User talk:Jrich

Topics


Archives.org census records [31 January 2014]

I don't know if you have opened a door for me or a pandora's box. I didn't know census records were available at archives.org so I wanted to see what was available. I went to the source page for 1850 U.S. Population Schedule to find a link to the archives site. A link is there but when I followed it, I never did find the actual census records. What I did find was a lot of information on how to interpret the records.

Oh but now I've looked at the source page again and see that the link on that page goes to archives.gov and not to archives.org. Perhaps an additional link could be added to the source page with a bit of explanation as to what you will find at both sites.

While I was looking I checked the FamilySearch link too. That link goes to their whole catalog of links, which is a good link to know about, but is not a direct link to the census records.

Would you give me a URL to the census records at archive.org? I haven't found it yet! --janiejac 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your question. The link I left on Dallan's talk page were to the 4 specific census pages you needed at archive.org, which I don't think has anything to do with archives.gov. It is a non-profit organization trying to scan in all public domain material and make it available digitally. They have images of all census pages, but no index or search engine. There is no central page to start from. You have to use their main page to search for the specific reel you want (example search string might be "1880 St. Joseph Indiana Census", i.e., include the year, county and state), open the reel and flip through pages to find the image you want. Actually it's easier than that if you can use a search engine like the one at familysearch.org, ancestry, or heritagequest.com, so you know the reel and page/image number you are looking for. A description of the process was put on Watchlist a couple months back. But archive.org essentially only gives the raw pages. It takes a little more time (minute or two) to look up the image at archive.org after you have found it on, say, familysearch.org, or ancestry.com, but it makes for a more useful link.
familysearch.org normally searches all their records when you go to their record search screen. You can guide it towards a particular census but setting the residence criteria to, say, 1850-1850, if you want, or you can scroll to the bottom of the initial records search screen below the map of the world, click on the United States link, then scroll through the list of US databases to find a particular census. If you click on the link for one of the censuses, then you will be able to search just that census. --Jrich 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Recording intentions of marriage [14 March 2014]

I've been looking at the marriage section of the Rutland records I've been working on, and they seem to have the intention to marry and certificate that the intention has been published, but I haven't yet come across the actual marriage date, e.g. see this page for John Stone and Lucy Fletcher. I wonder if you could give me some advise about how to record this? When I come across the actual marriage date I'll add that, and of course I could link to the compiled published records as you do with the birth dates, but until then it seems helpful (and interesting) to add the information about the intention to marry.--Jocelyn_K_B 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If all I know is the intentions (sometimes 2 different ones in two different towns), I enter the marriage as Aft-the-latter-of-the-dates, enter the corresponding place, and enter "Intentions" in the Description field. Hopefully most people will be aware that intentions and marriage may be different locations, so this not be where they actually marriage happened, but after all, it is really just meant to be an estimate until it can be replaced by the actual marriage when known. This is a pattern I saw Susan Irish using and it seems pretty clean.
When I know a marriage and an intentions both, I enter the marriage, but add both sources. As you say, the record of the intention often adds color, or sometimes useful additional information. It is especially useful in working out double-dating issues. But adding facts for both gets clunky, because both, or all three if there are two intentions, would get propagated to both Person pages. So I only create a fact for the marriage proper and merely cite the intention source as supporting information attached to the marriage fact. That is the system I like best, others may do slightly different things.
If you look at image 48, it is the index to marriages, near bottom of left edge is John Stone Jr. on page 347. After a little trial and error this corresponds to image 277 and there you will find the marriage, 2nd line on the right side. I found it easier in the published records, but that suggested it should also be in the filmed ones, so I kept looking.
P.S. I wouldn't cite the published VRs Source:Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849, but the filmed ones Source:Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records, 1719-1874, since that is what you are looking at, but it really doesn't matter since both ways work. --Jrich 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Email address [14 March 2014]

Hi John, sent you an email but it bounced. My email address has not changed. --Beth 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Joseph Lyon, etc. [28 March 2014]

Thanks for sorting out the several Joseph Lyon entries and Mary Bridge vs Mary Aldridge.--Neal Gardner 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly followed Lyon Memorial, though they missed one record, I think. --Jrich 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dix vs Mix [1 April 2014]

Just confirming that you are correcting my error: surname is DIX & not MIX as related to Barker family from Andover, Massachusetts. This is all new info to me. I am entering information as documented by Charlotte Helen Abbott. Thank you for these corrections & I apologize for the inconvenience. rc--Rebekah Carlisle 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I put the reason why the change was made. Why would Charlotte Helen Abbott think it is Mix? You never put any reason, just changed it. Do you know who CHA is? Does she give sources or is she just asserting things in a PDF written for her family members who themselves have no interest in genealogy? What makes research valuable would be to know why it is thought to be true so it can be verified, as a couple things already can't be. The harder things are to find, the more important it is to know, not just what, but why. --Jrich 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dwelley Family [4 April 2014]

Thank you for pointing out the mix up between the father and son Richards. I did not see the relationship of John being a brother to Richard. Much more clear, thanks again, Ken--Mebeforbes 15:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so clear, but that they are brothers is probably right. There may be a few changes coming still... --Jrich 16:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"clean up" [1 May 2014]

Re: Person:Samuel Hubbard (27)

You are cleaning up bad information: what is the point? better to do research and correct the information.

Here date was wrong. The page will still look like a joke to people who know the right answer.

"Samuel died soon after birth" - this is obvious from dates, why add this note?

The note was wrong, he was born dead. He probably was not named Samuel. When information on pages is wrong, anything you add based on that information will be wrong also.

You don't watch so if you make a mistake, you never learn.

It is better to be interested in the page. Any cleanup that it is possible to do without interest or knowledge, is not very valuable cleanup. It can wait for the next interested editor. If it bothers you, take the time to do research. Otherwise, just let it go. --Jrich 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but I think your message is unfair, discourteous and unnecessarily aggressive ! Did you look at the history page ? Have you really read my edits ? the first and the second ? I added nothing, no note ! ! I just moved an information and removed the "!" beginning the sentence. My edits are limited mainly to replace uppercase for surnames and remove references UID. A wiki site such as WeRelate it is not a battlefield, and the work is collective ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 16:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As way of explanation, you attached the note which made the entire note show up as new text in red, but I certainly did miss that the text of the note was already on the page, and I am sorry for that.
I still feel it is pointless to clean up wrong data. Better use of time to actually find sources and do research before polishing up stuff that will just need to be removed or re-edited. And why remove UID from say Person:Thomas Cooper (22) yet leave a UID on the Family page Family:Thomas Cooper and Mary Raynor (2). What is the point of generating all those change notifications to bother people for such pointless changes. (Out of courtesy, you could mark them minor, as some people might request, but I review all changes I am notified about, so I personally don't care.)
Removing UID from pages could be more effectively and more efficiently done by some bot. Might be a better use of time rather than a lot of the pie-in-the-sky technology changes people talk about. I certainly think it can wait until there is something useful to be done to the page at the same time, so that the change notification is actually worth paying attention to. What this website needs is people to do the hard work of getting the information correct. This is the activity I want to see on this website, to show the true potential of collaboration, not just noise from lots of people saying nothing important. It is nice to know people care, but the substance affects all of us, the appearance is more likely to be a matter of personal preference. --Jrich 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Henry Clinton Wells [25 May 2014]

I am interested in any information you have on the Wells family. Henry Clinton "Clint" Wells was my 2g grandfather through his daughter, Edna, and her marriage to Willard Thompson. I'm very new to this game and can use whatever help I can get.

Sincerly,

James T Hazlett--Jay 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for all of your help!--Jay 05:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Dates [9 June 2014]

Need some help with a date if you've time. Here's what I have:

Watertown Records Vol. 1: 1650. Richard whetny and Martha Coldam : Maryed 19 (1) month. (1:15)

What is correct? 19 Jan 1650 as the person page currently reads, OR 19 Mar 1650?

Thanks--Frank 15:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The short answer: March.
Until 1751, in English controlled countries, legally the New Year started 25 March. March was numbered as the first month. (This made September the 7th month, appropriately, October the 8th month, etc.) Of course, we are aware now that once there was a different system, but back then, all they knew was that March had always been and still was the first Month. I can't imagine dealing with the year starting in the middle of the month: Hobart's Journal seems to put all of March under the new year, but the marriages in Buxton Maine seemed to be sent in to the town clerk all the way through the end of March when they did the year's returns. If you split March at the 25th, you end up with having parts of 13 months in your year, with March at the front and also at the end.
Some churches may have adopted a year starting in January before it was legally set, but town records like this were almost always based on what was the legal definition: March was the first month (after all, they usually had to be sent into the county courts and so their freedom to choose their system was constrained). Double-dating for this record would be 1649/50, since the date is before 25 Mar, and technically part of 1649 back then, but considered part of 1650 now. Many people don't understand this well, and it is not uncommon to see months (for some reason) 1, 2, or 3 months off in these cases. Likewise, a date between 3 Mar 1649 and 3 Mar 1650, is really 3 Mar 1649/50, input by somebody that doesn't understand what double-dating is. As always, each case must be judged on its own evidence, but generally pages with such errors are unsourced, and feel free to change them when you find them. Sometimes, though, even sources that should know better (Source:Koleda, Elizabeth Potts. Gaskill Genealogy) screw up dates pretty bad. --Jrich 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks.--Frank 17:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for catching that date for Caleb Whitney. We just talked about that yesterday. Appreciate you double checking... :-)--Frank 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Missing WR pages [25 June 2014]

Hi John, I've been AWOL for awhile and coming back today, when I click on Help on the top right menu, the Support, Watercooler and Suggestion pages are blank! What is happening here? Were the pages taken down for some reason or were they hacked? The Portals page is still there. --janiejac 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the help menu was changed and I'm guessing an inadvertent error was made. The link is to an article in the main (unnamed) namespace Watercooler instead of to the actual watercooler in the WeRelate talk namespace WeRelate Talk:Watercooler, which is still there. Same for Suggestions and Support. --Jrich 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems the Nominate link is also affected under the Admin menu. I'll send Dallan an email to let him know of the problem. Thank you Janie for being so observant! --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tinkman [29 June 2014]

Thanks for fixing my mistake with connecting her to the wrong Isaac Tinkman as father. There seems to be confusion of records on ancestry.com public trees about this family. But a cousin sent me her research today and the Isaac in the line I'm researching is the son of Helkiah Tinkman, not Ephraim.--Tammyhensel 17:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's Hezekiah. You might want to check your cousin's research against the primary records. It sounds suspect. The previous stuff certainly was. --Jrich 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well, my error. Hezekiah in some books, but Plymouth VRs do seem to say Helkiah. Clearly why the primary records should be consulted. --Jrich 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

She has access to better records than I, but hadn't had a chance to send anything to me and so I became impatient and started consulting public trees. You'd think I know better by now. Thanks again. I appreciate any and all help!--Tammyhensel 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Mehetabel [8 July 2014]

Mehetabel is the Old Testament spelling and the most common, though not always used spelling. More tombstones use Mehetabel than not.--Neal Gardner 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jacobus used "Mehitabel" throughout Families of Ancient New Haven. See pages 767-68 for his take on the spelling or misspelling of names.--jaques1724 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that argument, Neal, is that you used Mehetable not Mehetabel. The misspelling was accurately cited in the source citation, but that doesn't mean the page should be titled that way. I am pretty much in agreement with Jacobus in thinking the spelling is not a matter of provable fact, mostly personal preference of the reporters (i.e., us). I never have figured out how to reconcile one spelling at birth with another at marriage and another at death, and none of those records written by the person themselves anyway, leaving me clueless if they had a preference. So for a page title I pick the one I think is the most universal, which I based on wikipedia defining Mehitable and not Mehetabel as a feminine given name. But bottom line, I didn't think it was necessary to change the spelling when you didn't even add anything to the page. Add your spelling as an alternate if you insist, but I bet if you bother to find a marriage or death for her, it will be spelled differently. Maybe Mehitabell, or Mahitable, or who knows what. I don't think the spelling of the record matters until at least the time of Webster's Dictionary (about 1830), maybe even not until the 1900s. --Jrich 01:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia, so what.. Leave it alone. Leave me alone. Pick on somebody else.--Neal Gardner 01:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


I didn't change the title, by the way, Mr. Accuracy--Neal Gardner 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Bristol Family [21 July 2014]

Thanks for your correction on Eliphalet Bristol, abt.1711-1803. I was installing a hook to attach a part of a large family history that my sister, Minerva Bristol Forker was working on in her last years. This is so her work will not be lost to the local family. She died before posting on the internet was a workable option for her. I found your assistance welcome and especially since there seemed to be a live person who took notice of the posting. More to come.--MEnMin 13:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph [24 August 2014]

Would you be interested in reviewing and/or editing the article I just created concerning the differences in sources for the marriage of James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph: Disambiguation. James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph. I'm trying to get some of the articles posted on my Jackson site input to WeRelate before my site goes away. At the time I wrote them, they were helpful to me, but how much should go on WeRelate is uncertain in my mind. If this pg abt James and Mary is good, it should be linked to their marriage somehow. --janiejac 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the article explains much of the confusion well. I would love to look into this if it was Massachusetts, but this region and these families are not really familiar to me. And this looks like it would take a lot of work to straighten out. --Jrich 20:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. --janiejac 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)