Person talk:John Woodbury (12)

Sticky

Interesting that once I demonstrated at the top of this page that all of Jrich's claims that he has not been deleting primary records and high quality records for months Jrich chose to bury this evidence at the bottom of the page where he knows it is least likely to be read. The reason given is disingenuous in my humble opinion. His arguments have been completely destroyed in several pages of smoking gun evidence I presented this morning at 8AM. The evidence is overwhelming, voluminous and specific. And it proves that we have discussed this ad nausiam for about seven or eight months since I joined. The primary issue here is that Jrich is vandalizing high quality user contributions. And the claim that Jrich made previously that he had not discussed this multiple times since last June has also be disproved. No impartial observer after reviewing these links could possibly make the case that Jrich has not been deleting primary records and high quality secondary sources and vandalizing high quality contributions to werelate.org and that he is not been made aware of this and that he is now burying the evidence.

Roland Henry Baker III

Reason give by Jrich:

[Reorganized page, so responses follow the post they refer or appear to refer to, that being standard procedure and more readable, especially to readers not familiar with the issue and coming late to the discussion.]

Children [14 January 2017]

1. Peter(?) Woodbury was born on 5 Mar 1680 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA and was christened on 8 May 1681 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA.
2. John Woodbury was christened on 8 May 1681 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA.

The name in the town record is ---, the name in the church records is inserted by the compiler, so both records are lacking a name. NO evidence which name is correct. One child being made into two.

1. Rebecca Woodbury was baptized 16 Apr 1689 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA. She married William4 Woodbury son of Nicholas and Mary (Elliott) Woodbury 1706 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA. She was living when she was named in her husband's estate papers in 1734

• Woodbury Family Genealogical Society. "REBECCA 4 WOODBURY (Card in bad condition. In pencil the following partly legible: b. July ___phrey, Jo_) r.w."
• PROBATE RECORD : 1719 LOCATION : Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States CASE NUMBER : 30526 NOTE : page 1 of 34 VOLUME : Essex Cases 30000-31999 PAGE : 30526:1 TEXT : NULL @ 30526:9 1734
• Mrs. Lora A. Underhill, Woodbury Genealogy: Descendants of John and William of England and Massachusetts (manuscript typed and indexed by Ruth A. Woodbury, 1950-8), page 915, Frank B. Woodbury private papers, Rick Woodbury, Salt Lake City, UT.

This simply seems wrong, and then on top of that, none of the dates can be verified, or don't match up. Previous child born 6 years earlier with none following. This alleged baptism date is the death date of mother and no such baptism, or anything similar, is listed in Beverly Church Records. The marriage on 1706 is for a Rebecca Woodbury and Isaac Gray, no marriage for a William Woodbury to anybody on this date. There is no probate for John Woodbury.

The probate file cited, 30526, divides the estate of William Woodbury between 5 children: Nicholas Woodbury eldest son b. 1707, Luke and Anna Morgan b. 1710, Andrew Woodbury b. 1712, Rebecca Woodbury b. 1715, Samuel Woodbury youngest son b. 1717. The Inventory is dated 16 May 1719 names a widow Rebekah. William apparently married somebody named Rebecca sometime before 1707 but I see no evidence that her maiden name was Woodbury, or further, that she came from this family (no children named John or Elizabeth, for example). --Jrich 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

[23 January 2017]

The bottom line is Jrich is vandalizing this site repeatedly by removing primary sources and high quality secondary sources and replacing them with low quality incomplete, erroneous and outdated genealogies from the 1800's that are unsourced. I have warned Jrich repeatedly not to do this but he continues to do so. I therefore have no choice but to restore the profile to the previous state so that these data are not lost. If Jrich wishes to move these records to individuals profiles of children he must move all of these data to the child profiles and not just pick a few vital records, etc. and not carry the rest over to the child profiles. This job was never completed by Jrich and valuable work has been lost. The edit was sloppy and valuable records were lost.

RE:

"# Peter(?) Woodbury"

Clearly Jrich has never read a single issue of The American Genealogist, NEHGR, a peer-reviewed journal of any kind or a book published by a FASG genealogist because otherwise he like any other researcher would already know that the (?) means that the listed child is questionable and unproven. The footnote after the name shows the exact reason for the questioning the record. Any researcher reading this page will already know this. Jrich can add an additional explanation in plain English to the profile so that others (who don't understand common usage of a (?) like himself) can have a clearer idea of what this means. He does not need to delete the entire record and have a tantrum on talk. But Jrich should not remove the record of the birth of the child. A child was born and its record should not have been deleted. We do not pick and choose which vital records are to our liking. We present them all. We do not delete vital records that are posted to a profile. Moving a record from a parent to a child is acceptable if a child profile is created. But that means actually moving the record not deleting it entirely. And this is what Jrich has done over and over and over. If you want to you can add any discussion of the record on the profile. I am not interested in debating records with you. That fact I agree should be obvious by the footnote showing the “___” name from vital records and the (?) after the name of the supposed name Peter. Why the drama every time? It is getting really old.

RE:

"# Rebacca"

Woodbury Family Genealogical Society:

"REBECCA 4 WOODBURY (Card in bad condition. In pencil the following partly legible: b. July ___phrey, Jo_) r.w." [

Rebecca 4 (John, Humphrey, John) fits the illegible note in this source and should be added to John's family although there is no record of her birth or christening.

This source is also available at the NEHGS in Boston, MA of which I am a member.

The record exists and you cannot choose to simply not agree with the record. You can critique the record but it must be presented with all the other records. But that criticism goes on the profile. Again I am not interested in your drama on talk. Don't delete records.

Until this and other records are restored I will be forced to restore this whole profile of John to the state I left it in. You may challenge any claim made supported by any record. But you may not delete records like these.

If Jrich wishes to explain or challenge a particular record Jrich doesn't need to start a talk session. Just create profiles for the two children listed above and explain your point on their profiles. I think the ambiguity of these two children is already obvious. But Jrich may feel the need to explain it in simple terms that Jrich is comfortable with instead of just presenting the facts the way a FASG genealogist usually would. No one is going to read the talk session. The records should not be deleted either way. They need to be presented with the rest of the data. That traces and derivative records exist of vital records that have long become unreadable is a certainty. NEHGR once printed the contents of a piece of paper retrieved from a garbage dump that contained vital records no longer readable at the town clerk’s office. So we as genealogist accept that entropy is a law. We accept that all record will eventually decay. We must accept that derivatives are sometimes valuable proxies even if they may not carry the same weight and they cannot be ignored. And records such as

____, s. John and Elizabeth (Tenney), b. Mar. 5, 1680-1. Beverly V.R. (Pg. #372)

Are still vital records and we do not decide to just delete them.

I consider this talk session complete. I will now restore the profile to the state I left it in. So Jrich needs to do the right thing and stop drumming up drama on talk session and having edit wars and otherwise vandalizing this site. Save the criticism of a record for the respective profile and not for talk sessions. If Jrich wants to transfer the original records so that they are all on new profiles Jrich created for John's children that is fine. I don't have a problem with that. And in that case they can be removed from the profile of the father. But to just delete vital records or other records of evidence that is considered by better genealogist than Jrich to be important is not OK. The two examples above do not include all the records Jrich deleted but didn't replace on the profiles of the children that are in no way in question. Many other records were deleted that are not in question and did not get placed on the profiles of the respective children. This is not acceptable! Until all those records are restored and / or moved I have no choice but to restore the whole profile. It is not up to Jrich to delete these records. So look at the original biography find each record and make sure it is somewhere and not just deleted. Jrich's edits were sloppy and destructive. That can not be debated. I have told him this countless times.

This is not the first time I have discussed this with Jrich. He has removed countless primary and secondary sources from profiles that I have added. I have asked him nicely over and over and over to stop yet he persists. He does not own these profiles and this is not collaboration.

Roland Henry Baker III

Clearly you do not understand or want to understand how this website works. It is hard to respect such an attitude especially when your first response is this here which almost entirely reflects on your conduct, not mine. I have made the page work the way WeRelate pages do. You have made it work by some personal model that is not appropriate. You are the one that keeps changing the content back without comment, you have not asked me to stop over and over, instead it was I that posted to your Talk page asking you to stop (as the history of the page will show even though you erased it without responding). The content of my posts shows how false many of your allegations are. You complain about talk sessions and yet that is how we discuss issues at WeRelate.

We do not put all information on the father's page because all children have their own page and you put information regarding the children on their page. Such an approach as yours if applied consistently would require putting the same data on the Family page, the child's person page, their father's person page, their mother's person page, and would be redundant. Further many people looking at the child's person page would never realize that it might say something different on the father's person page, so it is not an effective presentation unless someone cares only about the father to the exclusion of all others. This is obviously not an attitude that works in a website that uses a single unified family tree, where we want to find the best information possible about each individual, and an individual is important in their own right and not because they are child of another or parent of another.

We cite sources using links to Source pages because that allows us to centralize information about those sources, such as where to find them. We can use ref tags, but they are limited because they do not produce consistent citations compared to the ones that come from the Source pages. We do not follow ESM. If you do not care to cite sources correctly, at least do not hinder the efforts of those that wish to cleanup your work.

If I removed citations it is because they belong on the child's page. If I cited a bad source, it is because you cited it and I merely converted to the WeRelate style. Look at the citations: they are the same as your ref-tags and additionally include links to online version. There is one exception: The probate file that does not belong to John Woodbury and must have been cited without ever looking at the contents because it is for a different town, concerns the guardian papers of a John Woodbury who is son of Joseph Woodbury and clearly does not belong to this John Woodbury..

If you want to show Rebecca and John are in this family find a source with any credibility that says so, preferably something primary, not some mangled secondary record that maybe doesn't even say this, combined with a baptism date that is not in the church records. Or two children with the same baptism record when the church records only show the baptism of one child on that date. Then post it to their pages, not their father's page, so that if perchance, there is controversy or disagreement, that can be documented by those with dissenting views. That is how collaboration works, not by you simply insisting that a page say and appear only as you want it. And it would be more convincing if you showed any knowledge that this Rebecca married again after William Woodbury, or that her second husband had another wife named Rebecca Woodbury who was the widow of Joseph Corning. --Jrich 14:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

[23 January 2017]

Once again you are completely missing the point and going on a rant regarding topics that have nothing to do with anything. . This is getting really boring. I guess I hit a nerve. Your obsessive needs to feel like you’ve won an argument so you don’t feel shame for your errors is getting very old. Setting up strawmen arguments isn’t going to work with me. I see right through them. They don’t deserve the dignity of a response.

Claim: Jrich claims he did not delete citations he merely moved them to the respective new profiles.

They are not profiles. There are person pages and family pages. Profile, I assume, is a name used at a different website, but has no meaning here. I did not remove citations pertaining to John Woodbury except the one pointed out that was not his probate file or anybody in his family, I did remove citations for the children, and said as much for the children. I did not even create pages for all the children, thinking two of them fictitious, but did try to get most of the information transferred to children's pages, though in some cases I took the liberty of using a better source instead (i.e., church records themselves, instead of vital records citing church records), and yes, I completely dropped the citation about his son in law Joseph Dodge because I had no reason to realize it was not on Joseph Dodge's page already. Who would come to John Woodbury's page to find documentation of who Joseph Dodge's mother was? Nobody. More on Joseph below. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fact: Actual citations that were originally on the profile are completely deleted. Example: Look at the citations for the very third child and spouse viz Ruth Woodbury and Joseph Dodge. Here is the original version with all the citations:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:John_Woodbury_%2812%29&oldid=23409174#25

Notice please that Joseph Dodge includes footnote # 29 which is his baptism record from volume 1 page 110 showing his date of baptism and his parent’s names including his mother maiden name making the identity of his parent unambiguous based on a primary source:

29. Joseph, s. Joseph, Jr and Priscilla (Eaton), bp. Feb. 8, 1701-2. C.R.1. Beverly V.R. (Pg. #110)

Now look at the new profile that Jrich created for Dr Joseph Dodge Jr:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Joseph_Dodge_%281%29

Notice that this vital record is now missing. You did not move the vital records you simply deleted many of them. And that is why I will restore the entire biography until you complete the task of moving all of these citations to their respective new profile. The issue is sloppy work that resulting in deleted citations which you have no right to delete. The issue is not the merits of having duplicate data. I already said below that if you wish to create separate profiles and move the citations to them that would be great. So your argument is a strawman and I simply won’t engage you with strawman arguments. You deleted citations of vital records due to sloppy work. In order to protect these data I need to restore the entire profile –or- you need to complete your work. Which is it going to be? Because I’ve already proven what you are saying is not true.

Look at the history. The page was created long ago. I did not create it. My only contributions were to connect him to his 3rd and 4th wives who were not mentioned on his page prior to 14 Jan. I added no sources to the page, they coming from other contributors, I did no study of Joseph to know what was of value and what was not. I did remove the vital record from John Woodbury's page as part of deleting the children, as John's page is certainly not the place one should be documenting Joseph's parentage, and it is true I did not add it to Joseph's page, probably because I never even looked at Joseph Dodge's page to realize it wasn't there, only picked him out of a search list in order to link him to his marriages.

I will add this about his baptism, on Vol. 1, p. 110 of Beverly VRs, known as Source:Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of Year 1849 in the WeRelate universe: it says "C.R.1" meaning it is taken from the church records, which are themselves online, i.e., here. Notice how the entire wife's name is in square brackets, meaning it was added by the compiler William P. Upham, and is not in the original record. Thus the naming of the mother is of secondary quality while the rest of the record is of primary quality. This would not be accepted as proof in any of those journals I allegedly have not (but actually have) read. However, those journals might be willing to accept the marriage record found on Vol. 2, p. 94, of the vital records here. Which says he didn't marry Priscilla Eaton until 1705 so she clearly wasn't the mother of a child born in 1701-2 (see Person:Joseph Dodge (10)). Case in point, about the naming of the mother being secondary.

I notice your now-deleted text says "Ruth married Dr. Joseph (4) Dodge, son of Joseph (3) Dodge and Sarah Eaton 29 Apr 1716.[28] Joseph was born about 1676 in Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, USA", but "footnote # 29 which is his baptism record", says he was baptized in 1701-2. Clearly footnote #29 does not apply to the husband of Ruth Woodbury. So pardon me for fixing your error. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Claim: Jrich claims he has never deleted high quality primary sources and vital records from profiles I have edited and we have never discussed this issue before.

Fact: This is entirely false. As you can see plainly by the example above you did delete a vital record. I have been chastising Jrich for removing primary and high quality secondary sources that I have added since June of 2016 just a few days after I joined here. Perhaps this edit rings a bell Jrich? We discussed this and a whole series of edits you made ad nauseum and I had to put them all back on the profiles:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3AGeorge_Bullard_%2814%29&diff=22986267&oldid=22986250

No record of George Edward Bullard’s birth survives in vital records probably because the original record was damaged. The only primary source for the name of his birth parents was the vital record of his marriage which names both his parents. You removed this record. Your reason? It looks messy:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:George_Bullard_%2814%29&oldid=22986250

Here is the profile after your edit. The only primary record on the profile was removed by Jrich. And you’ve done this countless times and we have discussed it countless times:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:George_Bullard_%2814%29&oldid=22986267

You’ve also discussed the fact that you remove links to images of vital records. For example look at this edit where you removed the link to a very hard to find image of a vital record. This record completely overturned the entire published Bullard genealogy and yet you decided it was too messy and deleted it:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3AMianduel_Gibbs_%281%29&diff=22986330&oldid=22986276

Your reason? It looks messy.

I'm not sure messy is an accurate representation of "My version of the citation had a link to the scanned image. Your version of the citation had a link to an index created by well-meaning, but unvetted, untrained volunteers (e.g., I believe the handwritten document says "Merandriel S. (Gibbs) Bullard, not "Merandriel L. Gibbs Ballard" as the index says). So if anybody removed citations of primary sources it was you. However, ultimately we were citing the exact same source, yours was one click further away." Typically, URLs are enclosed in brackets, often with a description to help people know what the link goes to, and to avoid line wrapping issues caused by very long lengths. The link is still there. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn’t art class. It is evidenced based genealogy. Maybe art is your calling because you certainly don’t understand the basics of evidenced based genealogy. You systematically followed me around deleting vital records for eight months. Still not remembering Jrich? Read this:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person_talk:Mianduel_Gibbs_%281%29

Claim: Jrich claims he has never deleted high quality secondary sources and replaced them with error filled, outdated, incomplete genealogies from the 1800’s.

Fact: Oh yes you do it all the time! And we’ve discussed this too! Let’s look at this profile for Lydia Jrich in which you deleted a citation to what FASG genealogist consider to be one of the finest set of genealogy books ever to be published in recent history: Smith, Dean Crawford, and Melinde Lutz Sanborn. The Ancestry of Eva Belle Kempton 1878-1908. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1996-2008), Part IV 452 f Leland, 2000. The book is good enough that Robert Charles Anderson, FASB will cite this book alone as the only source necessary to document an immigrant in the Great Migration Directory. He almost never does this. Usually if he cites a published genealogy he supplements it with other sources. But he and other FASB genealogist consider Ancestry of Eva Belle Kempton as the current state of genealogy research. Now that is a high quality secondary source without a doubt.

Here is the original profile as I found it as erroneously added by you using people who never even existed because you depended on an outdated source (Savage) that was known to be full of errors. And this has been known for nearly 100 years but I guess you never got the memo:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:Hopestill_Leland_and_Elgin_Hatherly_%282%29&oldid=22585228

Not sure what this is about, the history of this pages shows I never made a single contribution to this page. Neither does the history of Henry Leland (2) the only child listed. The user of Savage is not me, as is well-known to anybody that has been on this website for any length of time. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And the profile (Note at this point not showing the parents you had that didn’t exist – see above, but still showing the wrong maiden name):

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Lydia_Albee_%289%29&oldid=16875225

Note wrong maiden name and the wrong parents, etc. Now look at my edit:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3ALydia_Albee_%289%29&diff=23239263&oldid=16875225

And resulting corrected profile *including* a citation to one of the most highly acclaimed genealogy books published by NEHGS in the last 20 years:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Lydia_Albee_%289%29&oldid=23239263

Now that is a high quality secondary source! Written by a scholar in the field and published by none other than NEHGS. It is authoritative. It is readily available on openlibarary to anyone who wishes to read it. Or you can buy a copy. It represents the current state of research on this family. And I summarized the content pointing out the previous errors in this genealogy.

Whatever you say. But still secondary and authoritative depends on what you are comparing it to. I removed it because I didn't think Lydia Albee's page needed to document "There is no evidence that Hopestill Leland ever existed according to The Ancestry of Eva Belle Kempton p 453 published by New England Historical and Genealogical Society in 2000 stating that it was a generational error made by Savage." That should be done elsewhere (namely somebody concerned with the second wife Lydia, or with access to Kempton, should create the Family and Person page for the second Lydia. Nothing on Lydia Albee's page indicated she was related to Hopestill Leland. The issue did point out the death date was incorrect, and that has been corrected. Let me repeat the posting that you erased off your Talk page,, with a little emphasis added, which explained what I did:

This profile is now completely incorrect. If you are going to change it please research it first. Alexander married two woman named Lyida. The first wife Lydia Albee died 1 Mar 1660/1 just after they married and she is not mother to any of the recorded children shown here: Medfield deaths: LOVELL, Ledia, w. Alixander, Mar. 1, 1660-1. He married second Lydia (Unknown) who was the mother of all his children. She died 1700. These two Lydias are not identical. That's the whole point of Kempton Ancestry p 453 is the second Lydia was not a Leland. If you remove that source people are just going to add her back as a Leland. Savage is not correct about these families. See also p 424 Hist of Medfield.

It wasn't correct before. The marriage date on the family page was 1658 and that belongs to Lydia Albee. If a good and complete source citation had been entered, your intent would have been clearer. The problem with Kempton is that he is under copyright protection and not readily available. Plus the previous message rejected a mistake that wasn't presented, so a reader of the page only gets confused. My suggestion is don't assume the reader knows everything you do when you post things, i,e., providing more complete abstracts under the fair usage rule would be helpful. Further, as soon as possible try to get at least at outline of the complete picture posted. In this case, getting both marriages entered would probably have been the most useful. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So now let’s go look at your edit where you deleted this high quality secondary source and replaced with the same outdated source (Savage) which was the original source of the error to being with!

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person%3ALydia_Albee_%289%29&diff=23239709&oldid=23239263

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Lydia_Albee_%289%29&oldid=23239709

Let’s replay that – did you see how Jrich deleted the highest quality secondary source available with correct information and replaced it with an a known erroneous source that is outdated published in the 1800’s. He also deleted all reference to the discussion of this error so anyone viewing the profile has no context to understand the issue discussed in the source.

Well I think I just blew away another one of your lies. And yes we discussed this one to. And we keep on discussing it ad nauseum for the last eight months and you still delete primary and high quality secondary sources. You can’t make the claim that you do not because I just proved it.

Claim: Jrich claims that my method of using inline citation on a parents profile including citations for children is not the way it should be done on werelate.

Fact: Well Amelia.Gerlicher and many other administrator’s don’t seem to agree. I’ve gotten many kind words from them regarding just such contributions. For example here:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:William_Brewster_%281%29

Finally, back to something connected to John Woodbury. There are times when the use of inlilne citations is appropriate in small numbers, though full-blown source citations are always preferrable, especially when that source citation includes a link to an online copy of the material. I would say 54 on one page, most of them referencing a single source, and bypassing the benefits that the links to Source pages give to the reader, is excessive. Not to mention that most of that data didn't belong on John Woodbury's page to start with. I cleaned them up for you converting them to the more valuable source citations. You're welcome. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandHenryBakerIII

I do high quality work using proper inline citations. This is a wiki and I use wikicode. This is not art class. This is your personal opinion based on your personal taste. But it has nothing to do with werelate.org’s policies or the opinions of all of werelate.org’s staff. I ask that you kindly keep such opinions to yourself. As long as my edits are within the published final guidelines of werelate.org I will continue to make my contributions. I have no made a single violations of these published final guidelines. And I don’t want to waste my valuable time debating you on aesthetics. I really could care less about how you think things should look. I care about citing proper evidence to support a claim.

I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Please put back the primary and high quality secondary sources that you have deleted. If you don’t within 24 hours I will restore the profiles above to their original state to protect these data. You are vandalizing high quality contributions made to werelate.org. The evidence presented above proves it.

And you don’t use talk to discuss a damaged vital record. You discuss it on the profile where people can read the discussion. I don’t want or need to discuss the merit of a damaged vital record with you. It is a complete waste of my time and frankly I don’t like your drama.

And what is with you and this probate record. Everyone seems to get this but you. It supports the damaged vital record that is at NEHGS showing that the name of the spouse was Rebecca when he died. If you have an issue with it discuss it with the genealogist at the Woodbury Family Association. I'm sure he'd love to debate you. I do not. Just add the record and if you feel the evidence or lack thereof needs criticism in plain English add that to the discuss on the profile biography or under the source. The criticism is for the benefit of the public not for me.

No, you don't get it. I read the entire probate record that names the wife Rebecca and I documented it on Person:William Woodbury (13), more carefully than you apparently (it does not mention the widow Rebecca Woodbury in 1734, it mentions that land that was set off to widow Rebecca Woodbury in 1734, i.e., she was dead. And in 1726 it mentions Rebecca Woodbury alias Cleeves because she had remarried.) But that is not the probate record I am referring to. It is

PROBATE RECORD : 1715 LOCATION : Manchester, Essex, Massachusetts, United States CASE NUMBER : 30427 NOTE : page 1 of 18 VOLUME : Essex Cases 30000-31999 PAGE : 30427:1 TEXT : NULL

which is presented as John Woodbury's probate, but is not.

The genealogist at the Woodbury Family Association is free to create a user account and make his own postings. Those postings will count as much as anybody elses, and be judged by readers based on the actual evidence they provide. --Jrich 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Reflect poorly on me? What is this kindergarten? Please leave your drama at home.

Jrich has a whole bucketful of strawman arguments and they just don’t cover for his sloppy habit of deleting high quality sources.

Try to keep up Jrich and stop being so defensive and just fix your mistakes and restore the vital records or I will.

Roland Henry Baker III

Sources

This being a collaborative website, it is nice to provide more than the bare-bones citation of a source, i.e., at least an abstract of what it says, so a reader can tell why you might think it is important. Further, if they perhaps don't have access, then an abstract gives them an indication of how authoritative or important it may be, and hence, whether it is worth chasing it down. (I am no lawyer, but I believe this is legal even for sources under copyright, first of all because facts can't be copyrighted, and that is the bulk of genealogical material; and second, because my interpretation of the fair use exception allows you to analyze the content for reasonableness or lack thereof, much as a movie reviewer may discuss, even spoil, the plot of a movie, in order that they may provide a useful review of that movie.)

Case in point, I don't understand (and am erasing) the citation of

PROBATE RECORD : 1715 LOCATION : Manchester, Essex, Massachusetts, United States CASE NUMBER : 30427 NOTE : page 1 of 18 VOLUME : Essex Cases 30000-31999 PAGE : 30427:1 TEXT : NULL

...which is a guardian file for the children of Joseph Woodbury, their guardian being Robert Woodbury, and hence, appears to have no relevance to this page? Thus making one wonder how many of the other sources cited are similarly irrelevant? --Jrich 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)