User talk:Kennebec1

Topics


Welcome [27 August 2009]

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:

  1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
  2. Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
  3. Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! --DFree 00:12, 3 June 2009 (EDT)


WTF is going on?????? I am now getting mail which is totally unrelated to my tree.

I am gettng more than pissed off with iall you diots [removed profanity] about with my tree, you haven't a clue about England nor any where there.

[removed profanity] stop it now.

Explanation needed.

Yours pissed offly--Pigeonnier 02:15, 27 August 2009 (EDT) Removed profanity, none allowed on WeRelate. --Beth 06:30, 27 August 2009 (EDT)


Blocked user. --Beth 07:52, 27 August 2009 (EDT)


Brenda, this is user is blocked. The user was verbally abusive. --Beth 12:03, 27 August 2009 (EDT)


Cummings Sep 2008 Backup_2009-06-04.ged Ready for Review [4 June 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 21:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Blaisdell2009-06-04.ged Ready for Review [4 June 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 21:51, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Blaisdell2009-06-04.ged Imported Successfully [5 June 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may view them by launching the Family Tree Explorer and opening the family tree into which this GEDCOM was imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 22:51, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Remeschatis.ged Ready for Review [12 June 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 19:05, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Remeschatis.ged Imported Successfully [14 June 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may view them by launching the Family Tree Explorer and opening the family tree into which this GEDCOM was imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 12:32, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Foren Family Tree.ged Ready for Review [5 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 11:26, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Error importing Foren Family Tree.ged [5 July 2009]

We had an error while attempting to import your GEDCOM. This is most likely our fault. We will review the error and should have your pages ready tomorrow (or Monday if tomorrow falls on a weekend). There is no need to re-import your GEDCOM file.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 13:38, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Foren Family Tree.ged Imported Successfully [5 July 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may view them by launching the Family Tree Explorer and opening the family tree into which this GEDCOM was imported.

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 23:39, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

What the heck is a family? I guess I don't really know either... [6 July 2009]

I definitely understand the problem. In the case of the unwed teen mothers I mentioned without specificity, I was pretty much sworn to secrecy - and this is related to something that is now 100 years old! I know that the professional genealogical societies have specific rules about keeping births resulting from incest secret for a period of not less than 100 years (and that may be from the time of death of the person born of the union).

As I've said before, I have no illusions that a genetic pairing makes a family worthy of respect. But we can't be purveyors of inaccurate or dishonest information either.

I've often wondered, for reasons such as the above, and also in order to be able to perform contemporary data collection with certainty of its survival, if there wasn't a way that data could be collected and "time capsuled". Certainly outside the scope of werelate, but maybe an interesting task unto itself. I suppose this is something that the LDS folks might do - they have a longer view on some of these sorts of things.

It's sort of interesting, how a simple word and idea like "family", when analyzed and discussed to an extremity, starts to become a much more squirrelly concept than it first seems. Very much mirrors the business of "marriage" these days I suppose. --Jrm03063 13:08, 6 July 2009 (EDT)


Adding cemetery place pages [7 July 2009]

Hi Brenda,

I am a volunteer administrator with WeRelate. Thanks for adding the new cemetery pages. In the future, when you add a cemetery place page, please add the category Cemeteries of [county, state, country], for example, Category:Cemeteries of Sagadahoc, Maine, United States to the text field. Thanks. --Volunteer Administrator-Beth 10:06, 7 July 2009 (EDT)


thank you [5 September 2009]

Hello Brenda : )

thank you for your response. I have read much of the topic you referred me too. I really thought I had looked, but I totally missed that! wow. what a complicated issue. I like Jrm03063's Tuttle Source Transcript... It's seems like an answer, if only temporarily, until Dallan figures out a permanent structure. thank you again for your help : ) Amelia (88buckaroo)--88buckaroo 20:48, 4 September 2009 (EDT)


John Strother family bible [7 September 2009]

Hi Brenda, This is a source difficult to describe! And I have NO idea what the coming renaming will do to it. I actually used 2 sources for this Strother line. First I found what I thought was a transcription of the Bible pages which was part of an article published in 'Virginia Genealogist', by John K. Gott, Vol. 24, No. 4, October 1980, p 281. Someone else must have seen the actual publication and copied the portion of the article that quoted the Bible pages.

I used that online copy of Mr. Gott's transcription as source for the family. But then someone told me there was an error in the transcription of Nancy Jackson's birthdate - and I don't know if the error was also in the original article or not. So I went looking for info from the original bible pages and found the images at the Library of Virginia. That image is extremely difficult to read but I was able to make out the correct date for Nancy Jackson. I was grateful for the transcription because the image is nearly impossible to read. So there are actually three sources for the these Bible pages:

  1. The images at the Library of Virginia; http://image.lva.virginia.gov/BibleII/39499/index.html
  2. The article by John K. Gott published in the 'Virginia Genealogist' periodical (which I haven't seen)
  3. The copy of the Bible material posted online here: http://boards.ancestry.ca/surnames.strother/175/mb.ashx

I had another Source that was similar in that there was first the original and also an online transcription. Jrm03063 worked to straighten that one out. It is here if you want to see what he did with it: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Source:History_of_Hamilton_County%2C_Ohio_:_with_illustrations_and_biographical_sketches

So I have two sources on WeRelate that can possibly be combined:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Source:John_Strother%2C_1781-1863%2C_Family_Bible
http://www.werelate.org/wiki/MySource:Janiejac/Virginia_Genealogist

So feel free to do whatever needs to be done with this Source and MySource. I probably shouldn't have used the periodical as a MySource as I never actually saw that. What I saw was the online copy of it. --Janiejac 23:50, 7 September 2009 (EDT)


GEDCOM Export Ready [19 October 2009]

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


GEDCOM Export Ready [19 October 2009]

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


GEDCOM Export Ready [19 October 2009]

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


GEDCOM Export Ready [19 October 2009]

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


dup source ? [26 October 2009]

Brenda, I saw you volunteered to work on some dup sources. I just uploaded a GEDCOM and tried to match a few of MySources to regular sources. Ugh! I found Source:Baldwin, Richard P. Verity Family of Long Island, New York (958402) and Source:Baldwin, Richard P. Verity Family of Long Island, New York (152192). But I didn't use the films for my source, I used the online book available at Heritage Quest; I think, I don't even remember now. I know it wasn't FHL film. But I went einie, minie, moe and picked one. Not be best way to source genealogy! I guess I'm saying this is what folks are going to do. Perhaps I should just left it as MySource! (sigh)--Janiejac 19:03, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I have done the same thing myself - einie minie moe! And then gone back and tried to sort through how to/if to combine the sources. I'll look at the Verity books, tho - in my odd brain, deduping is actually kind of fun. Like solving a puzzle...--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (EDT)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [31 October 2009]

You're not done yet!

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 Slocum.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 18:43, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [31 October 2009]

You're not done yet!

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 Slocum Export.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 19:25, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [31 October 2009]

You're not done yet!

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 Cummings Export.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 19:27, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Slocum Export.ged Imported Successfully [4 November 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 14:27, 4 November 2009 (EST)

Cummings Export.ged Imported Successfully [5 November 2009]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 23:08, 5 November 2009 (EST)

GEDCOM Export Ready [17 November 2009]

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


GEDCOM Export Ready [25 December 2009]

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


Changes to James Ridley [5 January 2010]

Hello, I am one of the volunteer administrators on WeRelate, and I noticed changes you made to the following family:

Family:James_Ridley_and_Mary_Smalley_(1)

You added two daughters, Sarah and Anne Ridley to this couple, with no birthdates. I show aht Sarah (b. 13 Apr 1743) and Anne (b. 28 Dec 1740), were children of James Ridley's first marriage to Ruth Small. They need to be removed and moved to his other family page. You also added a Matthew Ridley (b. 1766) and a William Ridley (b. 1783, which is 18 years after James Ridley's last daughter, Rachel). Do you have any sources for these two children? It is somewhat doubtful that William would have been a child of James Ridley's second marriage.

Please let me know what documentation you have on these changes. If in error, they need to be revised.

Thanks,

Jim--Delijim 11:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Thanks for catching these issues! I agree that Sarah and Anne are incorrect and removed them. I can't find any source for Matthew and William (it came from my GEDCOM import and who knows where originally?) but I'm going to keep looking for them, as they may well be grandchildren of James or connected to a related family. They would have been born in Harpswell, Maine, so I will check with Harpswell vital records and other sources before deleting them. Thanks ---Brenda (kennebec1) 10:21, 5 January 2010 (EST)

I think Matthew is meant to be Matthias, as there is a Matthias Ridley in the census. But I don't know his parentage at this point. I'll keep exploring. And I think William is Mark Ridley's son (grandson of James). Looking for documentation... --Brenda (kennebec1) 10:30, 5 January 2010 (EST)


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [10 January 2010]

You're not done yet!

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 Colby Export.ged, your next step is to review what your pages will look like, review any potential warnings, and combine (merge) people in your GEDCOM with matching people already on WeRelate. You need to review your GEDCOM before it can finish importing.

Click here to review your GEDCOM

Once you have finished your review and marked your GEDCOM Ready to import, one of our administrators will review your GEDCOM and finalize the import. This usually happens within 24 hours. You will receive a message here when the pages have been created.

--WeRelate agent 14:26, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Colby Export.ged Imported Successfully [10 January 2010]

The pages from your GEDCOM have been generated successfully. You may now:

For questions or problems, leave a message for Dallan or send an email to dallan@WeRelate.org.

--WeRelate agent 17:50, 10 January 2010 (EST)

Census pages [17 January 2010]

Hello Brenda, I noticed that you have been creating a number of county census pages. It would be helpful if you could add a couple of items into the text field for each census page that you create:

{{XXXXCensus}}

[[Category:XXXX SSSS census]]

where XXXX is the census year and SSSS is the census state.

This will put the appropriate census template on the page, and sort it into the right category. An example of this can be found on Source:Fairfield, Connecticut, United States. 1900 U.S. Census Population Schedule and detailed help at Source page titles.

Lastly, if you could also add the year range and subject as Census records, that will help others find the pages with our search function. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:00, 17 January 2010 (EST)


Thanks for the reminder; creating pages on the fly and forgot those important census steps...--Brenda (kennebec1) 10:24, 17 January 2010 (EST)


Watching pages you edit [8 February 2010]

Hello Brenda, you may already be aware of this, but just in case...

You seem to be watching pages that you merge/edit. If you want, you can turn that off in Preferences. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (EST)


Thanks, I had forgotten that...--Brenda (kennebec1) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (EST)


Vital Records Gray [4 March 2010]

This is not a complaint about your renaming, more it is a rant about source naming conventions. I think this particular work is an excellent example of why the source naming conventions are poorly designed.

This work is compiled by Howard Black, and sold by him. It appears, but never indicated, that it is based on town records. The title is misleading as my comments on the page attempted to make clear, since it really misses much of the history of this town (incorporated 1778, very few records from first century with no explanation: burned? lost? why?). The arrangement is peculiar, esp. the way marriage records are handled. It says "the death records list the place of birth if known". Does this mean the author added his own research or that it is merely transmitting what the town records do? So it is not at all clear that this is a equivalent record to the actual government records, and I believe it is somewhat misleading to name it in the standard format.

Since the quirks of the compiler stamp this work, as is potentially the case in any compilation, I wish the standard had just followed traditional bibliography behavior, and list this as a book compiled by Howard Black. Searching by various subfields like Place Covered and Subject should be able to return this item without needing to give it a non-intuitive title that differs from what a reader sees on the title page. --Jrich 13:13, 4 March 2010 (EST)

I understand completely, and thought about leaving it as you had created it (Book type with Author. Title. name format) after reading your very useful comments on the title. I decided that if I were searching for Gray, Maine titles or if I had made a note that I had used that source, and was trying to get the source to "pop up" in the citation I was entering, I'd expect that one to pop up under the Town, County, State, Country. Title. format so I went ahead and changed it. There is an semi-official series of Maine vital records to the year 1892; this particular book doesn't seem to meet even those standards for compilation of vital records. But anyone using the source will presumably have your well-described caveats and warnings. Does the "text" box for a source export as part of the export from WeRelate? I hope so.
The title clearly falls in a gray area - it really doesn't seem to be well-sourced enough to count as an equivalent of a government record. So I could definitely live quite happily with changing the "Source Type" back to Book and the "Source page name" back to Author. Title., given the extent of the lack of sources in the book. Anyway, the above describes my reasoning for changing it; I would be happy to change it back since I definitely have mixed feelings.
I guess my question is, given the clear weaknesses of our naming convention... but having to live with our naming conventions as they are for now... Does this source best fit the Place. Title source page naming convention, even with its weaknesses, so that is appears with other, similar titles, if there are any? Or is it so deficient or non-representative of official records that it should use the Author. Title. source page naming convention?
You're the one who actually tried to use the source...I'm just checking out Maine sources. What do you think?
I've been doing a lot of reviewing of Maine based titles, and have been making a point to distinguish original records (microfilmed) from compiled records in book or manuscript form or "extracted" records compiled from the microfilm. I have definitely learned, from you in particular, that "quality matters" when it comes to sources. My small contribution to that is to at least try to clarify which type of records are which. --Brenda (kennebec1) 13:40, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Given the WeRelate naming convention, I don't think it would be supportable for me to argue strongly for the book approach. But without looking at original records, I frankly cannot tell how representative this source is of them. The dedication thanks town employees, which suggests he at least looked at the town records, but there is absolutely no description of what is actually being printed, his research, verbatim transcripts, or a mixI have already gone on and on about all the ways it falls short of common practice, all of which makes me hesitate to make any assumptions. --Jrich 14:23, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Transferred source links from Website category [8 March 2010]

Hi Brenda, you left the following message at Category:Website:

"I set up this category to be able to find these sources again to check to see if they need updating. --Brenda (kennebec1) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (EDT)"

Since it was agreed to eliminate Online and Website as categories in WeRelate, I moved the sources you put there into Category:Family histories and nominated the Website category for speedy delete. Hope that isn't a problem with you. Take care.--BobC 12:47, 8 March 2010 (EST)


MGHR/MHGR [10 August 2010]

I like the google links you added to the page for this source. I will have to try to remember they are there. Google does a horrible job handling multiple volumes and it can be a real pain when you know you want a specific volume and don't have a search string that finds just that volume. They will save a lot of time.

I think this is the first time I read your Talk page. I was going to ask if you were familiar with the Cummings of Cape Elizabeth (particularly Rhoda), but I did some browsing through your Cummings tree and it suggests you wouldn't. --Jrich 22:21, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes! I agree, I really hate trying to find multi volumes on Google. I've been going through Maine-related sources and trying to add Google, Internet Archive, and WorldCat links where applicable.
My particular Cummings are late immigrants (1871) and a fairly small family... But my parents (my father's name is Robert Cummings) live across the street from another Robert Cummings (!!) who works at the City Hall in Bath with me. I've helped him do a bit of genealogy on his Cummings' - and I know there is at least one southern Maine African-American Cummings family as well. Might be fun to do DNA testing to find out when/if/how long ago any of us are connected... In my case, my immigrant is still a bit of a brick wall; he immigrated when young (about 10 years old according to the family story), but I don't know if he came here and lived with relatives or was on his own. --Brenda (kennebec1) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Source Merge of Burleigh - Ingalls Family [11 November 2010]

Great improvement! I could never understand why WeRelate could sometimes have 3 or more Sources for the same book when the only difference is the repository. The annoying problem is trying to decide which to use when citing a reference, not that it makes a source difference, but I prefer to send someone to a free website. Howard--HLJ411 15:17, 11 November 2010 (EST)


Looking for advice on merging/redirecting sources [29 December 2010]

I note that you have volunteered to de-duplicate sources, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at a duplicate for me.

I found 2 pages for what I believe is the same source: Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams, of Braintree, Mass., and His Descendants and Source:Adams, Andrew N. Genealogical History of Henry Adams of Braintree, Massachusetts and His Descendants the difference being in whether or not Massachusetts is abbreviated. When I look at the details, the first is clearly the book I used - published in 1898 and available as a scanned book at Ancestry.com. (Massachusetts is abbreviated on the title page of the book.)

The second source is possibly a reprint of the book, as it has a different publisher and a publish date of 1965. Without getting my hands on the book, I don't know if it is a reprint (with the same pagination) or a second edition. My guess would be that it is a reprint rather than a true second edition, but the pagination could still be different if they threw in a new introduction or errata page.

Should these 2 sources be merged? If so, is it as simple as editing the first source to add info from the second (e.g., surnames, repository) and then adding #REDIRECT to the second source? At the moment, there are no links to either source (other than some other redirects), but I have just uploaded a GEDCOM file and matched to the first source (so please don't choose to redirect it).

If the sources shouldn't be merged, is there a better way to name them to distinguish them (like adding the publication date to the page title)? Thanks --DataAnalyst 17:51, 28 December 2010 (EST)


If the repository section of the source page includes the family history library, you should click on the link for it and the catalog will give information about the actual book. When the source pages were pre-loaded, they pulled in the year the book was filmed which isn't the same as the date of publication. In this case, the book that was filmed in 1965 was printed in 1898 and looks like the same edition.

If they weren't the same, and weren't basically duplicates, editions are distinguished by adding the year of publication in parentheses in the title.

For source pages with small number of what links here, it is better to edit the pages that link to the source pages, so the less desirable title can then be marked for speedy delete. This can only be done when nothing links there, but is better because then the source is removed from pull down lists, etc.

It turns out that Source:Ancestry.com - A genealogical history of Henry Adams, of Braintree, Mass., and his descendants : also John Adams, of Cambridge, Mass., 1632-18 is a redirect to the Mass. title and so is Source:A genealogical history of Henry Adams of Braintree, Massachusetts and his descendants : also John Adams of Cambridge, Massachsetts; 1632-1897. Neither the Massachusetts nor the Mass. source page have any links except these redirects and the discussion on this page, so it seems like the 3 obsolete titles should be deleted, and only one should remain. --Jrich 18:44, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Sorry, didn't see the answer on User Talk:DataAnalyst. --Jrich 18:49, 28 December 2010 (EST)

I replied on DataAnalyst's talk page with instructions on how to assess duplicate pages, and started the process of merging/deleting... and yes, you are absolutely right, the outcome should be one good source page!--Brenda (kennebec1) 18:53, 28 December 2010 (EST) (my response written at the same time as yours!)

Brenda - I added a response on my talk page. Thanks --DataAnalyst 22:15, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Duplicate sources [24 January 2011]

Hi Brenda, I know you've done a lot of work on WR's source pages. I'm wondering if you can lend me your expertise, as I think I am a bit outside of my comfort zone...

A new user has been adding some nice repositories and information to source pages, but he is running into a lot of duplicates. He is listing them on my talk page here. I think you are more up-to-date then I am on the naming rules, and how these duplicates should best be merged. I can do the actual merging, but I need some help deciding which we'd merge (according to WR rules) and how they'd be titled. Thank you! --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:52, 21 January 2011 (EST)

I can do that; I'm taking a look at them tonight. --Brenda (kennebec1) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Brenda, I want to thank you for all of your help with these duplicate sources! Your attention to detail is impressive and I've learned a lot. Would you like me to handle the Annals of Tennessee to the End of the Eighteenth Century duplicate or is that one you wanted to work on? --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:23, 24 January 2011 (EST)
I'm still working on the Goodspeed ones (did you see that I found Mr. Goodspeed's real name? Now, he may not be listed anywhere in this particular set of books as the 'Author' per se... I have seen one WorldCat listing that cites the "Goodspeed Bros" as author. And I think that using the word Goodspeed is very important, as that is how these books are known.
If you want to do the Annals, that's fine, tho I don't mind at all finishing up with them... I will be busy tonight with my Dad, so it will be at least tomorrow before I get back to them.
See your page for an additional question re the Goodspeed reprints.--Brenda (kennebec1) 15:00, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Volunteer will help [13 February 2011]

Brenda I am a new support volunteer with Family Search and we have a plan for me to help at WeRelate. Have been and will be in training to support this Wiki. I was sent to you by Dallan. Would Love to help with the source work you are doing. Could you sent me info and assignments? Thanks--Sandralpond 22:05, 1 February 2011 (EST)


Thanks so much for the info. Really would love to do the same thing you are doing for Maine only for West Virginia. The others sound good I just want to get started. Just started training two weeks ago and this is my first Wiki experience except for searching for information on Family Search Wiki for my own genealogy. Any instruction would be so welcome. The E-mail address Dallan is using for me is my Husband's the correct e-mail is sandrawilkins45@hotmail.com. I understand the talk primciple and expect all communication will be on my talk page but though you could get the e-mail corrected. I have tried several times and the communication just keeps coming to Dean. Do not want to cause a problem, Just hope to improve communication.--Sandralpond 14:05, 2 February 2011 (EST)


Just another thought. The group I'm Being trained with is working on a handbook for the Family Search Wiki and would not object to us using it as a guide for the pages in WeRelate. Will Check with them today about what parts are complete and get copies to use.--Sandralpond 10:38, 3 February 2011 (EST)

I started working on an outline of the steps I used to start a source review project... My suggestion is that we work through a few sources together as well; I think that will help me explain the resources and the thinking process I use when reviewing a source page. Partly, I am trying to pull together which pages on WeRelate I've used as "references" and guidelines...

More soon.--Brenda (kennebec1) 12:13, 3 February 2011 (EST)


I am on Skype and I live in the Mountain Time Zone. I have classes with the Support Training for the Wiki on Monday to Thurs from 9-11 am. I get up early about 6-7 am. I am available most afternoons and almost all evenings. This really feels great to get going and have some guidance. Thanks so much!--Sandralpond 08:10, 5 February 2011 (EST)


Categories [14 February 2011]

How do we create new catories or namespaces? Is it by creating a new page? As I have started the source review I find the Categories very confusing and hoped you could give me some guidance.--Sandralpond 12:34, 13 February 2011 (EST)


Sorry I wasn't very clear. My Problem is that I put a Category on a Military source page for the U. S. Civil War as you showed me and it stayed red so I thought I need to know more to get it on in the right way. I removed it and I will go back to connect it later. I am so glad you are able to help.--Sandralpond 22:24, 13 February 2011 (EST)


Thanks a great idea. Cut and paste and no errors great.--Sandralpond 22:58, 13 February 2011 (EST)


Just looked at the Talk page for your article Source Page Review Guide. Boy the response is wonderful. Love the new ideas. Have selected a group of 108 pages to look at and review. Put West Virginia on each of the author, place and Keyword places on a source exact match search. Did the only match to a search with A in the surname place Source:"Upshur Battery" - Battery E, 1st West Virginia Light Artillery, 1862 - 1865. 1658 matches in that one with out an entry in surname space.--Sandralpond 12:37, 14 February 2011 (EST)


primary versus original [14 February 2011]

Hi,

I was just looking at Source:Maine, United States. Maine Births and Christenings, 1739-1900 and I was wondering if you are confusing the ideas of primary and original sources. Obviously published vital records are not photographic reproductions, but they are generally expert transmittals of the original records that should approach photographic copies in reliability. To the extent that the terms primary and original (which I have seen used to describe quality of sources) have different meanings, I would argue that published vital records should be considered primary, recognizing that they are not original. I would argue these are more primary than, say, viewing the original gravestone inscribed after death from information given by a survivor, some 50-70 years after the birth record was written.

Key to my position is that I feel published vital records have as their primary purpose to faithfully transmit the original information of the record, even if formatting, or organization of the material requires a presentation that is not strictly literal and subject to human error. This, as opposed to secondary sources, that compile and integrate facts from one or several primary sources, but whose primary purpose is to communicate the analysis and conclusion of the author, rather than transmit the information of the original document.

I have worked with many films and digital images. The general quality of such films suggests to me that a representation of the contents made by a trained expert from the actual original (i.e., published vital records) is more likely to be correct than my interpretation of a faded, speckled, shadowy film image. Bypassing the film and accessing the actual original documents is impractical, if not impossible, in many cases. Further, I do not see that this restrictive definition seems to be commonly practiced even by serious genealogists, as reflected in the literature, where NEHGR articles often cite abstracted versions of primary sources, like vital records published in Mayflower Descendant, IGI records, etc. Naturally, it is common sense that if there is evidence that one of these representations of the primary source may not be an accurate representation, one must refer to the original record, but to insist on such an institutionalized distrust of other people's representations of primary records would create a huge backlog of work that needs to be done before one could safely attempt new research.

Thus, I consider such a definition of primary as too restrictive. Consequently, the distinction between primary and secondary sources made on the above page strikes me as wrong. This, besides the fact that, this definition would imply that, by merely putting the information into this Maine collection, it has become secondary anyway, so does it matter whether it came from a primary or secondary source?

Sorry if this seems long. Hard to be brief when trying to make such a precise distinction. Your work with the sources pages is greatly appreciated. --Jrich 14:49, 14 February 2011 (EST)

I think you're quite right, actually. I can vouch that the FamilySearch RecordSearch collection itself (an index to the listed records) has some not common but occasionally significant errors in transcription or identification of data, in part, I think, due to the guidelines the indexers were given (for what should go into what field).

My assessment is that I have conflated the terms "original" and "primary" in what I've said on the page. The ones I've highlighted seem to be "original" records; I'm not sure I need to make the distinction between primary or not for this purpose, as my point in listing them is, in part, to note that the index in the FamilySearch collection is not entirely reliable, so if you have concerns regarding the accuracy of the index as applied to your particular genealogy research, you could determine it for yourself by consulting the original records (at the town) or the images.

Does that make sense to you?

Having said that, maybe I should just put that paragraph on the page. My thought was that one of my problems with the FamilySearch Collection was that I could not easily tell, with any given entry in the index, where the information had come from - I had to copy the "film number," enter it into the FHLC or a WeRelate search page in order to get the title of the source that had been indexed to extract that entry. I was trying to help others find the origin of the info in the index.

Ok, I've made a few changes. I'm also thinking about moving the (lengthly and still incomplete) list of sources to the talk page, just for readability.

See what you think Source:Maine, United States. Maine Births and Christenings, 1739-1900

Thanks, Brenda--Brenda (kennebec1) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (EST)


I understand what you are saying about the Maine Collection, and it is my experience, too, that it is not perfect, but it is nice to start to see some of the Maine records gain the ease of access that Massachusetts records seem to enjoy. I think the way the page is now is fine, and the listing of sources is certainly a useful addition.

Source provenance is hard. For example most of the pre-1850 records of Buxton on the FHL film are images from a book that is a copy made by the town clerk in the 1850s because the original books were falling apart. Book 1, an original book, was also filmed, but book 2 was not. I don't know if book 2 still exists, if you would have to go into city hall to view it, or if they would even let you view it without some kind of professional credential given its condition 150 years ago. Point being, even the handwritten records on film are not necessarily original.

Primary and secondary are probably bad terms to start with, which is why some WeRelate users seem to like to mark a family genealogy as primary and vital records as secondary, since presumably, they used or relied on the family genealogy the most, i.e., it was their primary source. --Jrich 17:59, 14 February 2011 (EST)


James Bowker and Mary Hinckley [28 February 2011]

I was wondering what your source was for the marriage of James Bowker and Mary Hinckley. I inherited my father's genealogical information. He lived in Scituate and had access to the original source material. Unfortunately he didn't record his sources. He had James Bowker marrying Mary Unknown. If we can find the marriage source it is likely we can link Mary Hinckley to her parents (most likely Samuel Hinckley, one of the founders of Scituate - see http://www.scituatehistoricalsociety.org/families/HinckleySamuel.htm)--Sparrell 08:21, 28 February 2011 (EST)


Excellent question. I'll look and see if I know where this came from - I think probably a secondary source, tho.--Brenda (kennebec1) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (EST)

It is not likely her father was Samuel as his daughter was born in England in early 1630's and would be unlikely to be having children in 1680's and 1690's. If related, she would have to be a grand-daughter. I think Thomas Hinckley's daughter Mary can be ruled out, but not familiar with other grand-daughters. --Jrich 15:37, 28 February 2011 (EST)
I think we can rule out that she is a descendant of Samuel Hinckley. She admitted to Second Church of Scituate 12 Sep 1686 as wife of James Bucer and had Mary bp. 26 Sep, Lazarus 7 Nov [NEHGR 57:321-1]. Two children by end of 1686, probably married by 1684, probably born abt 1665 as her page says. James Bowker was in Scituate by 1680 so suspect he married after immigrating, so not a wife brought over with him. Samuel Hinckley's daughter Mary b. 1628 in England, too old. Three of Samuel's sons had families: Thomas, Samuel, and John. Thomas, who is about 20+ years older than the other two, had a daughter Mary b. 1644 m. John Weybone, probably too old anyway. Another daughter Mercy (sometimes Mary is used) b. 1662 m. Samuel Prince. Son Samuel had d. Mary, b. 1677, d. young. Son John had d. Mary, b. 1689 m. John Crocker, daughter Mercy who d. 1718 unmarried. Thomas had son Samuel who married Sarah Pope and had a daughter Mary or Mercy b. 1678 who married Seth Bangs. Best single source for this family is Amos Otis "Barnstable Families" which can be found on books.google.com. Most of the births are all found in a single section of Barnstable VRs in Mayflower Descendant Vol. 6. If his wife was a Hinckley, it was a different line. Torrey's marriages says James2 (-1724) & [Mary] _____ (1665-1733+); by 1684; Scituate {Scituate 223; Shurtleff 1:252}. The Scituate reference is to Deane's History of Scituate, also on books.google.com,and says maiden name unknown. Shurtleff probably means Plymouth Colony Records, but I couldn't locate what this referred to. --Jrich 17:50, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Wow! you are fast and thorough, Jrich. I think you are right; this is probably an artifact from an undocumented Ancestry family tree. I see the reference to Mary Hinckley all over the web, but with no attribution. I'll change her to unknown for now...--Brenda (kennebec1) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (EST)


Source categories [11 April 2011]

Hi Brenda, I see that you are creating a category structure for Sources that uses the word 'of'. Some other categories are using the word 'in'. I looked back at the visual of my proposed structure and I see it shows both 'of' and 'in' which seems confusing now. In reviewing the previous discussions it appears both words were being used interchangeably there too. Before I get further down the path of setting up Category:Vital records in the United States... I wonder what your thoughts are about creating order with the categories. Thanks! --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:10, 9 April 2011 (EDT)


Well, I saw a brief discussion of in vs of, and thought "of" made more sense English-wise for categories I used most. I ran into trouble at the country-wide level - "XXX of United States" sounds weird; it should have a "the," yet adding a "The" would seem extra... so I left it out.

Some categories, such as "Ethnic and cultural," or "Occupations," seem more correct with "in" (which is the accepted English preposition for use with names of land areas). But other categories, particularly ones that end with the word "records" seem more correct with "of" - One has a record "of" something or someplace, not a record "in" , or rather, the phrase "records in" references the location of the records, not the topic of the records.

These aren't grammatical rules, I don't think, just common practices. And of course, American grammar is by no means the required standard, either. But my theory was that more of the categories I was setting up worked with "of," so I went with that.

Grammatically, I think I was asking myself, are the "Category [preposition] Place" categories using place to describe the LOCATION of the category (in space) ("in") or using place to describe the category itself ("of")?

I agree that consistency would be useful, and would be happy to acquiesce to either option, or to a rule that says if the Category in the "Category [preposition] Place" ends with the word "records," the preposition should be "of" and otherwise, the preposition should by "in." That would make my "ear" happy (it would sound right), but it is potentially more complex, and I don't have a strong preference. If we want to take a vote among those of us setting up categories, that would be fine; or, you can feel free to make an executive decision if its mostly just you and me.

I've been not following a lot of discussion lately; there have been a number of big issues in my "real world" life, so I've been doing source maintenance as my soothing/relaxing activity and not tracking so much as I sometimes have been able to. So feel free to tell me I'm just not following along in line with everyone else; i'll be happy to change my strategy.--Brenda (kennebec1) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

I've tried to limit my changes to the "Maine" world for the most part and haven't added that many yet, so I think I could easily change if that's what's needed. Is there a discussion I'm missing that I should be paying attention to regarding this? (Sorry!) --Brenda (kennebec1) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

You have nothing to be sorry for - you didn't miss anything! I just saw myself going in one direction with vital records in the Netherlands, and you in another direction for Maine and thought we should talk to get on the same page. I know that when we discuss this as part of a large group things get really confusing and Dallan suggests removing categories altogether (in exchange for search).

Yes, I preferred not to lose categories, tho I agreed that search was more of a priority - and I woke up to some wonderful changes this morning... (Thank you Dallan...)--Brenda (kennebec1) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

Your explanation was helpful (I knew you'd have a well-thought out response!). One of my concerns is that if Dallan does choose to automate the categorizing process, he'd end up taking the Source's Subject of/in Place and tack that onto the source. I don't know though, perhaps he could automate them individually subject-by-subject (with some using "in" and others using "of"). Perhaps I shouldn't even worry about that.

This was definitely one of my concerns and why I went with picking one preposition and not using both "of" and "in". But I agree that at this point, its not a priority for programming, and I think that once it was programmed, it would probably not be a huge issue to distinguish in programming (given that the programming now chooses words to capitalize or not in Page Names, it is clearly possible to provide "if such and such is true, then use xx" programming.
One of the reasons I like categories and wanted to use them as I went through source records in detail is that the subject field often requires choosing between several types of content in a source record in order to pick only one subject. Tho obviously adding and maintaining categories by hand for the entire universe of sources becomes unwieldy at some point, Categories do have the advantage in our system of not being limited in number. --Brenda (kennebec1) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

I am more then willing to change my record's 'in' cats to 'of' - I think that makes sense. I like the idea of records using 'of'.

Ditto; I'll do the reverse for my 'of' to become 'in'.

What should we do about Newspapers?

I'll ponder this. My family's consensus is "in" - on the theory that "in" reflects (in this case) a location of publication - vs. "of," which would imply that the county, state or country was the publisher (My dad is a retired journalist...). --Brenda (kennebec1) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

Also, in looking at Wikipedia, they do add the word 'the' before United States and Netherlands in their categories, but again, I think about how Dallan would automate this. If we had Vital records of Maine, United States I think that is ok. Then, one of its parent categories could be Vital records of the United States. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:37, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree, the use of "the" is easiest if limited only to the top level category (the country alone, without a state).--Brenda (kennebec1) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
What do you think about Town and area histories? Seems like "of"...--Brenda (kennebec1) 22:17, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
I would say 'of' (History of rather than History in). Newspaper categories are all set - they were using 'in' already. I'll have a look later at some of the top-level categories (we may want to add a few like Town and area histories of the United States). I think that's it for now... thanks for your suggestions, this has been helpful! --Jennifer (JBS66) 07:44, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
Ah... I'm just now going through the recent edit from last night. You've already added these top-level categories. Nice job! --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:02, 10 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering about Category:Military in Maine, United States. What do you think about renaming this to Military records in Maine, United States? That would follow the source subject field. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

I'd love to change that to Military records of Maine, United States (I think we decided on "of" after "records."). It has always troubled me that the Military category didn't match up to the other records categories. It will be a pain to redo the items that are in the category now, but it would be much more consistent.
Good catch!--Brenda (kennebec1) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
Why on earth did I write records in....?? Must have been multi-tasking too much this morning :-) There aren't too many in this category - I'll move them over. --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:45, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Hingham [13 April 2011]

Is Place:Hingham, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States the same as Place:Hingham, Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States? According to wikipedia:Hingham, Massachusetts#History, Hingham was in Suffolk County 1643-1793, Norfolk County 1793-1803, and Plymouth County from 1803 on, which by normal rules means the Plymouth version is correct? --Jrich 11:35, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I am sure I just made a mistake; I'll remove/redirect the Suffolk--Brenda (kennebec1) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


Military sources [13 April 2011]

Hi Brenda, there is a conversation on my talk page here about categorizing military records. When you have some time can you take a look? Overall, it involves the idea of moving sources from Category:Military to Category:Military records. Thanks, --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:10, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


Source redirects [16 April 2011]

Hi Brenda, I thought I would post this here - just in case you didn't see this thread... FamilySearch has created a template and they plan to start linking to our sources. Dallan has asked that we no longer delete source redirects. He'll also remove them from the drop-down box so they won't clutter things up any more! --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:25, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks! I hadn't seen this (out of touch lately... will be for much of the summer through August, as it starts being my busy time of year at work). I'll stop deleting. --Brenda (kennebec1) 12:09, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Categories at the county level [25 April 2011]

Hi Brenda, I love the way your categories for Maine are coming together! One level that I think is missing are sources at the county level. For example, if I'm on the Category:Piscataquis, Maine, United States page, I would expect to see Sources that are available for that place. So, categories like Category:Maps and gazetteers of Piscataquis, Maine, United States would get two parent cats - Maps and gazetteers of Maine, United States and Sources of Piscataquis, Maine, United States. If we do this, we may need a sort key to list it first, otherwise it will get lost among all of the places listed. If you like this idea, I'd be willing to edit the categories we have already.

On another note, we may want to formalize these source category ideas a bit more for others to reference. I noticed that Sandra is adding categories to sources, but they are going to top-level cats like Category:Census records. Looking forward to your thoughts. --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:14, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

I like the way its coming together, too. Unfortunately, it often takes getting in there and doing it to tell if a category structure is going to work. I think adding a "Sources of County, State, Etc." is a good idea. I can do it as I come to them, or you can too. Not too big a task yet. I've been going back through Maine sources BY County using the new search tool and kind of finishing up any incomplete source pages as I go.
What do you think about what the sort key should be in various categories? On the one hand, consistency is good, so using the Author or the Title as as source key consistently makes sense, with the possible exception of Geographic Page names, which perhaps should use the place as the sort key. On the other hand, I can think of some creative ways to use sort keys to, for example, sort Ethnic and Cultural pages by the subcategory selected, or Occupations by the subcategory selected. I keep being tempted to use the primary Surname as the sort key when applying the Category "Family histories of {Place}", but I think I've decided there are too many sources that don't have a primary surname, tho they are still "family histories"
I have figured out that you can only have one sort key per Category per page, so I can't for example, add [[-Category:Vital records of Sagadahoc, Maine, United States|Bath]] and [[Category:Vital records of Sagadahoc, Maine, United States|Phippsburg]]e and get the same source to show up twice in the directory.
And yes, it has occurred to me that 1) I should revisit my "how to review source pages" articles and both complete the unfinished ones, and add the information on geographizing (is that a word?) categories. I kind of stopped that part of the update when the great "search vs category" debate was happening, since I didn't know what the final answer would be.
And 2) if we think we have come to a conclusion as to organizing as least some of the most dominant categories, it is probably time to reintroduce this to the group as a whole - perhaps as an article or a help page that includes both your brilliant graphical version (which I am keeping open while I work so I can check back and make sure I'm following the protocol) as well as a text version (for those who see things in words more than pictures). Plus, I think if I have a fairly complete set of Maine-related categories (or any other geography for that matter) that might help people see the real-life impact of the categories on the flow chart - we can use links to the category pages in use as part of the explanation so those who think very literally can see if it works the way they would like it to.
I find that it is a bit awkward at first, but once I get one "line" to the top in a particular category (like Civil War), I am generally able to keep thinking in my head of where each particular source fits in the lineage of categories. And I'm getting used to the "ins" and "ofs" etc.
As I said before, I won't have a lot of time to help you reintroduce what we've done so far until at least after this coming week. And I know there is some remaining cleanup in my Maine categories and subcategories... In my real life I am preparing testimony for the state legislature on a water quality bill for Tuesday, and so my head is filled with the details of clamming, not so much orderly genealogy. Still, genealogy is a good, relaxing, break, so I continue to plug away at it. --Brenda (kennebec1) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
I agree that categorizing often involves a bit of trial and error. I don't mind working on county-level categories this week. I put a couple in Category:Sources of Piscataquis, Maine, United States as a test - I think this will work for people coming at the categories from a place page.
Regarding sort keys, I don't think they need to be consistent across all types of sources. Consistency within the same subject is probably good though (like all Maps and Gazetteers of Place using the same sort key). We may need to take this case-by-case and see how each category is coming together. In the short-term, I was thinking of adding a space sort key like I did for Category:Surnames in Maine (which I'm thinking today needs to be renamed to include the United States...) - just so it appears at the top (temporarily). Otherwise, we're having to press next a dozen times to get past the articles that begin with Source. The other option could be to add a TOC to skip ahead... that may work.
Your "how to review source pages" was a huge task; really great work! Maybe for now I can just leave a message for Sandra about this since not too many of us are using categories just yet. I know things are busy for you and there is really no rush on this - it will still be here next week, next month, next year :-) Maine clamming... My nephew lives up in Maine (I'm a New Englander too, down in CT). He works as a liaison of some sort with the fisherman and writes grants, etc (not really sure of the specifics!) I know he finds it very rewarding. Well, best of luck on Tuesday. If you ever want to converse about category specifics you are welcome to email me as well. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
I thought more about sort keys for some of these categories. I worked on Category:Sources of Maine, United States and Category:Sources of the United States. I modeled the layout after some of the "by state" cats at WP (like this one). Since there are two distinct items in these categories (types of sources and sources by place), I grouped the types together by title at the beginning (using a |space) sort key). Then, I organized the place cats by county or state. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:54, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
Apparently the |space sort key doesn't work with our version of MediaWiki so... I changed it to *category title like: [[Category:Sources of Maine, United States|*Cemetery records]]. Not quite as elegant, but it works. --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:32, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Place page categories [1 May 2011]

Hi Brenda, I saw that you have created some place page categories for Maine. The way we've been organizing the categories for place pages is that they are put into the category for the next level up in the hierarchy. So, Category:Cushing, Knox, Maine, United States would be put into Category:Knox, Maine, United States, Category:Knox, Maine, United States into Category:Maine, United States, etc. Also, I'm not sure if you've seen this discussion yet... it appears all automated categories are in jeopardy. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:12, 1 May 2011 (EDT)


OK, I give up! I'll just wait and see... What I was trying to cleverly avoid was a duplication in the categories... Meaning, if you go to Category:Knox, Maine, United States, all the places are already on that page as Place: pages. So since only sources (broadly defined, meaning also images and repositories...) get auto assigned place categories, I thought I could slip the otherwise unused LOCAL (lowest possible level) place pages only into an organizing tool for the next highest source/place category (i.e. Sources of County, State, Maine). It worked out kind of elegantly, tho it violated the categorization rules. I'm glad you noticed it so quickly; I was working late last night and didn't have the energy to write you yet. Anyway, I'll undo and wait for more instructions...
But as everything is in flux, including subjects at this point, perhaps I should just concentrate on correcting and adding repositories and other info on source pages... and wait and see regarding the subjects and categories? I like the AWB idea if I will then need to go back through lots of sources to add categories and/or subjects.
Thanks *very much*, Jennifer, for making sure I stay informed of the key discussion regarding these things - on my own, I've been negligent in keeping up.--Brenda (kennebec1) 08:41, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
You're welcome. You may want to focus on repositories and corrections for now, but that is a shame. If there is a larger source review project going on, then it seems to make sense to decide on categories, subjects, and navigation before people get too far along. Instead, it seems to be a disjointed effort with members from Sandra's team and WR's not really working together on the same page. Adding the ability to select multiple subjects is nice, but that means both you and Sandra would need to revisit the pages you've already reviewed. Oh well... makes me just a bit frustrated... --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:58, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Zebbiedee32 gedcom [20 May 2011]

Hi Brenda, I see that you claimed the Zebbiedee32 gedcom to review. I'm wondering what the status of this gedcom is, because I don't see any notes listed on the User:Solveig/gedcom review page. Thanks --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:56, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Help! I didn't mean to! Well, actually, I saw the email that said we should help out with Gedcoms, and I was going to, but i've never done it before. So I clicked on one of the Gedcoms, just to take a look (trying to follow the directions, really!)... and a bit nervously was going to go through the directions for reviewing GedComs...

And then something happened at work and I had to actually go do work, so I closed up the page and haven't been back since. I probably don't have time until later today to reopen it. If you'd like to take it back/over, feel free. I didn't even know my name had been attached, since I didn't actually do anything.

Anyway, I've very glad you keep on top of these things, Jennifer. I'd be happy to do some Gedcom reviews, tho I think next time I'll open one at home when I'm less likely to be interrupted. Anyway, thanks for checking. Let me know if you want to take it back, or if you would like me to open it up and assess it later today/tonight.

--Brenda (kennebec1) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

No problem, I can take it, but your name will remain on the log. When a file is in admin review, the first admin to click the link to look at the file is tagged... you're it :-) I think we'll be rejecting this file because it has mostly living people, and the remaining people have no sources or dates. A good place to start is by watching the User:Solveig/gedcom review page. Judy and I will post notes there about files in the queue. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:14, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, Jennifer... I'll watch the Gedcom Review page and learn a bit more by watching the masters at work... :-).

Thank-you again. [7 June 2011]

As always you are so good to instruct and guide me in my very slow and not correct way of doing. I will start reviewing my actions and editing the pages with new goals in mind. Sandralpond 09:45, 7 June 2011 (EDT)


Patrolling [22 June 2011]

Hi Brenda,

Your source work is one of the reasons we wanted this change :-) Can you make the change in your account settings? Thanks.--Amelia 12:05, 22 June 2011 (EDT)


Source categories [29 July 2011]

I was just looking at the entries in the Sources of Ohio category. Now that my schedule has gotten lighter, I'd be happy to help with this project. Could you point me toward some guidelines for adding the categories? For example, this source is in Family histories of Ohio, United States, but it does list a specific county in Ohio (Franklin), so does it stay there or should it be in Family histories of Franklin, Ohio, United States? Thanks! -- Amy (Ajcrow) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (EDT)


Not sure what to do now? [2 September 2011]

Brenda,

I have been doing Ancestry.com file for quite a while. I am James Stevens and notice you have many of my ancestors in your research including my grandfather, Cecil Vivian Stevens, ggf James Madison Stevens and a great many others.

I'd like to work try to add some of the research I have documented but not really sure about protocols and such. I added a couple entries just as test on James Madison Stevens, my ggggf. Several census items including uploading the 1840 jpg.

Please advise where I might go to both help your work and my one and be within the range of the appropriate.

I live in Springfield, VA (retired) and will be visiting Maine from 7-11 Sep.

Jim Stevens jimstevensfrie@verizon.net--Jimstevens 23:39, 1 September 2011 (EDT)


Census templates [12 October 2011]

It may be of use to you; I don't know, but you have some census data templates. I created two templates (in process of finishing all years), which work the way a mediawiki template does. I noticed your templates require copy and pasting. Thought these might be easier for you ('course I think mine are not as detailed as yours). Anyway, 1850 and 1860. Cheers--Obstinatesnooper 10:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)


Thanks! really interesting. I can't wait to try it out!

Brenda--Brenda (kennebec1) 09:56, 12 October 2011 (EDT)


WeRelate Featured Page [1 December 2011]

Hello, just wanted to let you know that your Article Page Contents of the Maine Historical Magazine has been nominated and selected as this next week's WeRelate Featured Page! Congratulations and keep up the good work! Best regards,

Jim:) Volunteer Administrator at WeRelate.org--Delijim 19:06, 25 November 2011 (EST)