Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:
If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 23:24, 31 May 2012 (EDT)
John Tate information [19 July 2012]
Hi Kay, I received your note regarding information on John Tate. There is conflicting information on the several John Tates from Augusta County, I was changing the information based upon the researcher listed on Genforum Message Board (added to his page).... Is the John Tate that you are referring to the one that married Elizabeth McClanahan? If so, that is supposedly THIS John Tate, son of James Tate. He was apparently confused with: John Tate (8), son of John Tate that died in 1802. Feel free to add family records to the Person Page for the John Tate that you have information for....
If you don't agree with the analysis done by the researcher on Genforum, you can add your own rationale to the Talk Page for the John Tate that you feel is incorrect.... Hopefully, between the sources available, we can get the correct information...
Jim:)--Delijim 19:11, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes, I'm aware of the confusion about the various John TATEs, but it's hard to see and compare two people at the same time in WR. Plus it's hard telling people with the same name apart in narratives.
KS--KayS 19:26, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
John Tate [7 December 2012]
Kay, I agree with your synopsis of the John Tate page. I've deleted the page. Better to just let it die with its errors...
JIm:)--Delijim 15:51, 7 December 2012 (EST)
Ruth Loomis [26 January 2015]
I don't know if you noticed the previous source citation, but that Ruth is not believed to be the same Ruth born in 1698. Births were not always recorded, so if she is indeed the daughter of Benjamin Loomis and Ann Fitch her birth very well may not have been in the Windsor vitals. I guess I could pull the Jacobus citation myself to see why he thought this, but he probably had good reason to.--Daniel Maxwell 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've found where Jacobus explains why the Ruth Loomis born in 1698 is not the one who married Peter Mills. He covers it in The American Genealogist Volume 21, page 221 in an article called 'Three Ruth Loomises and their Marriages'. Jacobus then goes to explain that the 1698 Ruth Loomis married Ebenezer Dart. If you'd like me to type out his reasons why, I can, but it has to do with Ruth (Loomis) Mills being conveyed land by her father Benjamin Loomis in 1742. Daniel Maxwell 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to type out the information; I'll check out the TAG article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I try to be sure my data is as accurate as possible. --KayS 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)