User talk:Bill Wright


Welcome [4 October 2008]

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. Review the tutorials to learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors.
  3. Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior in a wiki.

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!--Jstump 10:53, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Abandoned Family pages [7 October 2008]

I am an Administrator for WeRelate and have noticed that you have created several abandoned Family pages, including for example;

  - Unknown and Margaret Malcolm (1)
- Unknown and Mary Hoxsie (1)
- Joseph Hoxsie and Unknown (1)

It appears that these intended Family pages are quickly supplanted by;

  - William Wright and Margaret Malcolm (1)
- Amos Lewis and Mary Hosxie (1)
- Joseph Hoxsie and Mary Taylor (1)

We want to know how (i.e., what specific steps you are using) you are creating that first page, which becomes unused because of the subsequent page. Would you please list those specific steps in order to help us identify how the system is responding to those steps and how the system could be altered? --Dquass 15:06, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I share your concern over the abandoned pages. I have been through the tutorials once. I prefer to enter my data directly rather than through a gedcom. I am still trying to decide how what extent I will participate in I purposely have not uploaded any files to the big genealogy sitess, rootsweb, ancestry, familysearch/ancestral files. I have seen many bogus pedigrees uploaded and early on decided that I did not want to enter my data onto these sites. I have added a number of post-em notes on rootsweb in regard to erroneous data. I have had few responses to the post-ems. When I have had a response, the response is "I only copied somebody else's posted file." And "I don't know anything about this family." Or worse yet, "I tried to correct it, and can't do it."

Your question Here is what I think happened. I created a page for Dianna Kenyon (1). I wanted to enter data on her parents, Daniel Kenyon and Martha. I edit Person:Dianna Kenyon (1). I tried entering Daniel Kenyon as well as Daniel Kenyon and Martha in the Parents and Siblings box and then telling it to find/add. What I have just typed in the box is lost and the Find / Add a Family Page appears. The boxes are blank. I then entered only the name of Daniel Kenyon because I want to search all Daniel Kenyons to see if any of these match. The search for possible matches window appears. The search for Daniel Kenyon turns up no matches. I then enter Daniel Kenyon for the husband and Martha for the wife. I click Add Page. This returns me to the edit page for Dianna Kenyon (1). But it has ignored the Martha whom I entered in the last search box and created a Daniel Kenyon (x). This is not what I wanted, so I repeat the process, but enter Daniel Kenyon and Martha in the Find / Add a Family Page screen.

My mistake is that I should have entered Daniel Kenyon and Martha in the Find / Add a Family Page screen the first time. Then when the search screen appears, I could modify it to search for all Daniel Kenyons to see if any of these would match with the Daniel Kenyon I am editing. I am slowly learning the system. But I find it clumsy and cumbersome.

Repetitive data entry process I have to duplicate the entry of data between the person page and the family page.

Related issue of concern On a related issue where I think I created several abandoned pages was the pages dealing with Thomas Hazard and Martha Potter, Thomas Hazard and Martha Sheriff, and Thomas Hazard and Martha Unknown. There were already as many as nine pages referring to this Thomas Hazard. Thomas Hazard married first ca 1628 Martha Unknown. He married second in 1675 the widow Martha Sheriff. I found the reference calling his first wife (Martha Unknown) Martha Potter. I was uncertain whether this was new information that I did not have, but there was no source given. I entered a discussion in the Family History section questioning the data and asking for sources.

jrm03063 changed what I had written. He inserted a title "Disputed lineages". He also deleted my request for source documentation. I then proceeded to change the "Disputed lineages" to "Undocumented lineages" and reinserted my request for sources. This change better fit my discussion. I entered a talk direct to jrm03063 explaining that I was not disputing the lineages, but simply wanted documentation. He replied that my comments should have done on the talk page for Thomas Hazard and Martha ... Also that he was unfamiliar with the family, but was only merging duplicate files. He appears to be a volunteer for

I can see the logic of placing questions and discussions under talk. On the other hand, when I am correcting erroneous data, I want my comments readily visible to others so that they don't uncorrect my corrected entries. To me that means placing it on the personal history or family history section that will appear on the person or family screen. I have placed some of my correction discussions on the talk pages. But that files them away where they are not readily seen. That is why I started placing these discussions in the history sections.

I didn't have any more responses to what I had posted to the Thomas Hazard and Martha ... page. So I started going through my library and files on the Hazard family and searched the internet. I found several uploaded family trees showing his first wife as Martha Potter, but no documentation. I also found where the issue was discussed on genealogical bulletin boards with the general conclusion that her maiden surname was unknown, confirming what is found in the published accounts.

At this point I proceeded to enter the results of my investigation in the family history for Thomas Hazard and Martha Unknown. I deleted the extended list of children which contained some duplicate names and names of sons that had been disproved as belonging to the family. I also deleted the references to the differing parentages that had been assigned to Thomas Hazard since his origin is unknown. I did additional merges to point all the pages referring to this Thomas Hazard to one page. I also worked on the names of his two wives. I wanted them listed in the correct order and to read Martha Unknown and Martha Sheriff.

This was a learning and interative process. I am certain that I created a number of abandoned pages in the process. I would have liked to be able to delete a page that I had created in error, but I don't believe that is possible. Again the software is clumsy and cumbersome. Making changes and even entering new data is not easy.

I believe the number of duplicate pages referring to the same Thomas Hazard resulted from the uploading of several gedcom files by different users. The lack of responsiveness to my corrections and entries raises issues. Are the people following these pages not really that interested, or do they lack definitive information. I expected that I would get some reaction to my posts.

--Bill Wright 18:51, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response! Your comments will help make WeRelate a better place. I've written down several ideas based upon your response. One of them is to list the contents of the talk page at the bottom of the primary page - like comments on a blog. This should make the talk page comments more visible, which I agree are not very visible currently. Another is to have changes in the search screen affect the title of the page to add. The changes won't happen right away (I have to get merge working first so that merging duplicates is easier), but they should be in place by the end of the year. One additional thing, you can delete a person or family page so long as you are the only person "Watching" the page. You can do this by selecting "Delete" from the "More" menu in the upper-right corner of the page.--Dallan 11:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Hazard families, et. al. [25 November 2008]

I crossed paths with this family only because of my interest in merging duplication out of the werelate space as much as possible. That means assuming that whatever I find, however well sourced or not, is "correct".

From time to time, I do find errors or the merge process reveals mutually exclusive facts (simultaneous families, etc.). To deal with that stuff, I've adopted the practice of calling the situation a "disputed lineage" and then describing the situation (dispute in the broad sense - that different ideas have been in play on some point - not that there is necessarily an active dispute among knowledgeable folks on the issue). I will leave the page in a condition that reflects the most probable truth as I see it, while explicitly indicating information that seems to have been discredited.

I appreciate your dedication to sources, but the body of a page isn't the place to pose that question. That belongs on the associated talk page, but I wouldn't hold your breath on a response. Lack of sources is a pervasive problem in genealogy, and werelate is no exception. Instead, I suggest you approach that by adding whatever sources you have and assuming that they represent the best possible information on the subject. It's the responsibility of folks watching the page, if they disagree with your changes/reinterpretation, to offer alternative sources and initiate a discussion on the talk page.

I would encourage you to update the relevant pages/people to the state you think bears the best scrutiny. Add whatever sources you can in as much detail as you can. Be sure to retain explicit information on what you considered to be "wrong" or at least, not sufficiently supported to warrant a claim as probably true. Refutation of bad or weak information and common errors is an important sort of "negative" information that werelate can do a good job preserving and presenting.

Good Luck...--Jrm03063 19:26, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Questions [25 November 2008]

I appreciate your work on werelate. Your information on Elisabetha Raymer was one of the first times I actually found a good piece of information here first.

However, I have a couple of questions and observations.

1. You added a statement to Family:Edmund Freeman and Elisabetha Raymer (1) "In Sandwich the household of Edmund and Elizabeth Freeman included two young ladies, Mary and Margaret." There was no census back then so how can this be established. What do you base this statement on? Your identification of Elizabeth Raymer was well-documented, but this one is not.

2. You modifed comments on Person:Mary Freeman (9). Your comments were not unreasonable. However, I signed the comment and you edited right in the middle of my comment. It would be more appropriate to add your comments separately below mine and sign them, since some, particulary the one regarding the acceptance of Dawes-Gates research could be viewed as opinion. Also you messed up a link to a source entry. These are not bibliography entries and must be spelled exactly as they are entered in the database or the link breaks.

3. It would be more courteous on pages with blue user watching it, i.e., user that are still active, to perhaps start a discussion on the talk page before changing things. For example, you just deciding that Cycella Freeman should be removed from the family she is in (although I agree and had started just such a discussion myself).

--Jrich 22:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Just one quick additional comment. I am not sure that honoring colonial era spelling is all that significant, i.e., Elisabetha Raymer, versus Elizabeth Raymer. First, the spelling in use was generally phonetic and often inconsistent even within a single document or vital record. Second, people searching for the record will have a hard time finding it. I would suggest making the name Elizabeth Raymer and adding an alternate name for Elisabetha Raymer. After all, we don't put Edmundus Freeman for Edmund. --Jrich 23:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)


You are correct. I apologize for the way I handled the entries. I forgot how to do the signing. I have been thinking about my messing up that link all night. My participation in werelate is still in test mode. If werelate goes the way of the other family tree sites and becomes a continual battle to maintain good documentation and keep out bogus pedigrees -- well I don't have time for that.

As for the Elisabetha spelling, I agree that for search and indexing purposes, modernizing the spelling makes sense. Somewhere in my early years of tracing my family I read that there was a protocol of spelling names as they first appear. But that was before I bought my first computer in 1977.

I will try to undo the damage I did and hope I don't mess it up worse.--Bill Wright 09:25, 25 November 2008 (EST) (I found the button.)


I fixed a couple of your source links. John, in keeping with your earlier remarks, much of your discussion on the Mary Freeman page belongs on the talk page with sources and conclusions on the person page. Having said that, Was the passenger list for the Abigail for passengers at departure or disembarcation? Thomas Freeman 24 must be the Thomas that was said to be the father of Mary and Margaret, neither of which appear on the list, the one who was said to have died at Sea of small pox. Jo(seph?) and Sycillie seem to be with Marie, but at 50 she appears to be too old to be the mother of Sycillie, so possibly she was an older relative of John and all 3 were traveling with him. Elizabeth at 35 was certainly still of child bearing age. If Mary was born 1636 or earlier, she could have been born aboard ship or in Saugus before the family came to Plymouth Colony. she might appear in History of Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts : including Lynnfield, Saugus, Swampscot, and Nahant.[[1]]--Scot 13:13, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Scot, I tend to agree with your analysis. The passenger list appears to a list collected by the captain as people registered to be passengers. The dates cover over a month of elapsed time so it doesn't correspond exactly to departure. Family grouping are deduced by the date their names were entered on the passenger list and while one expects a whole family would do this as a group, I supposed one could even doubt that, besides allowing for people sneaking out of England or recording errors. I do find the argument that Marie was age 5 instead of 50 much weaker than the possibility than that Edmund lived in Saugus/Lynn for a year and had a daughter whose birth went unrecorded. But I think Bill's current discussion presents all sides, and until more evidence is presented, I think people coming to the page will find it helpful. When some clear evidence is presented, I would agree this discussion should be moved to the Talk page, but at this point, I think it needs to be visible so I would leave it here for now. --Jrich 13:19, 25 November 2008 (EST) I just put savage on Edmund-Elizabeth family page. He serves to cloud the issue further. He calls him Edward, but says the father of the children was Edmund. He lists the 2nd wife of Edward/Edmund,Jr. as Margaret Young. Marriage date of 1631, obviously a transcription error for 1651.--Scot 16:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Scot, Thanks for correcting the source links. Jrich answered your questions pretty well. I usually prefer to post some discussion items in the family history section where they will be readily visible to others who might jump in and start posting questionable data. I agree with Jrich that arguing that Marie's age is really 5 rather than 50 is a stretch. But then I have not read the original record. Oftentimes variant readings are possible from early records. I do think that the Mary Freeman, daughter of Thomas, born 1630, is a likely candidate for the Mary who married Edward Perry, but then we can't even be certain that Edward Perry's wife was neé Freeman.--Bill Wright 16:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

William Wright of Augusta County [25 May 2009]

Hi Bill, nice to hear from another Augusta County descendant!

In answer to a few of your questions, I am not a descendant of William Wright of Augusta County, but I have compiled (for over 35 years) several records of him (and many of the early settlers of Augusta County), since I do descend from several early Augusta County settlers. I have been working on a project called "The Early Settlers of Augusta County, VA", which is a detailed listing of many of the early settlers that migrated to Augusta County, mostly in the 1700's. If you have better birthdates for his children, based upon your 30+ years of research on this family, feel free to update them with those dates. (after reviewing the information that you provided, almost all of the dates seem to agree with your information listed).

I've added a few more pieces of information which I think you'll agree, add more information to William's page, including the section of the J.R. Hildebrand Map (which I've been given exclusive permission to use from his son, John Hildebrand) showing William's land acquired in 1749. I am aware that there were apparently two different William Wright's in Augusta County at that time, so if any of the information that I've added pertains to the other William, please let me know so I can remove it from your William's page. I'd appreciate it if you could leave the "Early Settlers of Augusta County" banner, since it pertains to all of the early settlers for that time period.

If you have any other concerns, please let me know.

Best regards,


Here is a link to the article in progress (which Dallan has given his blessing to): 10:16, 25 May 2009 (EDT)


Thanks for the reply. As you know there is a lot of mis-information on William Wright of Augusta. Thank you for correcting the birthdate order and dates for Samuel Wright's children. There is a problem on the page of William Wright and Margaret Malcolm with respect to the order of his children. James is shown to be older than he probably was. The 1751 birth year is based on a statement James made in his Revolutionary War pension application. Other records show that James and Alexander were the two youngest sons. The order in which the sons are listed in William Wright's will probably represent their birth order. I am in the middle of a fence building project and don't have time to make a lot of corrections to the werelate database.

Bill --Bill Wright 13:23, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

source page scheduled for deletion [26 August 2009]

Hi Bill,

This page is scheduled for deletion because it is a duplicate. Source:The Hazard family of Rhode Island, 1635-1894 : being a genealogy and history of the descendants of Thomas Hazard, with sketches of the worthies of this family and (42309)

However you added a source citation to Person:Martha Sheriff (2) that links to this page. Would you search for the duplicate source and change your link to the duplicate before I delete this source page. Thanks. --Volunteer Adminstrator-Beth 13:26, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

There appear to be two pages, only differentiated by having different FHL numbers. Only one has a link to to it and somehow that is the one being deleted? Why not just mark the other duplicate as the one to be deleted? I cannot see that Bill Wright changed either source page, and never did anything but link to one? Just out of curiosity, why is it his responsibility to clean up the link? --Jrich 13:45, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I marked for speedy delete the other duplicate. So this one can stay. The link should not need updating. --Jrich 14:59, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Alexander Wright in Beverley Manor [4 April 2010]

Hi Bill, do you have any information on the Alexander Wright that acquired the following land in Beverley Manor?: (could he be a brother of your William?)

Alexander Wright (Lots 8 and 9 in Staunton; also 50 acre woodland lots No. 6 and 7, from Chalkley's, 22 Feb. 1749)

Alexander Wright (£10 for 4 lots in Staunton numbered 14, 15, 20, 21, from Thomas Lewis and John Madison for Beverley, 20 March, 1755 from Chalkley's)

Probably the same one listed here:

Page 367.--22d March, 1760. Alexander Wright, merchant, in Fredericksburg, to James Bratton, blacksmith, £75, 334 acres in Beverley Manor; Mr. Lewis' corner; Maxwell's line. Teste: Patt. Couts, Wm. Long, Chas. Lewis, Wm. Preston, Thos. Bowyer, John Neil.
Page 702.--May, 1764. Alexander Wright, merchant of Fredericksburg, to Daniel Kidd. Whereas James Brown on 9th October, 1754, leased 173 acres, part of 1550 acres known by the name of the Mill tract on which the Court House now stands, for 57 years 6 months to said Alexander Wright, for £20. This lease witnesseth. £20 paid by said Thomas Fulton, and 40 shillings yearly rent. Alexander leases to said Daniel 173 acres; James Millers' line; Beverley's line; corner Robt. Finley's land, crossing the Creek; 47 years term; reenter if said Thomas Fulton fails to pay. Teste: James Hargrove, Is. Christian, Thos. Fulton. Delivered: Daniel Kidd, April, 1769.

Thanks and best regards,

Jim--Delijim 12:36, 3 April 2010 (EDT)


This Alexander Wright is not related to the family of William Wright of Tinkling Spring (1707-1776). Likewise the brother of this Alexander was the William who died intestate in Augusta Co in the early 1750s, probably a casualty of the F&I War. This is the quick answer. I could dig around in my files for more specific details. But I don't have much on this other Alexander and William, except not being able to link them to my line.

So the William Wright who fought under George Washington at the Battle of Fort Necessity during the F&I War may be the brother of Alexander Wright of Fredricksburg, and not William Wright of Tinkling Spring. Sorting out the William Wrights makes genealogy research interesting and challenging. --Bill Wright 22:46, 3 April 2010 (EDT)