedicttopics/04e-gen3.html. Note that Thomas's mother was an Elizabeth Stephin, not Ann Hunlocke. Elsewhere, Robert explains the "Hunlock" connection. Another source of Benedict information can be found at my website, at http://www.genealowiki.com/bin/view.cgi/Benedict/WebHome. There are links from this page to the biography page on Thomas Benedict.

You might be using the book, Genealogy of the Benedicts in America, as your source. There are errors. Robert's site is the best researched source. Nice to see people contributing to the Benedict story. Good luck. Jim--JimBenedict 16:43, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Wheldon/Taylor [2 January 2009]

should we move this over to the Talk page for Gabriel Wheldon? jillaine 22:34, 31 December 2008 (EST)

I saw you have researched the Taylors some. Relating to Gabriel Whelden, Source:Probate records 1648--1924 (Middlesex County, Massachusetts), 1649-1660 (vol. 1), p. 146, file 24387 has an abstract of the complaint against Gabriel's last wife Margaret, i.e., the "complaynt of Henry Weilden John Weilden Rich: Taylor Taylor and Rich: Taylor husbandman".

I am curious why the second Richard Taylor is involved?

Presumably "Rich: Taylor Taylor" is the wife of Gabriel's daughter Ruth. Being married, apparently, in 1646, they would not have had any children of age in 1655 when the complaint was recorded, "Rich: Taylor husbandman" cannot be a grandchild, nor would a grandchild have any rights, Ruth still being alive. A child of a previous marriage of Richard Taylor would not any rights in the estate of Gabriel.

According to what I have, Gabriel had only one other daughter, Catherine, who m. Giles Hopkins, who both long survived this complaint, so not her husband.

Could he have had another daughter that also married a man named Richard Taylor?

I just pulled out my Charlestown Genealogies and Estates and looked up Taylor. There *was* another Richard Taylor who was married to Ann-- some say WHEDEN; the book says WHELDEN:

Charlestown Genealogies & Estates, pp 932-934:

TAYLOR. Richard, Adm. inhabitant, Aug. 30, 1662 (Selectman's records, p. 45); currier; m. Ann WHELDEN [sic] who was adm. church 17 (7) 1665 and d. Oct 21, 1694; d. "an aged man" July 1706... Estate-- buys of R. Russell's exr., house, 1686. To son John, land below house-- s, Wapping St.; w, J. Herbert Land, T. Walter house; e, way from Wapping St. to T. Shippie, and from said way 20 ft. below house to R.T to J. H; 1698.

But what worries me about this is that he seems too young to have gone to court against Gabriel's Estate in 1654. One can't quite tell, but it looks like he got married around 1661-1665. And he was a currier, not a tailor or husbandman. I looked up currier and found this:

currier: 1) one who dresses the coat of a horse with a currycomb; 2) one who tans leather by incorporating oil or grease

UPDATE: NEHGS Register, Volume 34, 1880; p 269 apparently says that this Richard Taylor was a TAILOR!!!

But I'm still concerned that he wasn't married to this Ann Whelden until about ten years after the lawsuit. So I don't think he's one of the RT's mentioned in the lawsuit.

I also believe I've seen reference to this Ann not being a Whelden, but a Wheeden which was distinct from Whelden. I need to look through my notes. jillaine 16:10, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Since Gabriel's will gave everything to his widow Margaret, I don't see anybody related to the widow likely to be a complainant.

--Jrich 11:29, 31 December 2008 (EST)

This complaint against the estate of Gabriel Whelden has driven me batty. It is SO provocative that it includes BOTH. I have considered a number of things, including that RT tailor and RT rock/husbandman were father and son, and that it was rock/husbandman who was married to Ruth Whelden, and his father joined him on the suit. "Their father" would then be a rather "shared" relationship. I think it's quite possible that RT tailor was old enough to have fathered a son who married in 1646. What disturbs me about that is that RT Rock is not named in RT tailor's 1673/4 inventory. But then, I don't think RT tailor names all his children, and it's possible that RT Rock may have rec'd his share earlier and is therefore not named. This is my current theory, but heck if I know... jillaine 14:54, 31 December 2008 (EST)

And one more thing. I think this complaint against Margaret is further evidence that she was NOT the mother of Gabriel's children. They were not likely to bring a complaint against their own mother. But the woman who ran off with their inheritance and with Rev. Matthews back to London? (BTW, I'm with you on a more likely relationship of Margaret to Matthews than to the local native Americans.) jillaine 14:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

There are other possibilities that do not require the two Richard Taylors to be related, one being as I mentioned that Gabriel had another daughter who married the other Richard Taylor (some websites list several other children though I don't feel the evidence is sufficiently reliable yet). Also, Gabriel's son Ralph, who is not mentioned in the complaint, and presumably was deceased, appears to have married and had at least a daughter based on a suit involving Teague Jones in 1646. So, his widow could have married the other Richard Taylor who was then acting based on the rights of Ralph's daughter as a heir to Ralph. --Jrich 15:47, 31 December 2008 (EST)

That's an interesting theory. It would be really amazing if said widow was named Ruth!! jillaine 16:01, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Here's the more specific reference from that web page you link to from Gabriel Whelden's page:

"July 7, 1646, a suit between Teague Jones and Ralph Whelden and the latter's daughter was adjourned. "

Out of curiousity, I went looking into Teague Jones. He's got his own set of problems, including myths of a marriage to a native American. See [Charlou's Ancestors, Relatives, & Other Connected Persons] for what appears to be some of the more valid research on him. Here's another good one with even more info: [Fleming Family History]

I've been spending time this evening with my Richard Taylor of Yarmouth notes. I just re-read the inventory and disposition of Richard Taylor, tailor,'s estate (which I also posted online). The disposition clearly states two sons (John and Joseph) and five daughters (Mary, Martha, Sarah, Hannah and Elizabeth). That would exclude Richard Taylor, rock as a son of Richard Taylor, tailor. So I don't know who he was. I *still* think that Richard Rock was married to Ruth WHelden and that the wife of Richard Taylor, tailor, remains unknown. jillaine 19:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

This is entirely based on gut feel, so means nothing, but I tend to agree. Richard Taylor at the Rock appears to have been poor (see John Joyce's will) which would explain Gabriel Whelden's objections to his marrying Gabriel's daughter Ruth that required court intervention. Richard Taylor, tailor, being older and prominent, may have been married before (or not), but seems a more likely match for Ralph Whelden's widow, if that situation has any merit. If Ralph's widow was originally Ruth Burgess, and then, as widow Ruth Whelden, married Richard Taylor tailor, everybody is happy, and we can all start working for world peace :-) . Of course, I think this plays havoc with traditional attribution of children. But, after all, this is grasping for a coherent scenario that fills in holes in the evidence, and we all know that reality follows its own rules. --Jrich 10:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Well, while I am all for "gut feelings" myself, I've been beaten up (figuratively speaking) pretty heavily for posting such. And specifically about Richard Taylor. I worked off and on over a year with a curmudgeon (diplomatic term for "frequent jerk") but darn fine researcher. I proposed my "gut feeling" about the various Richard Taylors and he raked me over the coals. But he taught me a lot about research (and partnered with me "virtually" such that we were both delving into what we could respectively get our hands on), and as a result of that "relationship," I dug deeply into the Richard Taylors of Yarmouth (and also of Sudbury). The result? I believe I confirmed my initial "gut feelings". He still takes exception to a few of my findings, but I am 99% confident that my initial gut feelings are backed up. Are you my next curmudgeon? I've come to appreciate and respect their presence in my genealogical life. It can be frustrating but also rewarding. Nothing like being challenged to hone one's research skills.

But back to your gut feelings, I have seen NO documentation of the name (first or last) of the wife of Richard Taylor, tailor. I do concur that his wife was found drowned off Duxbury (in 1673) and that he died shortly thereafter (by 13 Dec 1673). I believe that "the women's clothes" mentioned in his 1673/4 inventory were hers. And if you look at the disposition of his estate (mid 1674), there is reference to "their parents' death" implying that the children's parents died in close (time) proximity.

The only Ruth who is mentioned in any records is:

• daughter of Gabriel Whelden, when he consents to her marriage to Richard Taylor (no suffix) in 1646.
• "wife of Richard Taylor" whose Yarmouth death is recorded in 1693.

At least that I've found so far. And I now go near nuts when I see people blindly accept a) that Ruth Whelden married the tailor, and b) that Rock's Ruth was a Burgess. UGH. Their "primary" source for both appears to be Hawes, James W., Richard Taylor, tailor, and Some of His Descendants. And even HE says that the Burgess theory is completely unfounded. I sure wish I knew what sources HE (and those before him) were referring to.

Okay, I'm going to step off my soap box now. jillaine 20:15, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Betz or Pitz burials at Forest Lawn [15 February 2009]

Hi Jillaine,

We communicated a few years ago and I am back to researching this family in prep for a trip to Buffalo this summer. I noticed that you had a comment about this family's burials at Forest Lawn. Do you have any information from the cemetery about Peter Weller and Catherine "Pitts" or "Pitz" Weller? Where does Adam Pitz, bn about 1810 fit in? or do you know yet? It has been a while since I've looked at this family. Good to find your work here.

Jacki--Jaxjacki 08:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Jacki; nice to "see" you again.

What I've got on this family is here:

Betz_in_Buffalo,_Erie,_New_York,_United_States#Katharina_Betz (she who married Peter Weller)

and

Betz_in_Buffalo,_Erie,_New_York,_United_States#Joh._Adam_Baetz

That's it. Looks like Adam's more likely at Concordia (unless he was moved or that's not him). The Wellers look to be at Forest Lawn and you should be able to find them in their index when you visit. There is someone (George Richmond?) on NYERIE-L who volunteers at FL who might be able to help you further in advance of your visit.

Good luck; let me know what you find; I was always fascinated by those very early BETZ/PITZ folks. Seems like that first generation knew each other, including "my" Betzes, but I never have found the link.

-- jillaine 15:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Jill,

I continue to look at this Weller/Pitz family. I found a copy of an email from you back in 2005 and you regarding checking for a marriage record for Peter Weller and Catherine Pitz at St. John's church. I haven't looked at this particular note in some time and now realize that I have known for a while that this couple would have been married in Germany and that the first 3 children were born in Zweibrucken. Do you have that information now? Also I found this family's arrival from Liverpool to NY in 1836 but originating in Bavaria. Peter and Catharine, Adam, Jacob and Peter Weller, along with Jacob 13, Elizabeth 11, and Adam 25. How are you with German records?

Jacki--Jaxjacki 11:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I'm good with German records. Cut my genealogical teeth on them. "Bavaria" then may have meant "Rhein Bayern" -- that part of Bavaria, physically distinct from what we now consider Bavaria, but "owned" by Bavaria, but west of the Rhine River. THis is where my Betz family came from. I just looked at the map and see the Zweibrueken could have been considered part of Rhein Bayern, but I'm not certain. What makes you think that's where they were from? I'm struck by the first names in this family. My Betz and related lines up in Feilbingert (just south of Bad Kreuznach) had similar names in their family. But maybe they are just common names from that time period. jillaine 18:45, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Good morning,

My information comes from their obituaries.

"Jacob J. Weller was born at Zweibrucken, Rhine, Bavaria, April 27, 1833. At the age of three years he came to American and took up residence in Buffalo."

From Adam's Obit: "he was born in Zweibrucken Bavaria on August 27, 1830 but has lived in Buffalo for about 55 years"

Peter lists Germany in both the 1860 and 1870 censuses as his place of birth. He was born in July of 1835 and the family didn't arrive in New York until May of 1836, so I am presuming they hadn't left their home in Zweibrucken between 1833 and July of 1835.--Jaxjacki 07:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Jacki,

Well, the obits confirm my theory about Rhein Bayern and Zweibruecken.

Have you checked the LDS microfilms for the Zweibruecken church records? (Or is that why you asked me about my experience with German church records? ;-)

I've just sent email to a cousin who has a good collection of photocopies of Feilbingert records, asking her to look for any Wellers. Just curious. I'm fairly certain that it was "my" Heinrich Betz who served as sponsor to one of the Betz/Pitz-Weller baptisms.

-- jillaine 07:56, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Hi again,

Sorry, I didn't make it clear that the last 3 names I mentioned were Pitz family members. The manifest shows: Adam Pitz, age 25, male, Bavaria; Elizabeth Rohrbr(ucken(?),age 49, Valentin (?) Pitz, age 17, Jacob Pitz, age 13, Elizabeth Pitz, age 11; then there is a Maria Buchert(?), age 19, Michel Ganges(?), and next are the Wellers: Peter age 30, Catharina age 29, Adam 5, Jacob 3, Peter 6 mos. Following this family is an Elizabeth (not legible to me), age 50 and a Veber family: Philip, Henry, Jacob and Daniel. I don't know how the manifest was done but it seems to be by family and the proximity of the Pitz folks to the Wellers has me intrigued. With Catherine being 29 and Adam Pitz 25 on the same ship, I believe he most certainly would be her brother.

As to the Zweibrucken connection, it showed up in 2 of the Weller obituaries.

"He (Adam) was born in Sweibrucken, Bavaria on August 27, 1830, but has lived in Buffalo for about 55 years"

"Jacob J. Weller was born at Zweibrucken, Rhine Bavaria, April 27, 1833. At the age of three years he came to America with his parents who took up their residence in Buffalo."

The obituary for Peter that I have just states he was born in Germany and the 1860 & 1870 censuses show that he was born in Bavaria. He was born just 2 years after Jacob and just 6 months old when the family arrived so I'm guessing he was born there as well. What do you know about birth records in that area? I am interested in learning where this fits in with what you have. Have you seen the name Valentin? I look forward to hearing from you and also for suggestions as to where I go from here. Have a great day.

Jacki--Jaxjacki 17:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Portals [13 February 2009]

Jillaine - I wanted to send you a big thank you! for all of your comments on the portal pages. I've been incorporating your comments and I greatly appreciate the text you've written. I realize that responses to your questions have been slow in coming, mainly because we needed to get the Portal Namespace set up first. The admins will now start watching the Portal pages, and will be able to provide more answers then I can. Thanks again for your help and enthusiasm.--Jennifer (JBS66) 06:58, 13 February 2009 (EST)

W/index.php [1 March 2009]

Hi,

I just was sent a message that a change had been made to this page which is on my watchlist. I guess it was added to my watchlist because back when I was active on the site, I was making deletions when a spammer was making changes to the wiki. At one point the spammer created this page, W/index.php, promoting some porn links, and I deleted them. It's a garbage page; I have no interest in it. Delete away.--Tim 00:10, 1 March 2009 (EST)

The John Rogers Families in Plymouth and Vicinity [1 March 2009]

I came across this source today when doing some cleanup. Not sure if its helpful to you or not, but since it referenced the Mayflower, and didn't have your Mayflower category, I thought I'd pass it along.--Jennifer (JBS66) 18:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Great Migration portal [2 March 2009]

I like your Great Migration portal! Very nice. :-) --Dallan 18:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Jennifer rants? Who knew?! [9 March 2009]

Ok - now it's my turn to rant - though I don't think I'm quite as loud as you (she says with humor and admiration!).

I love that you are merging duplicate sources! I've been slowing going through every Source starting with Ancestry.com and merging (but there are over 17000 of those darn things!) I saw that you posted somewhere else and said - because this is a geographic resource, shouldn't it be titled Place.Title or maybe Author.Title. The response was - it doesn't need the place/author part if it's a "well known" resource. Well know to some special people, perhaps. It makes no sense to me to bend the rules, when that just confuses newbies and seasoned users alike.

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, two reminders - Titles are in all caps (except articles...) and when you send something to speedy delete - are you copying over the ancestry.com link to the source you're keeping?

Well, minutes up - rant's over :^)--Jennifer (JBS66) 19:58, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

heh heh. ah. so here's the deal. Life is too short. I find out tomorrow if my position has been cut. I'm 50 and the unemployment rate is climbing through the roof. Do I really care how sources are named? Check out the talk page of the Barbour collection. I almost fell out of my chair. The whole thing is having me laugh. (It helps that we have an extra hour of daylight, the temp hit the 70s, the windows are open, and daffodils are pushing through the sod.) So I think, if some people can keep pages named the way they want, then dang it, so can I. Now, to answer your questions:

1. I'm going through MySources and converting where a) it makes sense and b) where I don't pull my hair out (i.e., I'm not touching my census sources).
2. When I search Sources for the source to redirect TO, I notice duplicates. Having read recently of your ancestry.com deletion effort, I figured I'll kill two sources with one effort.
3. I check to see if anything is linking to the ancestry.com source. If not, I mark it for speedy delete.
4. I go over to the remaining Source, and then I start a few searches in other tabs/windows.
5. I look it up on Ancestry.com and copy the direct link over to the Source (with a new repository).
6. I look at the Internet Archive to see if there's a free copy over there and add that.
7. Sometimes I check books.google.com
8. Sometimes I check NEHGS web site.
9. I edit as appropriate. I'll tell you what I'm NOT doing: I don't change the TITLE field of the Source. But I *will* rename the PAGE to match the naming convention (if I feel like it).
10. I redirect MySource to the newly renamed (and edited) Source

I'll pay better attention to the capitalization. You mean books are one thing and articles are another? Sheesh. Don't get me started. I can't promise I'll be perfect on that. After all, I'm SPECIAL!!! ;-)

-- jillaine 20:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Jillaine, I want you to know that I will keep you in my thoughts tomorrow!!! I certainly wish you the best.

Regarding the sources - you know, it's not about being perfect - though sometimes it does seem like that. I guess that I made so many mistakes that I seems like some of the efforts were for naught. Your approach above is great - your are very detailed!

Sorry for my terrible timing! Again, my thoughts are with you - let me know how it goes if you can!--Jennifer (JBS66) 20:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

You're a dear. Don't worry about your timing at all. It's perfect. You and WeRelate and everyone/thing else here is a marvelous distraction for me right now. Otherwise, I'd be weeping hysterically and throwing up. -- jillaine 20:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

changing mysource at ancestry.com [14 March 2009]

Jillaine, I saw your method of deleting dup pages with ancestry.com sources and thought you might tell me how I should handle all the ancestry.com sources I'm about to upload to werelate. Currently I have something like this: Kentucky Mariages 1802-1850 at ancestry.com (title window) http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=2089 (publication window)

The URL is for the search window for Kentucky Marriages, not for the actual result of the search. I don't want to change my method on my own data, but when I do the upload, I'll work on fixing these sources if you can tell me how to do it. Or should I just leave them as mysources? --Janiejac 12:11, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Janie, I'm really struggling with my answer because so much "depends". First off, ending up with the search window on the pertinent ancestry.com source is fine. That's what I've seen on all the existing ancestry.com "sources".

You say you don't want to change your own method for your own data. And from what I see from your explanation is that your method combines what is both a Source (Kentucky Marriages 1802-1850) and a Repository (Ancestry.com)-- i.e., Ancestry.com is the place (repository) where you found the source Kentucky Marriages. Kentucky Marriages actually exists completely separately from Ancestry.com; that's just where you found it.

Ah, yes. You're right. That's why 'at ancestry' ends up in my title; so that when I'm selecting the source from my source window, I get the right one. Hmmm... I haven't studied WeRelate Sources list to consider that even after selecting the right title, I might have to also select the right repository.

The Sources (as opposed to MySources) on WeRelate separate the source from the repository. So the source "Kentucky Marriages 1802-1850" might have several repositories associated with it; e.g., Ancestry.com (with the URL going to the search window), FHL (with the URL going to the page with the film #s on it), Google Books (with the URL going to the location of the digitized, downloadable or viewable version of the Kentucky Marriages). etc etc

What I am doing right now is doing re-directs from MySources to Sources where there is a good Source in place. In the process of finding the right Source to redirect TO, I run across "dupes" within the Sources namespace-- the Ancestry.com version of a Source (that, like you, combines the repository into the title of the source-- something WeRelate now regrets having imported) and a "plain" Source (that happens to only have information in it about finding the FHL film #s). The dupe process I described at the Watercooler was about de-duping THESE.

What I did not say is a) I then make sure that the resulting single Source is appropriately named (that's a whole other can of worms), and then b) I go back to the equivalent MySource page. If my MySource has a lot of pages linking to it, then I enter a "redirect" in the text box of the pertinent MySource that links to the single Source.

Having said all that, if I were you, I'd start with deduping people after your upload. That will take awhile, depending on how far back your tree goes.

To my immigrant ancestor b abt 1620. But I am uploading only bits and pieces for now. My main database has over 22,000. I am not ready to maintain that many pages at this point.

Also, I'd suggest you consider how much you're likely to get involved here. If a lot, you may want to consider aligning your Source titling method with that of WeRelate. You can easily rename your Sources through your Master Source window of your genealogy program (what software do you use?), without having to change them one-by-one, removing the reference to the repository in the title. You're not getting rid of the URL.

Good point. I use PAF. Perhaps for now, I'll leave the sources 'as is'. I'm going to be uploading abt 300 when Dallan gets the new uploading feature moved from the sandbox and I will maintain those, but for the 22,00 database . . ? I may wait until some other features mature. I have mixed feelings . . I want to do it now before there are too many duplicates, but none of my sources are going to be compatible with werelate conventions; I've put census transcriptions in the records of folks and it bothers me to see them with NO LINE BREAKS - all run together. Now I read that they should all be moved from the person page to the family page. And I'm flumoxed by the historical places. I'm new to wiki and this is quite a learning curve.

Well, after looking at what's causing me to hesitate, maybe I should just go ahead and upload the whole thing. I could work at it slowly as I have time and maybe others would connect and help. But I forsee that this could easily consume all of one's time!

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my question.--Janiejac 14:40, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Hope this is helpful. -- jillaine 13:30, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Janie,

Don't upload 22k of people. First off, there's a 5k limit, so you couldn't even if you wanted to. If you've got 1620-type folks, I'm guessing you've got colonial New Englanders (as do I). There's been quite a lot of deduping of these over the last year or so. Do you have a lot of great data that is not already here? If not, you may wish NOT to upload those folks, but instead upload your later folks.

Yes, colonial folks, descendants of Robert Jackson of Hempstead, Queens, NY. I did upload just a few with plans to upload different segments later. I forgot about the 5K limit. As far as dups uploaded more recently, I don't know - all the more reason to wait for the new upload feature. But this raises another question. By uploading in segments, I'm going to have a very lot of different trees. Any hopes of merging new uploads into a tree I've already uploaded instead of having so MANY? Last week's upload caused me to realize that each upload and each tree I copy and save from my cousin will have a new name. I already have enough trees! Some are not connected to one another, but some will be.

Transcriptions. I'm trying to figure that out as well. Depending what it's a transcription of, it may very well belong on a person's page (like their will). but if it is a transcription of a family history, then yeah, I can see where it might belong on a family page. But even about all this, I don't sense 100% alignment of everyone on WeRelate about how best to place transcriptions. I've got a bunch of old colonial wills that I want to put up-- things that would be helpful to a lot of people descended of New England colonists. And it's just not yet clear to me where best to do that.

I have two types of transcriptions - some are separate from my database and can be added someplace later. But the ones that are included in my database, and are in notes for folks, are census transcriptions 1850+. I like to put the whole family through the years as I can get a better picture that way than just sourcing to a record somewhere.

Anyway, if you want to chat by phone, send me your # to jillainedc AT yahoo.com (or request mine) and I'd be happy to chat by phone.

Thanks for the offer of a phone chat. I use the phone in desperation only. So if I ask for your number, you'll know my frustration level has grown much too high!

I'm going to check to see what the status is of the idea of a forum. Seems like a lot of my questions/frustrations could be addressed there and it could be sort of a community thing instead of problems being addressed all throughout the watercooler or looked up in the FAQ w/o a feeling of community. Thanks for being there for me!--Janiejac 16:49, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

-- jillaine 15:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Titles for planned category or research pages [26 March 2009]

Jillaine, I've just read your whole talk page and have to wonder about the outcome of your job situation. I hope WeRelate can still be a good distraction for you or even better, that you got good news and don't need a distraction from that worrisome situation. I don't know how you do so much on WeRelate and still work a full time job!

I saw an earlier posting of yours that I'll copy here so you know what I'm asking about:

"I've started using the category pages (since there are links to them on the bottom of most / all People pages) to serve this purposes in cases where there are multiples in the same state:

Carters in Massachusetts
Rogers in Massachusetts
and I've started but not gone very far yet with Taylors in Massachusetts"

I want to write some similar pages but envision that they will be more like Shared Research Pages. But my question is in the naming; this is planned to be a study to distinguish between the many Stephen and John Jacksons in both Carolinas before, during and just a few years after the Revolutionary War. Can I name the page Jackson in Colonial Carolina and have links to it from both North and South Carolinas?

During that time period the state line was resurveyed and without moving, the folks who lived in NC ended up in SC. Many of the so called Anson Countians (NC) were actually Craven Countians and then Chewraws Districters and then Chesterfield Countains and Anson Countians. This was all due to the border movement.

Some of the descendants of 'our' Stephen and John Jackson are currently conjecture and we would like to put our collective efforts together to eliminate some of that. We like the idea of putting the info that each of us has collected all together in one place on WeRelate, but I'm still just learning wiki and my cousins are brand new to it. Designing this page will be a challenge. Several pages have already been written and just need formatting to wiki which I think I can do. I'm wondering if this could even be a Special Project and if I'm up to the challenge of that. Would you have any suggestions? --Janiejac 16:30, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Janie, Your project sounds like it requires its own page, not just the use of a Category page-- although be sure to include Category "tags" in your page so that people searching for folks in north or south carolina will find your page. Sounds like a great project. You might want to poke around WeRelate for examples of other such pages.

Thanks for your thoughts about my employment. I did get laid off-- effective 4/3. I'm currently writing from warm, relaxing Sarasota, FL, where I am visiting my cousin before conducting a workshop in Tampa on Monday. I then have another retreat to facilitate at the end of the month, then I wrap up my job by 4/3. I am trusting that I will find the right next thing for me. I have a couple of months of leeway. It has been stressful, but I'm adjusting. -- jillaine 08:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Janie, Check out Taylor in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States as a *possible* model. I'll try to find a few others for you. -- jillaine 10:23, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Here are some more:

• Coleman Family Exchange--jillaine 10:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Jillaine, I hope your workshop in Tampa went well! My timing may be terrible here but I need some mentoring. If you're available, I'd love to have some advice on categories. I've been looking over the sites you suggested and some more too. Was so eager to jump in that I've been adding info but think I just don't understand about adding categories. Look at the clutter I've got on this page. Jackson_in_Prince_William And these seem to be automatic. I don't think I've added tags to get them. Right now, don't remember which ones I've added tags to and which were automatic. I think I should have titled that page Jackson in Prince William, Virginia. I can rename it.

Yes I think you should rename it. jillaine 21:04, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

But for categories, should I be bothering with Jackson in Virginia when I've got Jackson in Prince William, Virginia?

Or does the category have to be spelled out all the way - so long - Jackson in Prince William, Virginia, United States. That just seems to add to the clutter.

Is there a way to edit the category 'Jackson in Prince William' so that it becomes 'Jackson in Prince William, Virginia' without me having to go back into each page using that category to edit it?

You can do a redirect. Go to your Jackson in Prince William category page and type #redirect [[:Category:Jackson in Prince William, Virginia]]. jillaine 21:04, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I think I'd better stop inputting until I get a better handle on this! Feel free to move this over to the watercooler if you'd rather someone else answered this. --Janiejac 01:22, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it's looking like a great page. jillaine 21:04, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

All my early colonist surnames (a lot) [18 April 2009]

Hi Jillaine,

What a generous offer. I've been making trips to the main library here in Cleveland, but of course it's like starting all over again (20 years worth). Many of my immigrant families are already listed here, with whom I am trying to connect, but I get bogged down in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation when they start making their way to NE Ohio, mainly the Connecticut Western Reserve, or Pennsylvania.

Don't put yourself out, but if you have sources for or connections to any of the following immigrants, I'd appreciate a "boost", especially into the 1700s. All of these people arrived 1620s to 1660s, followed by the first generation to arrive in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Jan (John) WINANS (em. New Amsterdam 1640s ?)........Jacob Winans (arrived in Trumbull Co.OH ca 1800 d 1810) Josiah CHURCHILL (em. Wethersfield, CT 1630s)........Barnabas CHURCHILL (arrived Trumbull Co., OH 1830s) Nathaniel FOOTE (this one I have sufficiently, dau Elizabeth m Josiah CHURCHILL) Jeremiah ROGERS (em. ca 1640) , son Ichabod who had son Hope ROGERS.......Hannah ROGERS w of Uriah ROGERS to Elk Co. PA in 1820s. (I believe her fa was Josiah ROGERS who d Luzerne Co, PA, mo Mary WHEELER ROGERS came w/Hannah

Don't have details with me of others (I'm doing this by memory at the library right now), but other surnames in New England are:

BARNES (Jedediah I think); Thomas MUNSON; John ROOT (the one who resided Farmington); Thomas EMERSON; John FULLER(the one who d 1666); Henry WOLCOTT (the immigrant ?); GRISWOLD; John LAY Sr (Lyme CT); Thomas LEE Jr (Lyme CT); John DRAKE; Humphrey TIFFANY; John NILES; Thomas LORD (Lyme CT); John HUNTLEY......Rufus HUNTLEY to Medina Co., OH 1830s; Thomas ? CHAFFEE; TOUCEY; BALDWIN (both Sylvester BALDWIN (d en route) & nephew/cousin John who em. at the same time); John MARVIN (Lyme CT); Moses WHEELER; Thomas FAIRCHILD; WILCOXSON....and others I'm sure I've left out.

Regards Neal Gardner--Neal Gardner 13:58, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Neal,

I may be able to help you with the following:

Josiah CHURCHILL (em. Wethersfield, CT 1630s)

Jeremiah ROGERS (em. ca 1640) , son Ichabod who had son Hope ROGERS Mary WHEELER ROGERS

John ROOT (the one who resided Farmington)

John FULLER(the one who d 1666)

Henry WOLCOTT (the immigrant ?)

GRISWOLD;

John MARVIN (Lyme CT)

Moses WHEELER;

We're prepping for company tonight so I can't look now, but will take a look later this weekend or during the week.

-- Jillaine jillaine 14:50, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Colony Canundrums [18 April 2009]

Thanks Jillaine.....absolutely no rush...all those guys aren't going anywhere or changing their stats :>) Neal--Neal Gardner 15:59, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

migration to Connecticut [7 May 2009]

I was cleaning up some duplicates that involved Capt. Thomas Wheeler, and I saw your Talk message there about evidence for a migration to Connecticut. Since the original GEDCOM named The Ancestry of Lorenzo Ackley as a source, and it is that source which asserts all the Connecticut stuff, I actually found this page well-documented by WeRelate norms (though it does not identify the primary sources). The assertions in this source ("moved from Concord to Fairfield, Conn., 1644, when he was Lieutenant; in 1653, Ensign of Conn. Colony Troop; removed to Stratford, Conn., 1654, and to Derby, Conn., about 1658; returned to Mass. (perhaps Marlborough) by 1665, and was again of Concord by 1669...") suggest some primary documents probably do exist.

Outside this source, it seems to me that his well-documented role in King Philip's War and the death record in Concord VRs make the ending location pretty well documented. There is an freeman's oath for a Thomas Wheeler in Concord in 1642, plus the death of a Alice Wheeler, daughter of Thomas, in 1640/1 on Concord VRs. These could be him. The paucity of data in between does seem to suggest that he may have left and returned. Don't know more, as this is not my branch of Wheelers. --Jrich 15:35, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

John Gunn b. 1647 [12 May 2009]

(Moved to John Gunn's Person Page)

-- jillaine 14:51, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Please Review [13 May 2009]

Jillaine

Could you take a look at this article and give me some feedback? Source Value

Thanks Q 19:22, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Benjamin Cutbird [26 May 2009]

Hi Jillaine, Thanks for the merge, and THANKS for NOT including the ephemeral (and unuseful) sources contained in Benjamin 5!. In the past I've not paid much attention to the sources in the sidebar, but after looking at how Beth was handling this, I'm seeing greater potential for this than I'd originally thought. Is it standard practice in the merger community to exclude sources pointing to WFT, or GedCom's etc.? Q 08:30, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it's "standard custom" to remove references to WFT or WorldConnect or GEDCOMs unless they are pretty specific. I.e., if it just says "Imported from smith.ftw" I remove it; if it says, "Imported from GEDCOM contributed and researched by J. Smith (email address or other contact info," then I'll keep it. THe point is that the source should help you find the, um, SOURCE of the information. ;-)

-- jillaine 11:30, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks!. Good to know. Its the distinction between "where YOU got the information from" versus "what is the original source of the information". Citing a GedCom etc rarely (not never, but rarely) leads to any useful original source. Q 12:56, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Bill, while original source is always preferable, saying where someone got it from (as long as that location is findable by someone else) is better than providing no source at all. I use WeRelate's Source Quality field/indicator for assigning value or strength to the particular source. jillaine 15:32, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

That's the problem---"as long as its findable by someone else". In theory, you should be able to cite a "gedCom" or a family tree on Ancestry, etc., and get back to the person to ask them where the data came from. In practice, that's not usually going to happen---mostly if you can find the person at all, its going to be "I found it on the web...somewhere." And just who is it that you should cite for a family tree on Ancestry? The person who obviously copied the information from one of the ten other identical versions, and gave no acknowledgement of where they got the information? Personally, I don't much bother with "sources" like this. The information may be useful, but I'm going to have to find the original source myself in most cases. I'd rather not confuse things by putting in a "source" that is essentially with out value. Then at least, I can quickly see what's missing, and not be deluded into thinking "MySource:BillyJoe's GedCom" has some value. (On the otherhand, when I do find the occassional FamilyTree that actually has some decently documented data, I am likely to acknowledge that kind of item as an intermediate source, until I can get to the original. )

In anycase, the longevity of such sources is quite limited. You might find it today, but tomorrow? On my pages if you find a datum and it doesn't have a source, its because I haven't been able to locate a decent source. Its probably reasonably accurate, but not proven. Regretably, lots of datum given are in this category. Q 15:53, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Offering a project [9 June 2009]

Project for BCG [11 June 2009]

Jillaine, I've been missing seeing your comments on WeRelate! And wondering about your job situation. . . But I've seen your conversation with Beth about needing a project to research and I have one you're welcome to work on. More than welcome . . .please take it! Here is where I started this: Samuel_Jackson

Our Jackson research group has had a fellow (Tom Jackson) participate in the Jackson DNA testing and his results indicate that he is connected to the line of immigrant Robert Jackson who settled in Hempstead, Queens County, New York. I have a website dedicated to Robert's descendants. (We call ourselves 'Hempstead Jacksons' to distinguish between the multitude of other Jackson lines.) http://www.jacksonfamilygenealogy.com

So a group of us have worked for several months studying Tom's ancestry in the location where his documentation ends. We found a tremendous number of folks, even looking to find distant cousins to also take the test to verify some of these branches. But the most difficult is verifying that the Zephaniah Jackson we have found is the same Zephaniah who was s/o Samuel Jackson who named a son Zephaniah in his Rev War Application. Samuel was born (per the app) in 1756 in Prince William Co., Virginia and I have absolutely no idea when (or if) any of my Hempstead Jacksons got from NY and NJ down into VA. But I believe Tom Jackson, DNA participant, is Samuel's descendant. And I don't even know how or where to look for Samuel's parents to find his connection to any of the many folks in my Hempstead database.

Samuel named three sons in his pension app: Zephaniah, John and Charles. We've found two more of Zeph's desendants who have agreed to be tested; one each for the descendants of two different Johns (we don't know which might be Samuel's son) and we've found a Charles who probably is Samuel's son, but that is only circumstantial. So I've got this started on WeRelate but soon stopped as those I was working with were not comfortable in a wiki environment. Also the upload into an existing GEDCOM was not ready for us. I believe I could upload a lot more now and will do so if you are interested in this as a project. Or I could send you a GEDCOM with sources and notes.

We also have put this on a private ancestry.com chart and I would be glad to send you an invitation. Since this has been a group activity, I may have some info that is not on the ancestry.com chart and the chart may have some I don't have. It became very difficult to keep it all synchronized. I believe it will be July before the results of 2 of the DNA tests are published; another has just be sent to the lab and a 4th hasn't returned their kit yet. As you can see we've really been digging to find these living descendants, but have run out of ideas on how to dig for Samuel's parents.

I have NO idea of what kind of project you might need for certification, but this one is available! --Janiejac 00:21, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Janieac,

Good to hear from you. I've been otherwise pre-occupied. I was laid off beginning of April and have been subsequently focused on what's next. I needed to put genealogy aside for a little while. I now have a little bit of paid work and am allowing myself a little bit of time to return to genealogy, but only a little. I noticed that things seemed to have slowed down on WeRelate-- wonder if it's a seasonal thing.

One thing that *might* be next for me is certification as a genealogist. I figure: heck, I enjoy it so much, maybe I should try to make a living from it-- or at least have it contribute to my income (more likely). So I was pleased, while catching up on WeRelate yesterday, to see Beth's post about the BCG video, which I watched in its entirety. I'm still exploring, and have more research to do before committing. But thanks for your offer of a project. Doesn't sound like it's moving really fast. My main concern looking at it is: wow, if a large group of you haven't figured it out, what makes you think a stranger with no background in this particular line is going to figure it out? But isn't that what we're here for? I will keep it in mind.

-- Jillaine jillaine 10:29, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

"What makes me think you could help?" Because maybe you have more experience than any of us. We can read census records but beyond that, we stumble. And perhaps you know of early Virginia sources that we don't know anything about. You're right, we've found the easy stuff. As far as being a group researching, most all of them are family members who have concentrated on helping me find and document living descendants. I'm the one left to try to find the parents of Samuel. So from here on the project slows down to a crawl. And will still be around if and when you might need a project. The only prospect we have for new info is the upcoming DNA tests to tell us if we're on the right track; that the branches we've found are truly Hempstead branches.

Not necessarily connected to Samuel's line are quite a few other (unconnected as yet) Hempstead Jacksons whose earliest ancestors are in Virginia. Perhaps I should encourage these folks to post their info on WeRelate. Maybe someday it will all come together.

Thanks for responding. And I wish you well with your work, whether genealogy or occupation or a combination of both! --Janiejac 11:42, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Ah, early Virginia? I'm not your girl, but Beth might be. I thought you were looking at colonial New York (which is also a stretch for me, but not as much as Virginia would be). Beth's also exploring certification. And she's more familiar with Virginia. jillaine 08:19, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Bailey/Baily changes?? [27 June 2009]

Lillane, I have been notified of your change to Mary Baily *maeeired George Harlan).... Are you changing Mary's name to Bailey from Baily???????--JFBailey 17:41, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

JF Bailey,

No I am not changing Mary's name from Bailey to Baily. The alt name of Baily came about from merging duplicate records.

I am a volunteer here, volunteering on a project to de-dupe person and family page duplicates. There are duplicate records for Mary's family. One is spelled Bailey; the other is spelled Baily. This is a common occurrence in the old records by the way. I've seen many early records where the name was spelled Baily.

-- Jillaine jillaine 19:17, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Jillane,

I do not understand what you mean by "volunteer" - to whom are you volunteering to de-dup records? How far does your charter extend beyond de-duping?

I am one of a dozen known descendants of Joel Baily proven with yDNA, baileywick in my database, and I do not recall asking for a volunteer. Esp with result which changes my database without my consent. How my database Joel Baily was changed to Bailey, I have no idea, as I closely watch changes being made there.

In all the historical records that I have found and copied into my notes in the baileywick database, Joel Baily b.1657 in Chittoe, Wilts, Parixh of Bishop's Cannings (now Bromham Parish) to Daniel Bayly and Mary Jane Stuart, who married Anne Mary Short in Chester Co., PA.

There are no instances of the spelling Bailey in these records, save someone's current day effort to re-name them. see Genealogy of the Baily Family of Bromham, Wiltshire, England at url http://www.archive.org/details/genealogybailyf00copegoog

The Baily spelling appears to be a Quakerism. Since there are descendants of Joel's son Daniel living today who retain the spelling Baily; therefore we descendants have choosen to retain this Quaker spelling for Joel Baily. As several descendants of Joel Baily, upon leaving the Quaker faith, changed the spelling to Bailey.

As for the Stewart/Steward/Stuart, the spelling in the historical records has been Stuart (the Scot spelling), and is preferred since Alexander Stuart (who married Mary Baily) was from Scotland. Stewart and Steward appear to be an English twist, and may be considered demeaning. see Genealogy of the Baily Family of Bromham, Wiltshire, England at url http://www.archive.org/details/genealogybailyf00copegoog--JFBailey 13:18, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

I do not represent Jillaine or WeRelate, but this prompts me to add my comments.

Jillaine is one of several people working on a Duplicate Review project WeRelate:Duplicate review to try and reduce the number of duplicate pages in WeRelate. This is non-profit so everybody is pretty much donating their time here, but she is a volunteer in the sense that she is volunteering her time to clean up other people's pages who don't seem to be maintaining pages they created. For example, I am sure the pages she worked on would have shown up in your list of possible duplicates (go to My Relate menu and look for Show Duplicates). This is not to say they are your fault, since the duplication could have been created by another person adding pages after you, but it is a goal to have all representations of a single person coalesced into a single consensus version and your duplicate list is a suggestion of how you can help reach that goal.

WeRelate is a community database. No page here belongs to you. You contribute input, and the license says you can use your own research elsewhere and still say it was yours, but the page is community property and can be changed by any user that thinks they have something to add. Your personal database is on your home computer.

My personal opinion is, and there have been various discussions so it is not unanimous, is that you are going to have to be ready to compromise on your insistence of the spelling. Not to start the whole discussion over, but reasons are briefly: spelling was not standardized but mostly phonetic; it was common to see a name spelled different ways, often in one document, so how do you choose which is correct; often people could not read or write so the spelling represents what the town clerk thought, or the style of the time, not what your ancestor thought; different branches spell names differently and eventually we want those branches to come together; modern spelling tends to the be most recognizable to people searching for this person. It is always possible to create alternate name entries or add notes to make sure your preferred spelling is noted. You can add info on the surname page chronicling the various spelling and their history. But what is not desired is to have a page for Mr. Bailey, Mr. Baily, and Mr. Bayley when they are all the same person.

--Jrich 14:28, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

JF Bailey,

As jrich pointed out, WeRelate is attempting to have one page per person and one per family. A group of volunteers, myself included, are attempting to help WeRelate achieve this goal. When a merge happens, the contribution of multiple people are combined on the same page.

Let's take Mary Baily/Bailey as one example. Currently there are many people watching her page, including yourself. (See lower left corner of screen on her page.) It's not easily clear to me who contributed Bailey and who initially contributed Baily. But the best place to have the conversation about surname spelling is not here on my Talk page, but on the Talk page of the Bailey/Baily's (or Stuart/Stewarts) in question. That way, those most familiar with the documents about that person can discuss with each other what they know, and why they use one spelling vs. another. It also sounds like you have a great deal of source data that confirms the spelling of your Baily's. Including that information on the person's page supports your claims.

How lucky you are to find such consistency in the spelling of your ancestors' surnames. Research into my own Bailey's (New England colonists) reveals a variety of spellings not only between generations, but even for the same person. For example, the emigrator might be Bayly on a baptism record, Baily on a marriage record, and Bailey on his death record. Not to mention all the varieties and records in between. I have rarely found consistency in spelling of most colonial surnames-- whether on this side of the Atlantic or the other.

But do feel free to change the primary name to Baily and the Alt name to Bailey if that's appropriate for your particular people. I do recommend that you retain the alt spelling as an "alt name", though, so that people who may believe your shared ancestors spelled their name differently will still find the page.

-- jillaine 15:42, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Jillane, Your New England Bailey's???? Shoild those New England Bailey's of yours be descendants John Bayley, Sr of Chippingham, Wiltshire who was a broadloom weaver, and arrived in 1635 on the Angel Gabriel (which wrecked at Pemaquid Point), regardless of what Clifford Stott says in his article "John1 Bayly of Bromham, Wiltshire, and Essex County, Massachusetts," The American Genealogist, 77 (2002): 241-47., John Bayley is definately related to Joel Bayly of Chittoe, Wiltshire, who was a Quaker and a broadloom weaver, immigrating to Chester Co., PA in 1682 or so. I know this because there are three descendants of John Bayley, Sr who are definate matches in yDNA and SNP Haplogroup to 9 descendants of Joel Bayly. If you are interested in the details, I can help you with the data. jfbailey@comcast.net--JFBailey 15:55, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

"My" Baileys of New England are ancestors of my husband (on his maternal line, MANY maternal lines up, I fear, so the DNA stuff won't work for us), starting with Person:John Bailey (37). It goes like this:

1. John Bailey d. 1651

2. John Bailey & Eleanor Emery (Newbury, MA)

3. James Bailey & Mary Carr (Newbury/Roxbury, MA)

4. Isaac Bailey & Mercy Saxton (Newbury, MA -> Lebanon, CT)

5. Joseph Bailey & Abigail Ingraham (Lebanon, CT)

6. James Bailey & Lucy Gay (Lebanon, CT)

7. Eliphalet Bailey & Nancy Bradish (New York)

8. Nancy Bailey & Amzi Doolittle Barber (Ohio)

And the Bailey name is thence lost.--jillaine 17:16, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Where to put tidbits found about people I am not researching [27 June 2009]

Hi Jillaine, I know that you abandoned your project regarding surname in place pages, etc. I have forgotten the name. I was interested but just don't have the time to take part in another project. Since you spent a lot of time evaluating the different types of surname projects etc., where would you recommend that I enter tidbits?

Example: i have a very interesting article regarding one Colonel Hamilton Jay. He does not have a family page on WeRelate nor am I researching the Jay family. Exactly where would you recommend that I enter this info or maybe not? This article is about his death in Florida; and indicates that he was Florida's poet laureate and a veteran editor; and no I don't have the time to start a person page and research the guy. I just wish to the leave the information so a potential researcher can find it. --Beth 21:51, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I abandoned the Article namespace "categorizing". I still use Surname in Place when needed.

Mm... It sounds like you believe that if a Person page is created by someone that someone must do research into it. I.e., that you'd have to commit to it. Why not just create the person page; add your notes (perhaps with a caveat on the Talk page that you're not researching this person); choose whether or not to Watch it; then leave it be? Personally, I think that would be perfectly fine. But that's just me.

jillaine 09:23, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, Jillaine I guess I could obtain an approximate birth date and create the person page. I suppose that want take too long.--Beth 10:17, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Proposed guidelines [29 June 2009]

Hi Jillaine,

The Proposed Guidelines for Ambiguous Spouses resulting from a Merge looks pretty good to me -- certainly a lot better than what we have. I just want to make sure that it is easily "findable" by other people. Could you move this information to Help:Merging pages when you're ready? Thanks.--Dallan 16:44, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Of course, only when you and the others editing that page feel that it's ready, thanks.--Dallan 12:39, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm checking on that, Dallan. If no response within the next couple of days, I'll copy it over and edit appropriately so it "fits". -- jillaine 13:25, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

I've been late to this whole discussion. Sorry. I was adding comments on the talk page and the article disappeared. I did not want to make changes and mess up any organization and style. So I am simply listing my thoughts here.

I was having a little trouble picking out what the guidelines are saying to do. I think there are certain specific cases where a particular result is desired. Obviously, the merger may know little or nothing about the family and so they are limited in how much they can determine, but when they can, I think they should strive to achieve certain outcomes.

The presence of multiple spouses paired with the same individual is ambiguous because it is not clear if it is one or multiple marriages. Are they multiple candidates for the same marriage, or are they both spouses of the same person via multiple marriages (or even a combination of both, e.g., one spouse for one marriage, two other spouses for another marriage)? Just doing a straightforward merge can eradicate the subtle differences between these different cases.

The merger must try to determine, as much as possible, how many distinct marriages are represented, so that they can end up with one Family page for each actual marriage to allow children to be placed in the correct marriage regardless of who the actual spouse is later identified as. Two candidates for being a spouse in a marriage, must remain as separate Person pages to allow their potentially different parents and vital data to be collected separately from other candidates.

It is not important for the merger to resolve conflicting data. Unless you have personal knowledge, which you should add sources for, probably the most important thing is not to throw away possibilities that could be true. If you don't know, leave all possibilities. Let subsequent researchers identify what is wrong and remove it. The goal is to get all information about one person, or one family, on a single page, even if that page has multiple versions of various facts.

Goal: One family page per distinct marriage. One Person page for each candidate spouse.

Example: Duplicates of same marriage between same spouses. Some pages clearly represent the same combination of the same spouses. In this case, merge the family pages and all people mentioned.

1. check boxes to merge John Doe and Jane Smith (2) into John Doe and Jane Smith (1)
2. check boxes to merge John Doe (15) into John Doe (3)
3. check boxes to merge Jane Smith (101) into Jane Smith (3)
4. merge any common children

Example: Not a match. Some pages clearly represent unrelated marriages. In this case, mark them as "Not a Match".

1. check boxes for both John Doe and Jane Smith (2) into John Doe and Jane Smith (1)
2. click "Not a match"

Example: Appears to be two candidates for same marriage. If two family pages have a common spouse paired with different people, with the same or no marriage dates, possibly with the same children, or possibly with the same death date (since the death date is usually given under the married name), they probably represent different candidates for the same marriage. Since this represents only one family with one set of children, merge them together into one family page, leaving the different spouses as alternatives. The resulting family page will probably need to be titled 'known-spouse and unknown' if the two candidates have different names.

1. check boxes to merge John Doe and Jane Smith (1) into John Doe and Mary Jones (1)
2. check boxes to merge John Doe (15) into John Doe (3)
3. leave boxes unchecked for Jane Smith (39) and Mary Jones (57)
4. rename resultant family page to John Doe and Unknown

Example: Appears to be two separate marriages. Possible duplicates can actually represent two separate marriages, possibly involving a common spouse. This may happen if the same child is listed under both wives, for example. Ideally, different marriage dates, an early death date for one of the spouses, or a similar clue will indicate this is the case. If the marriages are clearly different, merge the common spouse, but leave the family pages separate since there is one family by the first spouse, and one family by the second spouse.

1. check boxes to merge John Doe (15) into John Doe (3)
2. leave all other boxes unchecked
3. suggest letting subsequent researchers with access to sources sort out which children go to which family

--Jrich 14:57, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Jrich, I've modified the help language to include some of your comments above. I did not include all the details, though, with tables. You might want to add that to the Help_talk:Merging_pages page. jillaine 16:43, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't entirely comfortable with it, and was hoping for a robust discussion. For example, while the general outline I gave I think communicate the extent of knowledge, it might also make it more difficult to clean up when answers are clear. Perhaps there is a better way? Somehow I missed whatever discussion was there. --Jrich 17:04, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Just move it over to Talk:Proposed_Guidelines_for_Ambiguous_Spouses_resulting_from_a_Merge. Conversation is still going on over there. I'll return the help page to the "draft" article area.

We can continue to clean it up.

-- Jillaine--jillaine 17:24, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

can you help fix a MySource? [11 July 2009]

First I know the title needs revision but I'm not sure what to call it.

Second, the info on the page needs help. That's what I was working on when I realized even the title was now wrong. At first I didn't have the info about the actual court case, so the title was OK. Then I wanted to mention where the actual records could be found and it snowballed out of control from there. I had put the URLs in the repository windows, but that didn't look right and forced one to scroll down to even see that there was something else on the page.

Can you do something with this page? I'll be happy with whatever you can do. It did seem to me that both references should be on the same page. Right? But perhaps it could be changed from a MySource to a regular source?

I could put this plea for help on the watercooler if you prefer. --Janiejac 10:48, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Where's the page, Janie? jillaine 10:51, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Ah! http://www.werelate.org/wiki/MySource:Janiejac/Ancestry.com_message_boards:_posting_by_humbugmsw

I'm working on it. jillaine 11:03, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Well that was odd. I could not edit your MySource page because it did not have the correct fields for data entry. So I went ahead and created a Source for it with how I would do it. Here: Source:Wilson, Mike. Jackson Family of Prince William Co., Va

What do you think? jillaine 11:15, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

WHOAH!!! It did not save all that I entered. DANG. What's THAT about? jillaine 11:17, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

I posted a question at Help Talk Sources asking why all the fields I entered were not saved. jillaine 11:25, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Janie, I figured it out. Sheesh. How annoying. Anyway, look at it now. This is what I would suggest for the type of source you're working with: (jillaine 14:35, 9 July 2009 (EDT))

Source:Wilson, Mike. Jackson Family of Prince William Co., Va

I think it is strange that the title says
Jackson Family of Prince William Co., Va when on the edit page it is obviously typed
Jackson Family of Prince William Co., VA

Actually, it probably would be more acceptable to source to the URL of the actual documents found on the Virginia records site.

Then I would hope that Mike Wilson's summary of the documents could be on this source page also, because his summary of the many original documents is so much easier to read. But maybe his summary could be left off and just send folks to the original documents. They are on a free site and Mike's summary is on ancestry.com which is not free.

Mike's summary: http://boards.ancestry.myfamily.com/surnames.jackson/9167.1.2.2/mb.ashx

Search window for original docs: http://www.virginiamemory.com/collections/chancery/

What do you think? Am I making it harder by trying to show both URLs on the same source page?

Technically, the source where YOU found the information was Mike's posting on the message board, which is why I named it the way I did (and it was a typo that I did Va instead of VA or the other way around). The source is further detailed by noting the date and the author. The Repository-- where the source was located-- is Ancestry.com-- specifically the Jackson surname board. I used the "further citing" (or whatever it's called) field to add the note that Mike is citing those Fauquier county divorce records.

So it depends what you want to cite-- Mike's summation of what he found in the county divorce records? Or the divorce records themselves? Either way, I think you have to choose.

I think it's fine to add the second URL in the notes section, or even in the "Citing" field; i.e., Faquier County Divorce Records (URL goes in parens)

-- Jillaine--jillaine 17:33, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Jillaine! I sure didn't know what to do with it! I added the surnames covered and some comment in the 'text' area. I hope if and when a download is done that text area doesn't get included. Seems to me there needs to be a place to put comments about any portion of the citation which don't get included in the actual citation when used. I'm a stubborn old lady and don't want to change any of 'MySources' but thought this one could be a regular Source. I knew from the get-go that MySources were not going to meet WeRelate conventions and there are way too many to go back to change. So I thought 'OK, it's alright with me to just leave them as MySources but I read that this is frowned upon. To be forced to change them would be a deal breaker for me. --Janiejac 11:48, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Janie, re: MySources vs. Sources. Yeah, I think the *ideal* is converting them to Sources, but NOT if it's going to mess up your own efforts. For example, the WeRelate convention for Federal census sources is completely different than how I write it, so I am NOT going to go through and change them all.

And I've also decided that I am not likely to re-download what I've put here. I'll test it to see what happens when I do download the GEDCOM/Family Tree on werelate, but I'm more likely to keep my offline version "pure" and edit it manually as I need to when someone else updates pages I'm watching.

I'm just not convinced that using a wiki to go back and forth between my computer is a good idea. We'll see. Maybe I'll be proven wrong; that's okay.

-- jillaine 16:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for all your help [8 July 2009]

Jillaine,

Thank you for all your helpful feedback. Regretfully I'm finding the WeRelate process a bit too problematic as the following message to Scot will illustrate. Good luck to everybody at WeRelate. It is a very good concept and a good way to collaborate. The merging/matching process may need some tweaking.

Lou Lehmann

Scott,

I've reviewed all of your messages. I think some serious problems are arising from merging. None of the problems you mentioned correspond to the material in the tree which I originally uploaded. Unless there is some system problem, I'm guessing that I didn't scrutinize material enough to notice the errors in other trees - although I must wonder why those errors in the other trees weren't caught during the import process. For the record, I did not use and did not upload any of the following three sources noted in this dialogue: ...."From: Ancestors of Douglas Christian LUSTY http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~lustypetersen/d5705.htm ", "From: Family Trees - Throop. monica@odi.ca <monica@odi.ca> ", "S1. New York Genealogical & Biographical Society, "The Record", 36/123, Jan 1905 1 ". Nor did I submit any birthdate at all for Lydia Wills. Of course a 1618 birthdate is absurd but it did not originate with me. Nor did I use any Ancestral Files or World Family Trees as sources. I am puzzled by your allegation that I did not use The "Chapman Genealogy" as a source for the family of Ralph Chapman and Lydia Wills. Here is a copy of my notes about Ralph Chapman. Please note that the last two items are referenced to The Chapman Genealogy, which is also listed in my sources along with "Thirty-one English Emigrants Who Came to New England by 1662" and "Genealogical notes of Barnstable Families"

"Ralph Chapman became a ship carpenter and moved to Southwark, Surrey, across the river from London. On the 13th of April 1635 he sailed on the 'Elizabeth de Lo' (Elizabeth of London) for Massachusetts. His age on the list of passengers was 20 years, which is not quite right according to the date of baptism in the church register. All those sailing from Southwark 'brought cert: from the Minister of St. Saviors Southwark of their conformitie' Ralph settled first in Duxbury and continued his trade as a ship carpenter there. He bought land the 8th of October 1639 and again in 1645. He married in Marshield the 23rd of November 1642 Lydia Wells/Willis who was in all probability the daughter of Isaac and Margaret Wells of Marshfield. She is almost surely the Lydia Wells who came to New England in 1634, apparently as a servant to William Hatch. Her period of servitude would, most likely, have ended in 1641. Isaac and Margaret Wells later moved to Barnstable, Ralph and Lydia Chapman remained in Marshfield.......Ralph Chapman made his willl the 28th of November 1671 and as he did not mention his wife, we can assume that Lydia Chapman died before that date. The will was 'exhibted to the court held att Plymouth 4 June 1672.. .He had a long terminal illness and was unable to sign his will because 'of weakness of body and lamness and swelling of his hands..' " From: "Thirty-one English Emigrants Who Came to New England by 1662" by Dorothy C. and Gerald E. Knoff Gateway Press 1989 pages 52-56

Ralph Champan appeared before the General Court at New Plymouth (4 March 1651) for striking Herman Haddon.. (The Chapman Genealogy by John Harvey Chapman - p. 9)

Ralph Chapman's will was not signed - causing the Court to question his capacities. Witnesses testified that his body and and hands were too swollen to hold a pen or antything else. (The Chapman Genealogy by John Harvey Chapman - p. 12-13)

   I really do appreciate all of the reviews by you folks at WeRelate and I do think that the Wiki concept is a very good one.   I guess I didn't realize how very accountable I would be for someone else's mistakes if I missed them during the review and matching process.  (I still wonder how those trees got imported with the errors which were were attributed to me, apparently as a result of the merging). I think all this is getting to be a bit too much for me so I will just take my tree off of WeRelate.   But I do want to express my thanks for all the very helpful feedback I received during this process.   I certainly don't regret it as the whole experience has helped me to clean up my notes and sources.  Please share my appreciation to everybody who was so helpful and patient during my time with WeRelate.  (I'll send a copy of this to a few of them)

Lou Lehmann--Loulehmann 18:23, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

GEDCOM Uploads [13 July 2009]

When I first joined WR, I broke my GEDCOM into manageable sized pieces and outlined the procedure in a note to Ronni. Whatever happened to her?

   I have figured out a procedure to follow before uploading Ancestral tree GEDCOMS to WeRelate that will not only minimize editing of overlapping individuals, but also eliminate the Living Dead problem. I keep all my files for my related lines in a single PAF file called master. (I use PAF because I assume it should be the most compatible program with the unmodified GEDCOM standard, other programs should work similarly.) So far I have only uploaded Ancestries, but soon I hope to be uploading descendancies. I’ll work on a procedure for them to minimize required editing as well. 
   To prepare a GEDCOM for an ancestry tree upload from PAF. Find the earliest generation with living individuals, then determine the latest generation without living individuals. More than likely the first will contain the children of the second. If this is the case select the closest parent of a member of the older generation to your family of primary interest.Using that person as the root then using advanced search, do a partial export to GEDCOM of all of his or her ancestors, ancestors’ siblings, siblings’ spouses, spouses’ parents, siblings’ children, or whomever you wish to include. Include all information on living people. Select 2 generations of descendants and as many of anccestors as you wish. 
   Next create a new PAF file and import the GEDCOM into it. Then edit the file by deleting all individuals not known to you to be deceased. This assures that names of early individuals too old to be still living will not be lost. Finally, delete all persons previously uploaded that link trees together. Export the entire remaining file back to the GEDCOM, overwriting the previous GEDCOM that you created and upload it.All that you have to do now is restore the links for the individuals in previous uploads to their respective families contained in the latest uploads. Finally delete the GEDCOM and PAF file from your PC. Some discretion must be used in selecting the root individual to assure you include whom you want and to exclude the most overlap.

You can split ancestries by unlinking spouses and creating a GEDCOM for each, descendancies, similarly by unlinking siblings.

Of course if your project GEDCOM contains a lot of unrelated people, it will be difficult to select those you want to upload. I hope this helps,--Scot 12:47, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Scot, for sharing your process. Sounds like it works well for you. I'm not sure it will for me. No, I don't have a lot of unrelated people. In fact, one of the fascinating aspects of this town of Schwenningen is that, so far, if you are descended from any one person in Schwenningen, then you are related to all other people descended of anyone else from Schwenningen. That's how small and tightly connected the town was. I.e, I have yet to find any Schwenningen descendant that I am not related to. What this means is that there are quite a lot of twisted and intersected branches. Therefore, I fear that your approach would result in either a lot of dupes or a lot of reconnecting families that I've already connected.

One of the things I'm coming across as I'm preparing it for upload, is that my file has evolved-- I created it in Family Treemaker on a windows machine. When FTM "upgraded" to version 2008 (or 2007), I ran screaming away from FTM and used RootsMagic. Then I got a mac and converted the GEDCOM to iFamily. Then the person who wrote and maintained iFamily died and it appeared that the program would no longer be developed. I also could not do all that I wanted to, so I bit the bullet and purchased Reunion, which so far is the best program -- Mac or PC -- that I've ever used in over ten years.

Somewhere in all that converting from one program to another, the resulting facts and notes are no longer what they were. There are really ugly UIDs and customized fields that shouldn't be custom (such as occupation). I may actually go in and edit the raw GEDCOM file although this terrifies me a bit.

Anyway, I'll think some more about how to break up this file so it's not so huge, but I'm not sure there's an easy way to do it. Thanks for your attempt to help me. jillaine 14:02, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

test.ged appears to overlap a previously-imported GEDCOM [16 July 2009]

The pages from this GEDCOM have not yet been generated because they appear to match pages from a GEDCOM you have previously imported to WeRelate.

If you have already imported a GEDCOM containing people in this GEDCOM and you want to replace that tree with this GEDCOM, you need to delete that tree first so duplicates aren't created when you import this GEDCOM. Click on Trees in the "My Relate" menu, then click on the "delete" link next to that tree. Please be aware that any pages in the tree that are being watched by others won't get deleted. Once that tree is deleted you can create a new tree and re-upload this GEDCOM into it. (We're planning to make re-uploading GEDCOM files much simpler soon.)

If you don't think you have already imported a GEDCOM containing people in this GEDCOM, or if the two GEDCOM's don't overlap that much, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org and we'll go ahead with the import.

--WeRelate agent 15:12, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

test.ged Ready for Review [17 July 2009]

Welcome to WeRelate! 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 your GEDCOM, your next step is to preview what your pages will look like and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. When you have finished your review, your GEDCOM will be imported. Click here to review your GEDCOM.

--WeRelate agent 12:31, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Research guides [23 July 2009]

Hi Jillaine, check with Dallan before you get too far along in this new project. I seem to recall him mentioning using the research guides on the Family Search Wiki and not duplicating this on WeRelate. Link: [1] --Beth 18:32, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Beth. I knew there'd been a discussion about research guides at some point, and I actually did go searching for it, but could not find it. Thanks for the reminder. I do recall this now. Was that the same conversation where we were also talking about not duplicating what GenWeb also does? (And someone in there said, what about "pulling in" GenWeb content, which did not seem to go over very well with at least one GenWebber who's here?) I just browsed (briefly) what familysearch is doing. It's rather "dry". But I understand why we wouldn't want to attempt to duplicate that. I wonder if there's a way to "pull in" specific sections like we do with wikipedia? Thanks for the reminder, Beth. jillaine 08:09, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Hi Jillaine, I am right in the middle of getting my home ready to feed 30 or 30 people on Saturday. I see you found the discussion. This one of the problems with WeRelate, remembering where the discussion took place. Although there was not really much of a discussion.

Briefly my take is this, we have been encouraged to enter research guides on Family Search and encouraged to update relevant pages on Wikipedia. I don't object to someone doing this but I don't intend to. I am already involved with my on database, Ancestry, Heritage, and WeRelate. I just don't have the time nor do I wish to spend the time familiarizing myself with a different system. Even if these are Wikis, there are probably some differences.

If I have a useful tip about the Library of Virginia, I would just put the tip on that page. If the concensus is to not put tips on these pages but to add this to the FamilySearch Wiki, then I just want add it anywhere except on my own user page. Got to run. --Beth 09:04, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Beth, while you were writing this, I was writing something very similar over in Category_talk:Research_guides. I'll encourage people to join me over there. Have a great family gathering. I'm sure we'll still be here when you're done. ;-) jillaine 09:09, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

John Blank & Anna DeVoe [24 July 2009]

Hi,

Any chance your Anna DeVoe was bapt. 18 Dec 1828 not 1736 in NYC, dau. of Joseph DeVoe and Sarah Blom, not Montagne? My Sarah was the daughter of Frederick Blom and Ante Montagne. My John Blank m. Annetje DeVoe 2 Nov 1754 NYC. --Susan Irish 23:13, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Did you mean 1728 and not 1828? If so, quite possible. The data I have about this couple is from the Frederick Devoe 1885 Genealogy of the Deveaux Family. And it's known to have errors. If you have more accurate data and sources, by all means, please correct the page. Thanks!

-- jillaine 16:32, 24 July 2009 (EDT)

Help pages [30 July 2009]

Hi, Thanks so much for updating the help pages. I really appreciate your time. would you mind recording your time on the volunteer log under the admin menu. I need to prove to the IRS that was have public support. That means someone besides the Directors working on the site. Thanks again. It's a real help.  :) --sq 21:10, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the reminder; I used to post my vol hours regularly, but got out of the habit. I just estimated full months for both June and July; I'll be better moving forward. (I probably spend 2-3 times that on WeRelate... being un-, I mean self-employed gives me more time...) jillaine 08:35, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Peckham, Surrey [15 August 2009]

Unaware that I had removed a bunch of data including the Wikipedia template. :-(

Bob--Pigeonnier 15:45, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Goochland [15 August 2009]

Jillaine

Just curious are you going through EVERY county page and revising? Not that I care, and the county page formats could certainly use some TLC, but your statement "revised research tips section (this whole page is a set of tips)" Applies to virtually every county page. Q 16:08, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, maybe I don't fully understand "Research Tips". My take on it is that anything that helps a reader use the Place in their research. So anytime I edit a Place page and add content to it, I remove that Research Tips section (or use it).

No, I'm not going through every place page. One of my roles as vol. admin is to check Recent Changes. In particular, I'm looking at Recent Changes on Place pages. I've just started and am trying to get used to it. Nice work you do, Bill.

jillaine 16:12, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Jillaine. Compliments are always appreciated. I suspect that the "Research tips" is leftover from earlier thinking. I don't particularly care for the format, and would like to see something better accepted as the standard, but I'm not about to take it on as a crusade. Much of the data that's included is often contemporary, and not needful. Also each page needs a map---something better than the Google Map. I like the Wikipedia county maps (usually). Township maps are a mixed bag. Q 16:20, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

The Palmers of Stonington [26 August 2009]

Hi Jillaine -

Will you take a look at this source Source:The Palmers of Stonington & Allied Families and tell me if it should be reclassed as a Book or as a Miscellaneous? i.e. is is one document (although unpublished) that is basically like a book, or is a collection of papers?

Thanks, - Brenda --kennebec1 22:53, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

what am I doing wrong? [27 August 2009]

Jillaine would you look at how I responded when the agent said my John Jackson of Loudoun GEDCOM overlapped. I tried to upload this tree on the 23rd. When I got the msg from the agent, I thought it meant I had already uploaded it - which I hadn't. Finally figured out it meant someone else had uploaded similar info, so I asked to let me upload anyway, that I would take care of dupes. But I still have no response from either msg left for Dallan here: User_talk:Dallan#already_imported_tree.3F.3F.3F_.5B26_August_2009.5D Should I have left the msg somewhere else? or is he temporarily gone? What should I do to get this finished? --Janiejac 10:27, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Janie, you're doing all the right things; dallan must be behind. -- jillaine--jillaine 10:56, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

Source:Bible Records of Greenfield, Massachusetts [31 August 2009]

Shouldn't this be type "records"? It is not an article, it is an online database. It is not from the magazine, it is from the website. --Jrich 21:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Jrich, thanks for catching this; I think I was editing this when I was succumbing to sleep! I clearly hadn't finished it. Not sure why I selected Article. I've cleaned it up. I do not see "Records" as a Type. I selected Misc. instead. The original source was a manuscript collection of transcriptions from bibles, and one way of accessing it is the NEHGS database. -- jillaine 08:27, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

You're right about the type being Misc, at least according to my understanding of the rules. I realized after I posted. Probably a mental short circuit caused by the word Records in the title, though it is clearly not institutional records.

On different topic, I used my user page to discuss this topic, because I pulled out of the source renaming discussion. I felt I was getting in the way of people looking for guidance how to do their volunteer work, and I didn't want to do that. Also because I felt like I was posting a bunch of disjointed items that could be perceived as contradictory. So I wanted to do a longer, more comprehensive post and I wanted to make it easier for busy people who were not interested to skip it. It may be harder to respond, but a message can always be posted on my talk page. --Jrich 09:08, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I concur that trying to have further discussion on the project page while we're trying to get at least SOMETHING done works against productivity so thanks for moving the topic elsewhere. Okay, now that I know you're interested in feedback, I'll provide some on your Talk page. jillaine 09:18, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Edith Austin Moore [31 August 2009]

Hi Jillaine, I noticed that you did something to source page Source:A genealogy of the descendants of Robert Austin of Kingstown, Rhode Island. Edith Austin Moore researched Austin families for over 55 years. There are 11 entries for her books and manuscripts, just a small portion of her work. AFAOA, the association she founded in 1942 is the repository of all of her work as well as the combined research of hundreds of association members in the 30 years since her death. All of it is available on line at afaoa.org. I have placed a note to that efffect on the source page for ancestry.com which I believe to be in violation of fair use for offering this for sale. I have read jrich's comments and agree with much of what he says. In this case, all of the information and then some is available free in its most recent version, rendering these sources obsolete.--Scot 15:44, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Scot, I'm volunteering for the Source renaming project and have been going through a variety of sources (a long list actually) of those that have been mis-typed or mis-named. In the process, I check to see where else the source is available from. So those are the places I found it. It sounds like you're more familiar with the source, and I would encourage you to add Usage Tips that you think are relevant. What comments are you referring to? (jrich leaves many! -- as do I!). jillaine 15:59, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I was referring to his long post yesterday regarding websites vs family history books, census records et al. I will edit all 11 of the source pages to reflect this.--Scot 18:22, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Source renaming list [2 September 2009]

Hi Jillaine, I finished my list on the 19th of Aug. Do I need to recheck and if so for what? I am not reading the entire project talk page to find out. I noticed you did a 3rd check. --Beth 00:18, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Beth, you focus on the de-duping; I'll take a final look at your list. I just spot-checked a few and they look great; you may have a few Type=Website pages that need changing; I'll do that-- especially since at least the first one I found is a Finding Aid which I'm tagging for Research Guides-- my other project when all this de-duping and renaming is behind us! jillaine 10:13, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Beth, I just went through your list; I ignored the census pages, because review of the initial several indicated they were all fine; so I focused and cleaned up some of the non-census items. You should be all set. Didn't take long. jillaine 10:59, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Many thanks Jillaine.--Beth 01:14, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Ignore Astrakhan [2 September 2009]

On the dups list. I was trying to distinguish some Russian government archives by changing them to gov records, but they are still truncating at the subtitle, and now fall under Astrakhan. I'll fix them again.--Amelia 12:16, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. I gotta take a break and enjoy this lovely early fall weather we're having. jillaine 12:19, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Person:Thomas Wheeler (4) [10 September 2009]

I like your explanation. But I was getting confused with all the Thomas Wheelers flying around. I tried to add WeRelate links to all mentions of a Thomas Wheeler that was not the one whose page this was. The unlinked, plain mentions of Thomas Wheeler, whether Lt. or Capt., were what I assumed was this guy, but all the blue ones that took you to a different page are hopefully somebody else. I hoped that this would help people sort out which Thomas reference was which.

I changed the date of return to Concord from 1644, which is when he left, to 1664. Wasn't sure this was right but it followed 1657 so 1644 didn't seem right.

Back to the Thomases. 2 problems. There doesn't seem to be any children for Capt. Thomas so I couldn't find a page for his son. Right now it is an invalid link so shows up red. Don't know if you know enough about him to create one that is distinguishable from all the others.

Second, I got lost in the discussion of Thomas Wheeler of Milford (Orcutt), not knowing this branch well. Is he, or is he not, a different Thomas Wheeler? If he is different (as it seems to read), I wasn't sure which page to link him to.

So you may want to check my work and fix anything that seems incorrect. --Jrich 23:27, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Jrich, I edited the Wheeler surname page to start some disambiguation work on all of these guys. Normally I do this on a Surname-in-State category, but these guys cross two states.

Capt. Thomas Wheeler did have a son Thomas; they both died of their wounds within a year of an ambush during King Philip's war.

I haven't figured out all the other Thomas' just yet.--jillaine 00:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Jillaine your disambiguation work is on the category surname page, Category:Wheeler surname. --Beth 07:39, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

That's what I meant. Sheesh. I get confused about when to use Surname:Wheeler and when to use Category:Wheeler surname. I guess it should be on Surname:Wheeler, huh? We've had this discussion before somewhere else, and I can't remember if we reached a good conclusion. jillaine 09:28, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

I can't remember either Jillaine. I suppose it doesn't matter that much. You need to place it somewhere where new users researching these Wheelers may easily find it. But where is the question? --Beth 11:10, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

thank you [12 September 2009]

thanks Jillaine : ) that was very nice of you. I thought I would reply here, as too much space has already been spent on it on the watercooler. BobC is right though.. if I would have looked a little deeper before I spoke up, I would've seen the examples posted on the community portal. I am enthusiastic and now have a couple of days to seriously get into uploading things to WeRelate. It's a great site and I'm glad you guys have done so much with it. thanks again, Amelia J. or Amelia II : ) or 88buckaroo (i'm going to have to settle on a name soon... who knew there would already be an Amelia here? : )--88buckaroo 22:20, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Don't ask Jillaine about your name; I think she just called you Angela. <g> I don't think that I can remember the 88buckaroo for long term. How about Amelia J. or Amelia II? You are amazing for a newbie; ignore any negative comments. --Beth 22:38, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

thanks beth LOL! I think I'll try to go for Amelia J. (Amelia II sounds too much like a cruise ship : ) and I'm not bothered by much... I do tend to talk first and think later... bad habit, but I am excited about contributing : )

.... maybe I should go for Amelia Bedelia... or Amelia Airhead... : ) (just kidding, Amelia J. is best I think)

Re: whatcha doin'? [13 September 2009]

Not a clue. Havn't been near a keyboard (till this moment) in three days. Certainly havn't been uploading any GEDCOMs in an eternity. --Jrm03063 17:13, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps you're looking at stuff being done by User:Acorn104? --Jrm03063 17:16, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

There's a bug in the system that reorders the code when a users matches the page in their gedcom, even if they don't change any data, prompting an email to the watchers. I thought it was fixed, but I got one of the "fake" change notifications this morning.--Amelia 17:51, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

It could be fixed. My understanding was two parts of the system were saving different and this got fixed. But even if they all agree about how to save now, an old page that used a now obsolete ordering of elements compared to the new ordering, will still generate such a message. If this is so, the frequency of occurrence of this problem will decrease as they slowly wash out of the system. Dallan, of course, will have to provide the final word on this. --Jrich 18:03, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

Dupe merges [18 September 2009]

Thanks for handling that Bourgeois/Grandjehan bunch. I've been putting them off because the whole set of parents is speculative with not a shred of evidence. I didn't handle them yet because I would have to take them off. Much more complicated than just merging. Working these lists is almost like those groups that do each others housework. --Judy (jlanoux) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

What groups that do each others housework?--Beth 00:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I'd love to find someone to do MY housework! Oh, you mean, then I'd have to go do theirs? uh... never mind... jillaine 08:18, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Judy, well, I don't know that I made anything better. I did what looked right. I hope you'll go in and comment about the speculative nature of the connections. There were some pages where I added such commentary-- including adding a == Discrepancies== section when it was clearly confusing. (mmm.... "clearly confusing"...)

I'm rather enjoying this second round of de-duping. It's far more interesting. Appeals to the part of me that loved doing logic puzzles in the crossword puzzle books. (Which is why I think I like genealogy so much.) jillaine 08:18, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Anna Flath married to Saul [20 September 2009]

--Unkleoskar 10:51, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Anna Flath married to Saul [20 September 2009]

Sensitive Keyboard, Sorry

The Anna Flah that you questioned is Anna Eva Flath according to the Veilbrun Church Records

Cardin Corbit--Unkleoskar 10:54, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

Cardin, Thanks so much for answering. Would you be willing to edit her husband's page, making this point, and citing the source you've provided? Sounds like you're most familiar with this family. Thanks! jillaine 13:17, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

[24 October 2012]

Source citations [11 November 2009]

Hi Jillaine, Take a look at the citation on this page Person:Stewart Kelley (1). I created the citation in this manner to avoid the links generated in the gedcom export, to create a citation that meets my own standards, and to hopefully avoid having to change my citations in the future because of changes to WeRelate. By changes to WeRelate; possible data entry redesign and possible changes needed if and when an interactive genie program is created. Let me know what you think. Are there any negative outcomes that I have not thought of if I opt for this method. --Beth 18:20, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Wow, by the time I got here, seems like the entire Watercooler crowd contributed something to say... ;-) Looks good, Beth. I'm with others who are happy to see ANY decent documentation, no matter how formatted. -- Jillaine 08:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)

The problem is you think only good things will happen if free-form citations are used. If people see free-form sources as acceptable, why will they bother spending time matching sources during GEDCOM uploads? If everybody does what they want, soon the fields of WeRelate's source data will be filled with inconsistent data and be useless. Dallan will not be able to introduce changes because the fields don't hold what they are expected to hold, and free-form source entries entered in the text box will be unimproved by his changes because title and author are not in the places expected.

In a personal system, you can do what you want. For one thing, it is not that inconsistent because you are the only one using it and you probably do things the same way. But in a shared system you have to follow the rules or soon anarchy reigns. It seems fine until others start doing what you don't like. Naturally no system not entirely under your control will follow your preferences exactly. Following the community rules is part of the price of collaboration. You are not collaborating with a small group of friends here, but potentially the whole genealogy community from now until 20 or more years in the future. --Jrich 11:23, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Normally, I'd agree with you, jrich, but when given the choice of NO source data vs. source data in an inconsistent format, I'll go with the second any day. For me, it's a matter of which battles do you choose to fight. This is not a battle I'm interested in. Beth's putting up great source information. So what if it's in a format that's not consistent with the given fields, etc. I just can't get up in arms about this particular approach. Jillaine 16:58, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Well, I didn't think it was about the choice of no source data vs. source data, I thought it was about source data using WeRelate structures or source data in a format of Beth's liking. Because no source data means Beth isn't going to play if she can't make the rules, and I don't think anybody said that??

I also don't know if the source information is so "great". It is just source information. For example:

1930 U.S. census, Jones County, Texas, population schedule, Justice Precinct 3, ED 27-10, sheet 19B, dwelling 215, family 220, Stewart S. Kelley, digital images, Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com: accessed 26 Nov 2008); citing NARA T626, roll 2365.

Now this is a nice entry, but I went to look it up on heritagequest.com and the information here didn't work. After some searching I found it. But it took a little work because heritagequest.com doesn't index every name, so it would have been easier if I had known to look for household of Sam A Kelley rather than Stewart S Kelley. Heritagequest.com says this is roll 2365 [same] page 185 [it turns out 19B is page numbering within Precinct 3, 185 is the page numbering within the roll, the browse mechanism on heritagequest.com asks for year, roll, page].

The point being, that the medium I inspect the census on may have different search mechanisms than Beth's, and so, in effect, this entry was no really any better than simply saying Source:Jones, Texas, United States. 1930 U.S. Census Population Schedule. This name was chosen after the census naming conventions was decided on as the result of many, many discussions and much rehashing, etc.

Beth obviously does a nice job of documenting her sources. But she is not proposing this because there is some great information in this entry that is critical for others to have. She is doing it because she wants to be able to import entries from WeRelate into her system at home. So the public system is being made to match her private practices to the potential detriment of the public system (E.g., some day Dallan changes how source citations are handled and will we need a source citation cleanup project to fix all the oddball source citations?) I sympathize somewhat, because I don't think the Source system matches what anybody wants, exactly. I could use the same type of arguments to title the census entries the way I do on my home system, which doesn't match either of the above, and you, and Judy, and soon, where are we? --Jrich 18:35, 8 November 2009 (EST)

JRich, I am not doing this to import entries from WeRelate to my system at home. I did in fact enter numerous pages on WeRelate that I are not own my home system with the anticipation that when the gedcom export capability was functional; I could use the export for updating my home system. But the sources are such that by the time I cleaned them all up; I decided that I might as well hand enter the data which I am now in the process of doing. The Stewart page cited for this discussion was hand entered on both systems. The #1 reason that I entered the sources in the text section is because this site is still in beta and I do know that Dallan plans to make some adjustments to the source citation fields. As I previously stated, it will be easier to cut and paste from the text field, when the final version of the source citation fields are completed. Dallan has the final say; so if he says that I must use this system; then I will have to make a decision. I will consider your statements and make a final decision when the revisions are completed by Dallan. Thanks for the heads up about Heritage Quest. I will include the head of the household in subsequent citations. I do include the page number if I have it on the image or remembered to check for it on the subsequent pages. So sometimes my citations will have it and sometimes not. --Beth 20:29, 8 November 2009 (EST)

If not to import, then I am sorry for misrepresentation. 3 goals were listed which sounded like you were interested in doing rounds trips between home and WeRelate, keeping citations to your standard format. I think hand entering is the right answer anyway as I have said many times in other forums. I see why people want to use GEDCOM, but (although it is outdated standard and is itself some of the problem here), I think there is a fundamental difference in what one does on a personal system and what one does on a shared system that makes the data need processing during the exchange. By the way, the comment on Heritagequest was not meant to suggest a need to, in any way, cater to Heritagequest's shortcomings. I don't have pages for many of my census records either, not being aware for a long time after I started using the census of what was needed to collect, and too lazy to go back to get them. But, this is the type of stuff I would like to see WeRelate's source system do, gently guide people to good practice, by suggesting they provide the necessary locator, even if it allows it to be left blank. --Jrich 09:43, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Forgive me for butting in, but I see problems with "my own standards" as goals in a collaborative environment. If I was unaware of what you were doing, and saw this on a page I was contributing to or otherwise working on, I would normally attempt to convert it to the WeRelate standard using WeRelate Source: citations, if the page existed. The thinking being, of course, that using the same form seen on all the other pages makes it easiest for others to use and understand. --Jrich 19:04, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Yes, I do understand and agree with your statement; however at this point no one is collaborating. After Dallan completes his changes on the data entry page and if someone else collaborates then if that person wishes to change the source citation to link to a MySource or Source I will not object. Also I have hundreds of citations already linked which will probably all need to be changed after the data entry page changes. I believe that this method would enable me to cut and paste in the future data entry configuration. How do you like the HTML links in the source citations when you export a gedcom? Also Dallan has stated that there may be an option for one to enter their own citations. Actually my standard is ESM which one cannot effectively create using the present system on WeRelate. --Beth 19:38, 6 November 2009 (EST)

I am been pondering on your statement regarding goals in a collaborative environment. My goals were to collaborate; nothing more. When I joined WeRelate; I did not understand that I would be "Boxed IN" to a particular format. I am presently entering data that I only entered on WeRelate into my genealogy program because the gedcom export requires to much cleanup so this is the best alternative. Then I plan to complete the other trees that I started. After that I am undecided other than assisting with the administration. Other users only use footnotes so I guess that is an option but then all of the citation references must be in the text field. How much conformity on a Wiki do you deem necessary? --Beth 20:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

a

We are treading on sensitive ground for several reasons, not least of which is that I don't want to go into a big rant against "prevailing wisdom".

Re: collaboration. The wiki sets the rules that govern the collaboration. Personally, I have no use for inputting by GEDCOM and only slightly more for taking data by GEDCOM. A family tree on your own computer is yours to handle how you want, a family tree on a community website like WeRelate is a shared resource that is unlikely to be run by the same rules. To expect data in both cases to follow the same rules without some kind of translation effort is wishful thinking. For example, you most probably record the email address of fellow researchers that contribute information, but to publish the same on a website would be poor practice. To take big chunks of data out of WeRelate by GEDCOM export without investigating each fact (which takes longer than typing it in) is not how I work, but then I type reasonably fast.

Re: ESM. Really thin ice here, but my feeling is ESM is part of the problem. If ESM was easy to implement I think Dallan would have. He has said before he refers to her when he has questions. But we need something simple like the 10 Commandments, and she gives us the complexity of the US Tax Code. I estimate it would take a year to implement a source system that implements ESM, and my boss always doubled all my estimates when I used to do this sort of thing. --Jrich 22:11, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Feel free to email me personally about your big rant <grin>. I was not a member of WeRelate when the source pages were created; and I sometimes think the problems that are created by such outweigh the benefits. There are several users on WeRelate that create their own pages by adapting the page template to their use and do not follow the so called conventions for source entry. Are you against those also or just against mine because I used the "Source" field using the page template? --Beth 22:31, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Beth in that I also put my citation into in the Source text much of the time. I do link to the source pages when it seems useful, but much of the time it is not worth the effort. I see the same problem in that a source page can be changed by someone else into something completely different. And this happens blindly unless every source you use is on your watch list.

Re:ESM I disagree. She is a little over zealous in her requirements. But that isn't the problem. The problem is that we keep looking for software to do our citations and it can't. It is the user who must cite the source he used. Doing things right is always harder than slapdash. Creating a page full of convincing evidence with proper citations is definitely a non-trivial exercise. I do not understand why we look to ESM to design software. She isn't a software person. And her concern is the result - not the tools we choose to produce it. A perfectly acceptable citation can be placed on a page using a one-time source, a MySource, or a Source. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the user provided all of the information required in an acceptable form.

I don't really see the wiki enforcing any kind of consistency. In fact, many of the featured pages fly in the face of the conventions we promote. Many of the examples cited in help do not comply with these conventions. As far as I can tell it may be pure accident if any pages actually comply with any guidelines set out. It's the wild west and every man for himself. But out of this chaos, comes innovation and good things sometimes evolve.

With all of the empty pages I review, I welcome any type of source on a page. I'm not about to criticize it because it doesn't have a link to a source page of dubious accuracy. --Judy (jlanoux) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (EST)

I welcome the addition of web based ESM formatted bibliographic metadata set of templates. It would be great if I could integrate WeRelate with my new FamilySearch collaborative common pedigree. What can I do to help?--Mhelmantoler 00:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I think that I posted this previously somewhere on WeRelate but in case you missed it Ditto is a great clipboard program; [2]. I use this program for my repetitive census sources, when I cite census data for each member of the household. Then I change the details and text when applicable. By the way the program is much more useful entering a source citation in the text field. --Beth 23:25, 11 November 2009 (EST)--Jillaine 19:15, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

[24 October 2012]

Three John Fullers of Newton, Lynn, Ipswich [22 October 2009]

Hi Jillaine:

Neal Gardner here... I'm going to attempt sorting out the three John Fuller's of Newton, Lynn & Ipswich MA....particularly the extremely incorrect one - John Fuller b 1611 d 4 Jun 1666 (incorrect date, s/b 1697/98) and a slew of children listed, all of whom are incorrect w/birthdates well into the 1680s. I know you are quite busy, but if you would place the John Fullers on your Watchlist and gaze at it after a week or so ? I've finally found some sources for both the John born 1611 - 1697/98 and my own Fuller line, John ca 1620 - 4 Jun 1666. I've left a note for the "highly creative" Fuller page, but no response in the last month. Thanks --Neal Gardner 14:25, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Neal, this sounds great; thanks for doing this. Yes, I will watch them. Do I assume they include:

1. Person:John_Fuller_(95) (Ipswich) (1620-1666) m. Elizabeth Emerson
2. Person:John Fuller (9) (Newton) (1611-1698) m. Elizabeth Cole
3. Person:John Fuller (25) (Lynn) (1620-1695) m. Elizabeth Farrington

You may also want to edit the Category:Fuller_in_Massachusetts page to create a "disambiguation" (hate that word) text. See what I did here as an example: Category:Carter_in_Massachusetts

-- Jillaine 08:23, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Probably best to list by couple. I just checked to see if there are "dups" - don't see any offhand.

• John Fuller and Elizabeth Farrington (of Lynn MA):
• John Fuller and Elizabeth Cole (of Newton, then northern Cambridge Village MA)
• John Fuller and Elizabeth Emerson (of Ipswich MA)

There are at least 2 other Johns in MA same period in Salem MA and Barnstable County, that I won't tackle. Have already done some cleanup on the Ipswich and Newton Johns. Will check out "Ambiguity" shortly. Thanks ! --Neal Gardner 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Nice! [24 November 2009]

You're in a footnote in the NEHGR! Too bad the URL is so mangled that I can't find what they're citing, but I'm sure it's wonderful. Nice job! --Amelia 11:19, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Yeah, they didn't check their links before final publication. Pity. The correct URL is here:

Two Ruths married Two Richard Taylors of Yarmouth - Really? REVISED

and yes, I'm working on pulling or at least copying all of this stuff over to WeRelate. For example, see: Taylor in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Massachusetts, United States, which is really what they should have cited. ;-) Jillaine 11:34, 24 November 2009 (EST)

P.S. I'm finishing up (this month, I hope) a follow-up article to be submitted to the Register that builds upon what the October Whelden article raises-- namely focusing on the families of the two Richard Taylors of Yarmouth. Jillaine 11:38, 24 November 2009 (EST)

P.P.S. The article was accepted for publication in 2011!!! Jillaine 11:20, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

GenWeb Sources [1 January 2010]

Hi Jillaine, would you like some help with moving the GenWeb sources to research guides? I could start with Connecticut, since I had created source pages for all of them awhile back. Just let me know where they should go...--Jennifer (JBS66) 10:18, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks, Jennifer. Sure; go ahead. I'll stay away from Connecticut. Go to the Connecticut research guide page, and add a US GenWeb (or County) section, and then list the CT GenWeb pages under it. See what I started here: Alabama_Research_Guide although you should feel free to modify the page as you see fit. Thanks, Jennifer! Happy New Year! Jillaine 16:27, 1 January 2010 (EST)

One more thing, you can see a list of all the research guides here. Jillaine 16:28, 1 January 2010 (EST)

One MORE thing. The steps I'm taking are this:

1. go to the relevant Source page.
2. See what links there.
3. If nothing links there, click on the external link to check the link of the US GenWeb page. A lot that point to Rootsweb are dead since many US GenWeb counties pulled their information off Rootsweb. If this is the case, simply delete the page with a "nothing links here; dead URL". (Or if you want, find the new URL and then do the next steps:)
4. Go to the pertinent state research guide page. You'll find a list here.
5. Add or use the existing US GenWeb section header, and add a link to the pertinent County page (in alpha order if more than one).
6. Go back to the pertinent US GenWeb Source page and delete it with the reason: "Added link to relevant research guide"
7. Go on to the next one.

Thank you for your clear instructions! I tackled Connecticut, and I'll work on other states as time permits. What's confusing, is that not too long ago, we were creating these GenWeb source pages (see WeRelate:Source_review). Also, I thought I recall that we were going to refer people to FamilySearch's Research Guides instead of creating our own. I must have missed a conversation along the way...Best wishes for a Happy New Year!--Jennifer (JBS66) 19:57, 1 January 2010 (EST)

If you look at the Category:Research_guides page, you'll see that there *are* links to both the FSRG pages and the US GENWEB pages where appropriate. Where the discussion evolved about Research guides here was that the Family search research guides are very formulaic and dry; and the guides here could be more welcoming and encouraging of collaboration and community-building. Dallan agreed to step back and see what would transpire with having RGs in both places-- FamSearch and here. Jillaine 20:01, 1 January 2010 (EST)

Categorization [4 January 2010]

Thanks for your message on my page and the offer of support.

Initially, I was just working through Special:Uncategorizedcategories. Overall, I am trying map things to existing categories. There are a couple of things that would be good to follow-up on. I've created a new top-level category, Migration which is meant to fill what might be a relatively minor (currently) categorization hole. My thinking is that there are a number of things which are either partially categorized or have been placed in Category:Migration records without being Source pages per se. It turns out that ship passenger categories which use Template:Ships indirectly (for instance Category:Hopewell (May 1635) Passengers), recursively categorize and do not show up on the uncategorized list; this is a problem with the Template design, unfortunately. I think I've caught most of these through a search, though, and placed them in the new category if they are not already categorized to Category:Puritan Great Migration.

I've also revised the text for Category:Shared research pages to address auto-created categories of the form 'surname in place'. There are a couple of actions which could be taken here ... though it would be useful to implement a bot for the work. Articles and categories in Category:Surname in place need migration to Category:Shared research pages. However, I think that some high level partitioning would be good; by-continent would be a numerically reasonable slice, but not as useful as by-country. There is a master countries listing at Countries and I believe that every country there has a corresponding category (I went through and created many country-level categories about a year ago).

There are also several orphan place categories remaining, mostly at the town or county level in the United States. Related to this is the confusion related to US State categories. If you look at Category:United States, you can see two types of sub-categories; e.g. Category:Alaska and Category:Alaska, United States. The two types are created by different values used for meta-data; see, for instance, Repository:Alaska State Archives which uses simply 'Alaska' as the Place. Precedent set by town and county placenames as being fully resolved suggests that state names should also be fully resolved; i.e. 'Alaska, United States' should take the place of 'Alaska'. See, for instance, Repository:Alutiiq Museum & Archaeological Repository (Alaska) which place-maps to Category:Kodiak, Kodiak Island, Alaska, United States. This two-tier categorization might not be limited to the US and might also appear in other countries, depending upon how people enter meta-data (manually or by selection from the geonames listing).

So ... in my opinion, the main focus should be on de-orphaning categories, pages and images; my main concern is the notion that everything should sit in at least one category, which provides a context for the content.

--ceyockey 00:46, 4 January 2010 (EST)

The parent category for the "Ships" categories is Category:1630s Immigrants (or Category:1620s Immigrants). Those categories in turn are subs of Puritan Great Migration, which can in turn go into Migration. I don't think the ships themselves should go in Migration and clutter it when they can easily be in the sub structure.--Amelia 11:05, 4 January 2010 (EST)

I thought that perhaps they had simply not been categorized completely. An additional reason for creation of the Migration category is to float such things to the surface so that they can be addressed. I will recategorize momentarily. I would say that there may well be ships not affiliated with a recognized large-scale migration that would properly categorized to Migration, though these "stand-alone ships" could all be clustered into a sub-cat, perhaps Category:Individual transports (so that train and plane may also be included). As noted in the category text, if the page classifies as a Source page, though, it wouldn't go into this category. --ceyockey 19:19, 4 January 2010 (EST)--Jillaine 19:17, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

[24 October 2012]

Bayley Family [9 February 2012]

Hello Jillaine. My name is James Bailey and am the foremost Bailey historian. I have just signed to write(finally) a book on the Bailey family of which I have been researching since 1982. The data you have for John Bayleys parents is wrong. His father and mother were Robert Bayley and Jane(Oxford) Bayley. I have also traced the Bayleys(John being my direct ancestor) back many thousands of years. If you would like any more info I would be glad to furnish you. I am new to this site(just signed today) and don't know how to edit the info on John Bayley. Could you possibly edit it ? Thanks so much Jillaine.--Bailj307 17:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

william ward [22 March 2012]

                                                                                                                    hi william ward was my 9th greatgrandfather his son john ward is 8th his son richard ward b1665/66 d 1739 is 7th. 6th is thomas ward b1693-94 d 1770 5th is his son daniel ward b1725 d? 4th is abijah ward b.oct1758 in ny he was in revolutionary war 1776 4thregimentfrom ny aiso 2ed regiment d1835. 3rd his son robert ward b1806 d1860 in ny 2ed is son james monroe ward b1850/1 in ny moved to mich in 1860.? married delana (farrar) in cato township montcalm mich in nov 30 1871 dfeb4 1897 in mecosta co mich 1st glenn ward b 1885 d1924 
thanks r m ward--R m ward 08:51, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

Nutmegger Help [30 July 2012]

Jillaine,

Thanks for the lookup. Thats who I meant (although they dont have son Albert Batterson, who Im descended from, but since hes listed in the bible record I have no doubt hes his son). Is there a way we can speak via email? I dont want to post mine openly.--dmaxwell 14:55, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Sure. jillainedc at yahoo dot com--Jillaine 01:10, 30 July 2012 (EDT)--Jillaine 19:22, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

[24 October 2012]

WR's place pages for Germany [20 January 2011]

I am so confused... urg... :-) I'm trying to help a user name a place page where the town was in Germany and is now in Belgium. I know that you have quite a bit of experience with German genealogy, so I am appealing to you for help.

It looks like our pages are organized like this: town, historical kreis, province, historical Stadt, Germany. However, on the Place talk:Germany page, Dallan said pages should be titled town, kreis, stadt, Germany. I have no idea how to instruct this user. Any suggestions? --Jennifer (JBS66) 17:13, 9 December 2010 (EST)

UGH back at you! I mean: urg! I just reviewed that whole bru-hah about how to name Schwenningen, and frankly, I still don't follow the whole thing, but I know that in my own database, after that conversation, I've made it Schwenningen, Württemberg, Germany so I must have said to he-- with the kreis names.

If you follow the U.S. convention it would be PLACE:CURRENT-NAME|NAME-AT-TIME-OF-RECORD. So that's one option. And in fact, it's the simplest, so I'd just recommend you have her do that, despite what it says on Place talk:Germany.

I think...

what a help *I* am...

Jillaine 18:29, 9 December 2010 (EST)

You are a help Jillaine! It helps to know that others are as confused as I am :-) I'll ask Dallan what his intention is for the German pages, and add that to the How places in Germany are organized on Place:Germany. Thanks, --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)

So, Dallan answered my question about Germany place pages. The goal, apparently, is to title places "town, historical kreis, historical stadt, Germany. An exception is places in Preußen. Because half of Germany was under Preußen in 1900, I believe places in Preußen should be titled town, historical kreis, historical province, Preußen, Germany". I added this information to our Place:Germany page. Having a goal helps... --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:46, 20 January 2011 (EST)--Jillaine 19:23, 24 October 2012 (EDT)