User talk:Jrm03063

Topics


GEDCOM Export Ready [5 March 2014]

The GEDCOM for tree mason is ready to download. Click here.


GEDCOM Export Ready [5 March 2014]

The GEDCOM for tree tuttle is ready to download. Click here.


GEDCOM Export Ready [5 March 2014]

The GEDCOM for tree noyes is ready to download. Click here.


Wikipedia information [20 March 2014]

Hi Jrm, can you please expedite the Wikipedia Template population for Bernard Kroger? I believe you helped with one of these a while ago...

Thanks much and best regards,

Jim:)--Delijim 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Please be aware that I am no longer a routine contributor. --jrm03063 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your assistance:) Have a great week,

Jim:)


Removing categories [20 November 2014]

Would you mind explaining why you removed Person:Richard Dummer (2) from both categories I added?--Daniel Maxwell 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I just finished the e-mail explanation. Feel free to revert/modify things any way you like - I did that one page as an illustration. --jrm03063 17:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir Winston Churchill ancestry [1 January 2015]

"At the end of the 16th century the Lord of the Manor of Standish was Sir Henry Winston. His memorial in Standish's 14th century Church of St Nicholas carries a 20th-century sign:
"This monument to Sir Henry Winston was restored to commemorate the marriage in 1618 of his daughter Sarah to John Churchill from which union descended Sir Winston Churchill K.G. O.M. C.H. M.P. 1874-1965 Prime Minister 1940-1945. 1951-1955"
"This Sarah Winston's grandson became the first Great Duke of Marlborough, ancestor of Sir Winston."

I found this in the Wikipedia article on Standish in Gloucestershire. It has not been transferred to WeRelate. We appear to have a conflicting entry for this marriage, so I hesitate to add it myself.

Happy New Year

--Goldenoldie 11:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


email? [5 October 2015]

I got your email, but cannot respond as you didn't include your address and I cannot send email via WeRelate due to your user settings (according to the error message). --Trentf 13:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Thank you! [18 nov 2015]

Thank you for your encouragement to work with the stuff you already put into WR. I had already wondered why some Dutch persons seemed so English. I'm currently working on my mothers pedigree. I had not expected it would bring me so far into the Middle Ages. And that I am very likely to be a descendant from people that played key roles in the history of my region of birth. As a small child I was fascinated by the ruins of the Medieval castles, like Brederode and Meerenstein, wondering about the people who once lived there. And now I'm studying their geneology and history. What I like about WR is that it offers the opportunity to build on the research of others and let others work on yours. If we work seriously, the result should improve. And I have learned the WR community to be one of serious geneologists. So thank you for your encouragement and the opportunity to work with your input (and I hope others will benefit from mine).

Edwin--Edwin 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Thanks again! [23 nov 2015]

That was a nice clarification. I already had the impression that this was an example of "advanced wiki". Nice to know how and why you applied it.

(must take some time some day to learn those tricks too :-)--Edwin 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the clean-up [29 December 2015]

Thanks for cleaning up Person:Abigail Whitney (1). It really helps when someone with some familiarity with the family can sort out some of the problems. --GayelKnott 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Wikidata item [27 February 2016]

Thank you for asking my opinion on the wiki data item.

I've needed some time and experience to appreciate it.

I think it is a valuable addition to a profile.

1) I think wikipedia usually is a good secundary source, reflecting the general consensus among geneologists and historians. Of course this may vary from person to person, depending on the author and the depth in wich the article was reviewed. The strength of WP here is that it is fully open for review.

2) I think the historical and genealogical body of knowledge may differ from country to country. Generally one may expect deeper knowledge in an language area or country that a person may be perceived to be a member from. For French nobility: look at France.

The tool helps to identify language areas that may be interesting to explore: on WP and other secondary sources.

There are some limitations though. I have seen that the tool does not pick up on all information in the article (I guess only what is tabulated?). And of course we are not all omnilinguistic. I'm limited to dutch, enlish and german and can pick up on french, italian and spanish.

Nevertheless, wikidata is a valuable addition I think!--Edwin 11:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for giving it some thought as I requested. Since you were working out there, I wondered how it seemed to you.
The individual commenting below has done so against my express wishes that he not post upon this page ever again. So as not to encourage him, I will communicate with you separately via e-mail (and will provide my private e-mail at that time). --jrm03063 01:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. If you did, it must have gotten erased when you deleted your Talk page and all its history. I can't find it. I wasn't really addressing anything you said, which I hope is clear. I was responding to a comment I thought was often untrue, to wit, "wikipedia usually is a good secundary source", based on my long experience with it. I responded here because the statement was posted here. I tried to respond with what I thought were factual examples, to which I would welcome fact-based responses if it is desired to explore this issue more. You appear to be moving your conversation to a non-public exchange, which seems appropriate if you do not want this to be a public discussion. --Jrich 05:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia is often not a good secondary source. The website itself has a policy against genealogy, and what little they do put on pages is often copied from the first source they find when writing the article, usually by an author who does not understand how to do genealogical research. Therefore, bad assumptions are made, complicated situations are rarely analyzed correctly, data is not confirmed against additional sources, and they do not know how to, or care to, resolve discrepancies. Not their job. To the extent that a wikipedia page lists its sources, it may be a useful tool for locating good sources, but use of wikipedia as a source has resulted in many bad errors, such as Person:Fletcher Webster (1), son of Daniel Webster, where the wikipedia article lists two sources and two references. While some of these sources had the right birth date, as do several other readily available sources on the Internet, the wikipedia article chooses to use a memorial plaque found on Find A Grave which happens to be engraved wrong, and then copied the data off the plaque wrong. Or there is Person:Mary Walcott (2), one of the Salem Witch Trial girls. The article gives her two marriages, but anybody looking up both marriages instead of just the one as the article did, would realize they are overlapping marriages necessarily involving two different woman. Or Person:Nathan Webb (1), whom wikipedia gives a wife Ruth and a daughter Elizabeth without realizing Elizabeth was his second wife, not his daughter. Any person looking at the records of Uxbridge, where he preached all his life, or reading his will which mentions Elizabeth his well Beloved wife, or distributing his estate to brothers and sisters instead of children, would realize this, but because genealogy is not important to wikipedia, they do not make this effort. Want more? I can go on all day. --Jrich 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Care in data entry [25 April 2016]

As you typically enter no sources, on such pages I always assume you are copying from Savage. However, recently, this assumption suggests Savage is being copied wrong, as a high percentage (maybe half?) of the pages I have been notified that you have changed, have had errors, several of which apparently appear to be the result of copying Savage wrong. If you stray from Savage, it would be courteous to enter the source, your work being so closely associated with Savage.

  • 18 Apr: Person:Hannah Dane (6): unsourced death date 1730. Death date did not come from Savage, was imprecise, without location, wrong, and 2nd marriage was not entered, knowledge of which is required to find the correct death date, which occurred in 1734/5.
  • 18 Apr: alt death date of 1676 added to Person:Stephen Otis (11) when his marriage is dated 10 years after this (1685/86) so he could not have died in 1676: apparently hasty reading of Savage which gives this death date to Stephen's wife's father.
  • Further work on Otis family exposed from earlier entries:
Person:Thomas Allyn (10) entered with birth 1665, death 1669, yet shown as married even though shown as died at age 4?
Person:Elizabeth Otis (3), wife of Thomas Allyn, death date entered as 1669 (their marriage was 1688, the existing marriage entered by you to David Loring showed a date of 1699).
  • 19 Apr: Family:James Patterson and Rebecca Stevenson (2): death location of son James given as Dunstable even though Savage says "a. 1718 rem. to Groton, there d. 1737", son Jonathan entered with incorrect birth date not found in Savage (31 Aug 1686, when Savage says 31 Jan 1686 which is correct) and no source given.
  • 20 Apr: Person:Samuel Payson (5): entered with birth date 10 years off (1672, Savage has it right, giving 1662).
  • 21 Apr: Renamed Family:George Phillips and Elizabeth Unknown to George Phillips and Elizabeth Bond with no sources, apparent misreading of Savage who says "Eliz, by Bond, with happy conject. thot. to be wid.of capt. Robert Welden", i.e., referring to Henry Bond the author of Watertown Genealogies, not giving her surname.
  • 22 Apr: estimated birth of Person:Sarah Pitney (1) input as 1632 even though Savage says she was age 7 when came on Planter in 1636, which would be 1629 [and most sources, e.g. here give 1635, making it 1628].

These are just the errors of commission, not counting errors of omission and various errors made by Savage (such as Samuel Payson having the wrong wife) and simply copied. --Jrich 04:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to offer your complaints to someone in authority. --jrm03063 15:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

John Evelyn [24 May 2016]

I was tidying up the places for John Evelyn, the diarist, and found that your descriptions of places of death and burial, taken from Wikipedia, did not match with the WR atlas. Before I change them, I thought you might like to take a look at the page in edit mode as it now stands.

  • Dover Street is now considered to be in London, but in 1706 was in Westminster, Middlesex. (It is between Bond Street and Albemarle Street--I worked for John Murray, the publishers, in Albemarle Street 50 years ago in my first year in England and had many enjoyable lunchtime walks in the area.)
  • The Evelyn Chapel is in St. John's Church in Wotton, Surrey, England, and not in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

I know you are not responsible for the WR page on [[Person:John Evelyn (1)|John Evelyn]], the grandson of the above. I will attempt to clean it up in the next few days using only Wikipedia as a reference. It amazes me that anyone would leave a webpage describing an historical figure available for viewing by anyone in the state it is currently in. It does no credit to WR.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 07:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are very kind to consult me, but I'm very happy for you to proceed on the basis of your best sense of the matter. --jrm03063 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)