User talk:Robert.shaw

Topics


Welcome

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 23:28, 31 July 2012 (EDT)


Duplicate pages patrol [20 August 2012]

Hi Robert.shaw, I noticed that you have been working on merging duplicate families, thank you! WeRelate has recently set up a series of volunteer pages (see Portal:Maintenance) and since you are working on duplicate pages, the Duplicate pages patrol may be of interest to you. --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:22, 20 August 2012 (EDT)


Thomas Butler [27 August 2012]

Hi Robert, I noticed you added Thomas Butler as a son of Thomas Butler and Anne Lancelot. Thomas Butler (the elder) who married Anne Lancelot is listed as dying in 1714, and Thomas Butler, who you've added as their son is listed as being born in 1720, 6 years AFTER his supposed father had died. You might want to check available records/sources to see if Thomas Butler truly is a son of the elder Thomas, or if he belongs to a different family.

Best regards,

Jim Jim--Delijim 10:07, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Actually what I did was a family merge (which I got to from the Family duplicates report). The two families were Family:Thomas Butler and Unknown (5) and Family:Thomas Butler and Anne Lancelot (1). These two families shared the child entry William Butler (108) and also had apparent child matches Thomas Butler (91) with Thomas Butler (79), and James Butler (100) with James Butler (95). The families' husbands, Thomas Butler (90) and Thomas Butler (10) appeared to match, including having compatible parents.
Here is the merge review. I noticed the conflict of the death date of Thomas Butler (10) with the estimated birth date of (to be merged) son Thomas Butler (91), which came from opposite sides of the merge. Clearly something is wrong, as you say, with a wrong date, a missing generation, or assignment to wrong families being possible scenarios. Nevertheless, I felt the correspondences of the two family entries indicated that they most likely were mostly the same family, and that whatever the problems were, the problems probably existed in both copies of the same people and families. Hence, it seemed they belonged merged so that when examined someday by a researcher they could be corrected as one.
I would be happy to hear other thoughts on the problem, and if you have suggestions on ways to handle this that would have a better result then we should discuss it. --Robert.shaw 17:02, 26 August 2012 (EDT)

Ok, fair enough. For now, I've added an advisory to Thomas Butler's page and removed him (for now) as a son of the elder Thomas. This line appears to have many problems (duplicate parents, etc), so hopefully someone with primary source knowledge of this family will help straighten them out... :) In the future, if you notice pages with "problems", you might want to add an advisory to the page to help others in the future. Best regards:)

Have a great week,

Jim


More info needed [3 December 2012]

Hello and welcome to WeRelate. Thank you for submitting your gedcom file. I am afraid that there is a problem. WeRelate is based on a shared database and creates a web page for each person. In your file, most of the people don't have events containing dates and places which would enable someone to identify the person. We will not be able to use this file as it is. However, we do encourage you to work on your data. You will need to add at least one date and place (enter the place name as "Jurisdiction, Country") for most of the people in your file. Where such dates are not available you may use an estimated date, i.e. "abt 1830". We also strongly encourage the use of sources. You may like to browse the existing pages and try creating a few by hand to get familiar with how WeRelate works. A list of recent featured pages is available from the WeRelate home. These will provide some examples of what is possible. And, finally, as a reminder, we do not create pages for living people. If you have any questions about your gedcom, you can reply here.--sq 20:46, 3 December 2012 (EST)


GM study project sketches [1 January 2013]

Hi Robert,

Technically, the note you added at the start of the GM list article is true, but we do intend to add them all at some point. I've been adding 10 or 15 at a time, even if they require stubs to be made.--Daniel Maxwell 00:01, 2 January 2013 (EST)

I'm glad to hear that people are working towards getting them all listed. I'd just thought casual browsers should not be mislead into thinking they were presently all listed. The GM volumes are a great resource and the immigrants are prime candidates for WeRelate pages. --Robert.shaw 00:08, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Great Work on the Assertions Help Page! [23 January 2013]

Thanks a lot - much more human(e) now! --jrm03063 12:50, 23 January 2013 (EST)


Adjustment to Source:Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927 [29 January 2013]

I think I see the difference between this source and Source:Ontario, Canada. Marriages - Registrations, 1869-1928 as occasionally I participated in the indexing process. I have made a few changes to the description and it now reads as follows:

This is an online index to the marriage registrations provided by the Archives of Ontario to FamilySearch. See Source:Ontario, Canada. Marriages - Registrations, 1869-1928 for the availability of the registrations themselves and for other indexes to them.

I removed the word "civil" as it infers only marriages conducted by justices of the peace. I am sure the index also includes the majority of marriages in the province which were conducted by clergymen of many denominations.

The original citations of all the WR sources for Ontario vital statistics failed to give the provincial body any credit and the Archives of Ontario tries to be very helpful to the genealogical community. One of the sources included a long list of all the FHS microfilms which hold the marriages and their indexes without any explanation of what might be on each reel. Now that the Family History Catalogue is online, it is no longer necessary for WR to provide this. --goldenoldie 02:01, 29 January 2013 (EST)


Ontario Marriages again [6 February 2013]

You are reminding me that I must add Ontario Vital Statistics Project as a repository and say something about it. It is a good source of the early marriages, but is duplicating what Ancestry and FamilySearch have done after 1875. I contributed much of the 1858-69 material for York County, but looking at the website recently, some years, especially 1865, must have had more marriages that are in the list.

I am working on another project for the moment so this is a part of my to-do list. The earliest Toronto marriages all took place at St James Cathedral and the registers are still in the hands of the Anglican Church archives. There is/was an index/transcript covering the entire 1800-1869 period. (I think Mary Crandall must have had to withdraw it from the Ontario Vital Statistics Project to oblige the church.) But I have a copy which I won't make public in full, but could quote the occasional marriage. One section of the St James marriages is available online in archive.org in John Ross Robertson's book--the name of which escapes me at the moment.

--goldenoldie 08:52, 6 February 2013 (EST)


Your Changes to Person:Thomas Brooke (14) [20 November 2013]

Hi Robert - Got an alert about your propagated change to Person:Thomas Brooke (14). Something is amiss on this page with duplicate family pages and a duplicate spouse Elizabeth Starkey who was b. 150 years earlier than her husband. Can you take a look? Perhaps a merge went wrong somewhere... Regards, --Cos1776 13:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did this merge while working on the Family Duplicates Report backlog. My basis for the merge was that the 3 Persons involved (Thomas Brooke (14), Elizabeth Starkey (9), Richard Brooke (14)) had all been entered by the same user in the same upload, showing Thomas as father, Elizabeth as mother, and Richard as son, yet having two Family records instead of one (that is, one for the father and son, and another for mother and son). This type of family anomaly is not rare, apparently due to some software bug or misuse. Since the father and mother are specified, they should be together in a family record with their child (regardless of legal marriage status).
You've pointed out that Thomas is shown b. 150+ years after spouse Elizabeth. He's also shown b. 150+ years after the b. of his son Richard. Also, Elizabeth shown as age 14 at birth of son Richard. Clearly major errors here, but not resolvable without documentary evidence. I believe all the years and relationships derive from the original upload, although I haven't closely followed the histories to verify that.
(I just saw there was an additional Thomas-Elizabeth "Family" record sitting there that should be merged, not having any children, and have merged it in.)
I've now added warnings to the family and to Thomas's page. If you have data to correct things, by all means do so. If not, maybe you have a better idea as to what state the records should be left in until a researcher comes along to fix them. --robert.shaw 20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh well... I had hoped that you were a knight in shining armor that was riding into that dastardly drive-by gedcom with a rucksack of reliable sources... :) It is a mess! I stumbled upon it a while ago and started to try to detangle it, but as it was not really my area of research, I didn't pursue it that much. Hopefully someone with an interest will come along soon. Best Wishes. --Cos1776 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I discovered Person:Thomas Brooke (14) was linked to Elizabeth Starkey not only as father of her child, but also as her 4th great grandson via their common child. I've broken the loop by removing him as father in that family. --robert.shaw 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Discussion on Norwegian Naming Conventions [11 December 2013]

I see you have been doing volunteer merge work, some of which touches on Norwegian families, and wondered if this gave you any insight that you would care to contribute to this discussion of Norwegian naming conventions (see topic 8.2 Norwegian Names on WeRelate). If not, that's fine. I have invited a number of others who have contributed Norwegian data in the last year, but sometimes it can be helpful to get an "outsider" view, if anything in your merging experience is relevant.--DataAnalyst 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Merged William Thomson and Margaret Unknown [6 January 2014]

I just completed a merge of William Thomson and Margaret Unknown (1) with another family (after merging their son James). I think I left the information pretty much as you had entered it based on what appears to be the definitive genealogy of this family (the source you cited, by Mary A Elliott). If I introduced any errors in the process of doing the merge, my apologies, and would you please fix them. I am quite experienced at doing WeRelate merges, so I don't think there are any artifacts that shouldn't be there, but I realized I was getting a bit tired, so you might want to give it a quick review. If you have any questions, just ask.--DataAnalyst 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked things over and didn't see any problems with the merge. Earlier I had left the Marie Milne family separate because it did not match too well. It seemed likely to be a confused mix of some Windsor CT Thompsons and some other Thompsons. Things are probably better with the changes you made. --robert.shaw 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

MySource:HBWhitmore/Darius G. Hill Family Bible Records [6 March 2014]

Thanks for making this look the way I wanted it to look. I should have remembered how to do ti myself, but had forgotten. I'm glad I have someone looking over my shoulder!--HBWhitmore 00:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Happened on it by chance, saw your new source in Recent Changes, took a peek and then fixed it. Figured you wouldn't mind.--robert.shaw 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 April 2014]

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 output.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GEDCOM Export Ready [2 April 2014]

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


Next step: Review your GEDCOM [2 April 2014]

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 bgSourMod.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 April 2014]

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 bgSourMod.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 18:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [3 April 2014]

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 barber-green v5trim.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 03:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 April 2014]

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 barber-green v6.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 08:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 April 2014]

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 barber-green v7.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 01:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 April 2014]

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 barber-green v7.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 01:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 April 2014]

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 barber-green v7.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. We will keep your GEDCOM in the queue for two weeks to give you time to review it.

Note: if your gedcom contains many errors or multiple families, we’d ask that you resolve and correct the errors, delete this gedcom and re-submit it without the errors before merging it with families already on WeRelate. If the gedcom is very large, we’d suggest breaking it up into separate files (or families) and importing them one at a time, which makes the review and correction process easier.

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 01:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

barber-green v7.ged Imported Successfully [6 April 2014]

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 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Messages/French [11 July 2014]

Hello, Robert ! http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=WeRelate%3AMessages%2FFrench&diff=20896645&oldid=20894943 --> it's ok, but I want to work first with this dopple display. My english is so basic and User:CTfrog will complete and fix my "first steps" --> http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:CTfrog#French_.5B18_June_2014.5D. When done, I will remove the english messages of this page. Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL ---Markus3 06:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I just thought I would make you aware of format in case you weren't already. --robert.shaw 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)