User talk:Sandralpond

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:

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

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! Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:57, 6 January 2011 (EST)

pstart.exe does not appear to be a GEDCOM [20 January 2011]

We were not able to import your file because it does not appear to be a GEDCOM file. You might want to read this help page.

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

--WeRelate agent 18:57, 20 January 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [21 January 2011]

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 barton family.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 11:24, 21 January 2011 (EST)

barton family.ged Imported Successfully [21 January 2011]

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

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

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

--WeRelate agent 20:45, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Hinton Hanawaha Co. West Virginia USA [24 January 2011]

Hi! I'm Amy (Ajcrow), one of the volunteer administrators here at WeRelate. I saw your page for Place:Hinton Hanawaha Co. West Virginia USA. There isn't a Hanawaha county in West Virginia. Is that supposed to be Kanawha County? If so, let me know and I'll redirect or rename your page. Thanks! -- Amy (Ajcrow) 13:58, 24 January 2011 (EST)

I saw your message. I changed the family page that was linked to it to show Summers County and deleted the "Hinton Hanawaha Co." page. -- Amy (Ajcrow) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Volunteering - Source pages [4 February 2011]

Hmm. I haven't really thought about a plan or assignments... (!plan? this is a wiki! a bit like herding cats! plans last only long enough for contact with others...)

BUT here are some ideas. If you like them and/or add some, perhaps we should take these ideas and make or update WeRelate page on "Source related projects" for volunteers to take a look at? The Wiki has done a great deal of work over the last couple of years trying to eliminate duplicates and increase conformity in source page names, but there are still a lot of issues that can only be caught by actual user eyes on the page...so the most important part of improving sources at WeRelate is just to look at as many of them as possible, I think.

• What I've been doing, on and off for more than a year, is reviewing all source pages that have "Maine" as a place (or Maine in the title), because that's one of my areas of interest. I review the pages, make sure all have "Type" and "Subject" field filled in, combine duplicates, fix page names, add categories where appropriate, and most importantly add repositories, using WorldCat, Internet Archives, and Google Books. If you think you might want to embark on such a project, I can give you more specific directions on how, exactly, I go through the process and what resources you need to have available to complete it. I've completed A-L, and S-Z (I got intimidated by the number of titles beginning with M and decided to go to the end of the alphabet and work backwards).

I've learned a LOT in the process, and I probably need to start over again once I finish the alphabet, so I can bring the earlier source pages I worked on up to my current standards!

• If the wiki comes up with a consensus on how to handle "index" sources that are associated with books, we can search for sources that are indexes and either enter cross-references or merge with the original book. Dallan can help us generate a "working list" we (and others) can review and act on.

• When I get bored with reviewing Maine-related source pages, I have spent some time reviewing external sources for possible new WeRelate source pages or to add as new repositories for current WeRelate source pages. For example, I've browsed through the Family History Archives (again, searching for books with Maine associated with them -- you might decide to check for books related to Virginia, or books beginning with the letter A, or some other subset...), and then checked to see if the Family History Archives is noted as an repository on the WeRelate Source page, or added a new WeRelate source page when needed.

• Larger projects are needed to add updated Ancestry and Family Search databases (particularly those that contain original images) as new source pages (or to update existing source pages to reflect additional info available). At least some new Family Search databases have been added systematically; new Ancestry databases haven't been addressed yet (tho some have been added). If you're interested in adding sources, we can go through the steps and decisions involved in either one of these projects.

• I've also added tables of contents to the Talk page for a WeRelate source, particularly for out-of-print historical and genealogical magazines. See Source talk:Maine Historical Magazine (Porter, Joseph W) for an example of a work in progress. This is a great relatively mindless project I could do for hours while sitting at the hospital visiting my father (who is recovering from surgery). Adding content information will help a user find an article that might be of interest, because words on the talk page will come up in search results by key word.

Mostly I got involved in source pages because I was kind of at a stopping point with much of my personal genealogy work, and I really like doing research. I also thought reviewing the Maine source pages would be a good way for me to find new places to do further research. I'm amazed at how much is available on the web - and a great deal of it is free if you know where to look... I like the idea that I'm helping some other researcher in the future find a crucial piece of info. (Funny, at this point, I'm mostly keeping my Ancestry subscription alive in order to do research for WeRelate, rather than my own genealogy!)

So, let me know where you think you might like to begin, and I'll provide more detail on exactly *how* to do the project you're interested in. The benefit will be if I write it down and document the process so that it makes sense to you, then together we will have come up with a new WeRelate help page for future users who are interested in improving source pages... (Something I regularly volunteer to work on, but don't really complete, in part because I'm not always entirely sure how these types of pages are organized).

--Brenda (kennebec1) 11:09, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Hi - I'm working on an introduction to source review; I'm thinking that rather than try to anticipate all the possible issues, let's break down the project into smaller segments and work on one area at a time. I find that different source subjects (like vital records, bible records, census, directories, etc.) have unique issues you will run into in reviewing them. I'll give you the "how to get started" part (soon... probably this weekend) and then we can work closely on the first groups of sources you review until you feel you've gained the knowledge you need to go forward...

Do you use any kind of instant messaging? And where are you located (Time-zone wise)? I don't usually use instant messaging (I don't do well with constant interruptions), but I think maybe if we knew when we were both going to be online, we might be able to use IM to help clarify what I've written and to help you directly when you have questions about sources. Otherwise, I can just make a point of reviewing your recent changes in source pages each day or so and give you feedback... Does that sound helpful?

It isn't that this task is that difficult - mostly what I think good source review requires is curiosity - the desire to know more about a source, like where else it can be found, and what it is about. Plus a little bit of attention to detail, to be thorough in checking the basic WeRelate page parts (like "type" and "subject" and publication info). But I do have a few tips and tricks that might make it easier.

And, I am looking forward to using your project as a "guinea pig" for coming up with ways to document the issues that a future user might need to address when reviewing a source page. --Brenda (kennebec1) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Next step: Review your GEDCOM [4 February 2011]

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 Ream family.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 12:53, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Ream family.ged Imported Successfully [4 February 2011]

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

• launch the Family Tree Explorer to navigate your tree
• view your network -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out to which other WeRelate users you are related.
• view related pages not in your tree -- If you matched families in your GEDCOM to existing families, find out which people you are now related to that you can add to your tree (takes awhile to display for large trees).
• view a searchable list of the pages in your tree -- The searchable list will be available about an hour after your tree has been imported.

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

--WeRelate agent 22:47, 4 February 2011 (EST)

Source page review

Hi Sandra - Perhaps you've already seen these pages - take a look and add them to your watch list as a start on the Source Page review discussion and how-to...WeRelate:Current Source Projects - please add your West Virginia project to the list! and here's my beginnings of an outline as to what I do. Details and how to will come soon... Source Page Review Guide. --Brenda (kennebec1) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Bartons of Barton Ridge, Summers, West Virginia, United states [13 February 2011]

Hi Sandra, I left a message about your Surname:Bartons of Barton Ridge, Summers, West Virginia, United states on its talk page. As a side note, be sure to take a look at your Watchlist by going to My Relate>Watchlist. You will see messages that have been left on pages that you are watching.

Regarding your Barton surname page - I needed to move the contents of that page. A surname page is limited to a general surname, like Surname:Smith. I moved your text to Barton in Barton Ridge, Summers, West Virginia, United States. Please visit that page and Watch it, then let me know so that I can delete the Surname page for you. Thanks, --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:25, 13 February 2011 (EST)

Categories [13 February 2011]

I'm not sure I completely understand your question. A "Namespace" can't be created - it is a part of the design of the site. A "source" is one namespace; a "Person" is another namespace, Help is yet another namespace. You assign a namespace to a page when you create it. The page I created on Source page review Source Page Review Guide is part of the "article" namespace, the only one that doesn't have a prefix. So when a page is created, you choose the namespace by selecting what type of page you plan to add.

Categories, on the other hand, appear at the bottom of a page, and add the page to "directory" pages for the particular category. Some categories - namely the place categories and the surname-in-place categories -- are autogenerated. The others, such as those shown at the bottom of Source Page Review Guide, are added to a page in the text box, at the end of the text, as [[Category:Category name goes here]].

Are you finding the Source Page Name Guide helpful? It is certainly not complete yet. I am also setting up separate pages for the different subjects, to provide example of the specific issues that come up with each type of source.

I have set up a skype account, but I don't seem to have a working microphone for some reason. But if you want to talk about a particular page, you can feel free to contact me via instant messaging. My skype name is kennebec.bath.me.--Brenda (kennebec1) 16:09, 13 February 2011 (EST)

Generally, the red type in a known category (as on the Source Page Review Guide) is due to an inadvertent typo. Check the spacing and the capitalization; they matter. I get "red type" categories all the time, actually. It's hard to remember whether or not U.S. has a space or not, for example. I often open up a separate WeRelate tab in my bowser and search for categories with specific text, and then cut and paste the Category I want from the results. That way I don't have to worry about typos.--Brenda (kennebec1) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (EST)

Merge template [19 February 2011]

Hi Sandra, I noticed your recent changes, and it looks like you want to add a merge template to a source. That merge template is not active, and many even need to be modified or deleted. I'm thinking that we might want to start a list on the Talk:Source Page Review Guide page. You could list the pages that your are finding that are duplicates. Maybe we can talk there about the best way to approach these... --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:11, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Flying, Gray-Haired Yank, or, the Adventures of a Volunteer [21 February 2011]

Hi Sandra - just a few thoughts... First, I think you want to keep the Source:Egan, Michael. Flying, Gray-Haired Yank, or, the Adventures of a Volunteer page - because this is how the title appears on the title page of the book. Secondly, the information from the "old" page will need to be moved to the "master" page first - because it will be deleted during the redirect. Feel free to post any questions you have here, I'll be around today to respond. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (EST)

The two pages were exactly the same in title and content I have added to the first target page but the page I am redirecting is the exact page to every item that the target page was when I found it. I just don't see any reason to have two that are exactly alike.Sandralpond 19:36, 20 February 2011 (EST)

I agree that we don't want duplicate sources. The differences were that the FHLC repository information from the "old" source was not transferred to the "master" source. I also noticed the title of Source:Egan, Michael. Flying, Gray-Haired Yank, or, the Adventures of a Volunteer more closely matched the title page of the book (slight difference from the other source, but there is a comma after the word Flying). So, I edited the "master" source to include the original publication information, added the repository information from the "old" source, added notes from the FHLC, and since there were two editions we're merging together, I added the {{MultipleEditions}} template to the page. Then, I redirected the "old" page by putting the #REDIRECT text onto the first line of the large text box that is towards the bottom of the page. --Jennifer (JBS66) 06:26, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks so much I did notice the comma but did not relize that was the important difference and had misunderstood which box to put the redirect into. This should help me next time.Sandralpond 06:37, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Text on category pages [28 March 2011]

Hello Sandra, I noticed that you are adding wikipedia templates to category pages. We generally limit category pages to just a brief sentence describing what the category is (if it is not clear from the title). Categories are more of a navigational aid, and we usually move text placed there to the corresponding Place, Surname, etc pages. --Jennifer (JBS66) 12:48, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

Repository availablity [9 April 2011]

Hello Sandra, I noticed a few of your recent changes edited the availability for "Family History Library" from "Other" to "Family history center". I believe that Family History Library entries are marked as Other because they are not available at local family history centers (and only available through the library in Salt Lake City). Also, I believe that WorldCat is marked as Other rather than Free Website. Free Website, from what I understand, is used for instances where a document can be found freely available, like a scanned book at Google Books. --Jennifer (JBS66) 08:31, 9 April 2011 (EDT)

Notable people [28 May 2011]

Hi Sandra, I noticed that you are adding the Notable people category to source pages. Since this category is reserved for Person pages, I edited the sources to remove the category. --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:37, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

GoogleBooks/WorldCat repository links [2 June 2011]

Hi Sandra, I noticed that you are adding WorldCat and GoogleBooks repositories to sources. I am wondering if this is really necessary. There are links at the top of each source page that does essentially the same thing that you are with the repository links - they search GoogleBooks or WorldCat. My opinion is that a GoogleBooks repository should be added if it provides a free viewable version of the book. I don't know what the conscensus is on this, so we can certainly bring this up to a wider discussion at the Source Review project page if you would like. You can respond here, rather than on my talk page, to keep the thread together. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

This is Brenda (kennebec1) chiming in. I do add Google Books as a repository only when a free viewable version of the book is available - including a limited preview of a more recent book (often allowed by more "academic" titles). I try to note in the repository link field that the version is a "limited preview."

Regarding WorldCat, tho we now have the clever links at the top of source pages for WorldCat and Google Books, I have continued to add WorldCat as a repository - it's just a convenience, and sometimes, when there are several editions of a title, you can use the repository links to specify which WorldCat page goes with which version See Source:French, William R. History of Turner, Maine, from Its Settlement to 1886 for an example of a WorldCat link to a particular index.

I find it helpful to check WorldCat listings when doing source work, because it quickly gives you a sense of how widely distributed/available the title is. Sometimes I find a title is only available at the Maine State Library, for example, so instead of putting the WorldCat link, I put the Maine State Library catalog link and specify the location. See Source:Richmond, Sagadahoc, Maine, United States. Richmond Cemeteries, Richmond, Maine, 2008 : Sagadahoc County for an example I originally identified through WorldCat, but added the Maine State Library repository (and the source page) because cemetery listings are good reference sources for researchers to know about...

I guess there is no doubt that Jennifer is correct - adding the repositories isn't *necessary* due to the links on the pages. But I don't mind putting them in, as I am often looking at WorldCat anyway for more details on the source itself. I also use the WorldCat template I{{WorldCat}} to insert generic info on what WorldCat does/is.

An example of obtaining new info from WorldCat, by the way, is that I sometimes find there are categories/geographies applied at WorldCat that might not have been applied by the Family History Library, Ancestry, or an alternate original source for the WeRelate page. Sometimes that can be very useful in determining the scope of the title. See Source:Clemons, Hubert Wentworth. Watsons Family, the Butterfield Family for an example where the Family History Library Catalog didn't indicate that a geographic emphasis of the book was Maine - but the WorldCat description gave a subject heading that suggested adding Maine as a geography.

We/I should probably update the Source Page Update articles I created to indicate that the WorldCat and Google Books links are on each source page...

One more thing, in case you run out of things to do :-) (right!)... I've been recently using WorldCat to seek out more recent genealogy related titles that aren't in our database and could be added to WeRelate. I've set up a "list" at WorldCat called "Add to WeRelate that I've been going through and reviewing to see if these sources are available enough (meaning either 1) available in Maine or 2) available at more than a two or three WorldCat libraries worldwide) to be added to WeRelate. Turns out there have been quite a few new Vital Records books published in the last few years in Maine, which are great to add to WeRelate.

Just some more food for thought...--Brenda (kennebec1) 12:23, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

When I see GoogleBooks in a repository listing with the words Free Website next to it, my first assumption is that book is freely available at GoogleBooks. Then I visit the link and find that the book is not available beyond a snippet :-( Maybe it's the use of "Free Website" as its availability that makes those GoogleBook inclusions confusing. --Jennifer (JBS66) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

If it helps, I use [ ] around the link for google books when dealing with a limited preview title. After pasting the link within the brackets, I add a space and then the words "Limited Preview" - that way the Google Book link shows up in the link field as a Limited Preview. See Source:Bangor, Penobscot, Maine, United States. Bangor City Directory (1846-1859) for an example.

However, I have also noticed recently that occasionally a link I added some time ago (say 2-3 years) to full-view books at Google Books are now returning just a snippet view. This is very disturbing... I am concerned that as companies republish old out of print books, Google is sometimes removing the full-view availability. Hence, I always try to find a full view version elsewhere - i.e. Internet Archive or HathiTrust if at all possible. I suppose it is possible that my observation is in error, but I'm pretty sure I would not have added a "snippet view" link to Google Books, and yet that is what is there on the source page now that I am reviewing the pages again. Just a heads up that these Google Books links may not always return what they used to...--Brenda (kennebec1) 10:56, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Oops, i just tested the Limited Preview link in my example Source:Bangor, Penobscot, Maine, United States. Bangor City Directory (1846-1859) and its an example of the problem with Google Books... No Limited Preview is available any more! Bummer... Now I will need to go back and test more Google links. So, I guess I'm inclined to not add the limited preview titles, if the availability is going to be unreliable. I'll keep testing my regular "full-view" links to google Books to see if there really is change in the availability of out-of-print books. --Brenda (kennebec1) 11:08, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

Ream Family [23 January 2015]

Hi my name is Robin and I am working on my family tree and I noticed you have ream family on your tree. Issac Ream is my 2 great grandfather. Are you related to him?--Beachbratt 15:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes. Robin. He is my great grand father. Please start your page so we can communicate.Sandralpond 10:33, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

New categories needed [23 January 2015]

Hello ! Please, see here ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 17:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)