User talk:Jrich

Topics census records [1 July 2015]

I don't know if you have opened a door for me or a pandora's box. I didn't know census records were available at so I wanted to see what was available. I went to the source page for 1850 U.S. Population Schedule to find a link to the archives site. A link is there but when I followed it, I never did find the actual census records. What I did find was a lot of information on how to interpret the records.

Oh but now I've looked at the source page again and see that the link on that page goes to and not to Perhaps an additional link could be added to the source page with a bit of explanation as to what you will find at both sites.

While I was looking I checked the FamilySearch link too. That link goes to their whole catalog of links, which is a good link to know about, but is not a direct link to the census records.

Would you give me a URL to the census records at I haven't found it yet! --janiejac 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your question. The link I left on Dallan's talk page were to the 4 specific census pages you needed at, which I don't think has anything to do with It is a non-profit organization trying to scan in all public domain material and make it available digitally. They have images of all census pages, but no index or search engine. There is no central page to start from. You have to use their main page to search for the specific reel you want (example search string might be "1880 St. Joseph Indiana Census", i.e., include the year, county and state), open the reel and flip through pages to find the image you want. Actually it's easier than that if you can use a search engine like the one at, ancestry, or, so you know the reel and page/image number you are looking for. A description of the process was put on Watchlist a couple months back. But essentially only gives the raw pages. It takes a little more time (minute or two) to look up the image at after you have found it on, say,, or, but it makes for a more useful link. normally searches all their records when you go to their record search screen. You can guide it towards a particular census but setting the residence criteria to, say, 1850-1850, if you want, or you can scroll to the bottom of the initial records search screen below the map of the world, click on the United States link, then scroll through the list of US databases to find a particular census. If you click on the link for one of the censuses, then you will be able to search just that census. --Jrich 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Recording intentions of marriage [14 March 2014]

I've been looking at the marriage section of the Rutland records I've been working on, and they seem to have the intention to marry and certificate that the intention has been published, but I haven't yet come across the actual marriage date, e.g. see this page for John Stone and Lucy Fletcher. I wonder if you could give me some advise about how to record this? When I come across the actual marriage date I'll add that, and of course I could link to the compiled published records as you do with the birth dates, but until then it seems helpful (and interesting) to add the information about the intention to marry.--Jocelyn_K_B 00:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If all I know is the intentions (sometimes 2 different ones in two different towns), I enter the marriage as Aft-the-latter-of-the-dates, enter the corresponding place, and enter "Intentions" in the Description field. Hopefully most people will be aware that intentions and marriage may be different locations, so this not be where they actually marriage happened, but after all, it is really just meant to be an estimate until it can be replaced by the actual marriage when known. This is a pattern I saw Susan Irish using and it seems pretty clean.
When I know a marriage and an intentions both, I enter the marriage, but add both sources. As you say, the record of the intention often adds color, or sometimes useful additional information. It is especially useful in working out double-dating issues. But adding facts for both gets clunky, because both, or all three if there are two intentions, would get propagated to both Person pages. So I only create a fact for the marriage proper and merely cite the intention source as supporting information attached to the marriage fact. That is the system I like best, others may do slightly different things.
If you look at image 48, it is the index to marriages, near bottom of left edge is John Stone Jr. on page 347. After a little trial and error this corresponds to image 277 and there you will find the marriage, 2nd line on the right side. I found it easier in the published records, but that suggested it should also be in the filmed ones, so I kept looking.
P.S. I wouldn't cite the published VRs Source:Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849, but the filmed ones Source:Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records, 1719-1874, since that is what you are looking at, but it really doesn't matter since both ways work. --Jrich 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Email address [14 March 2014]

Hi John, sent you an email but it bounced. My email address has not changed. --Beth 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Lyon, etc. [28 March 2014]

Thanks for sorting out the several Joseph Lyon entries and Mary Bridge vs Mary Aldridge.--Neal Gardner 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly followed Lyon Memorial, though they missed one record, I think. --Jrich 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dix vs Mix [1 April 2014]

Just confirming that you are correcting my error: surname is DIX & not MIX as related to Barker family from Andover, Massachusetts. This is all new info to me. I am entering information as documented by Charlotte Helen Abbott. Thank you for these corrections & I apologize for the inconvenience. rc--Rebekah Carlisle 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I put the reason why the change was made. Why would Charlotte Helen Abbott think it is Mix? You never put any reason, just changed it. Do you know who CHA is? Does she give sources or is she just asserting things in a PDF written for her family members who themselves have no interest in genealogy? What makes research valuable would be to know why it is thought to be true so it can be verified, as a couple things already can't be. The harder things are to find, the more important it is to know, not just what, but why. --Jrich 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dwelley Family [4 April 2014]

Thank you for pointing out the mix up between the father and son Richards. I did not see the relationship of John being a brother to Richard. Much more clear, thanks again, Ken--Mebeforbes 15:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so clear, but that they are brothers is probably right. There may be a few changes coming still... --Jrich 16:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"clean up" [1 May 2014]

Re: Person:Samuel Hubbard (27)

You are cleaning up bad information: what is the point? better to do research and correct the information.

Here date was wrong. The page will still look like a joke to people who know the right answer.

"Samuel died soon after birth" - this is obvious from dates, why add this note?

The note was wrong, he was born dead. He probably was not named Samuel. When information on pages is wrong, anything you add based on that information will be wrong also.

You don't watch so if you make a mistake, you never learn.

It is better to be interested in the page. Any cleanup that it is possible to do without interest or knowledge, is not very valuable cleanup. It can wait for the next interested editor. If it bothers you, take the time to do research. Otherwise, just let it go. --Jrich 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but I think your message is unfair, discourteous and unnecessarily aggressive ! Did you look at the history page ? Have you really read my edits ? the first and the second ? I added nothing, no note ! ! I just moved an information and removed the "!" beginning the sentence. My edits are limited mainly to replace uppercase for surnames and remove references UID. A wiki site such as WeRelate it is not a battlefield, and the work is collective ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 16:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As way of explanation, you attached the note which made the entire note show up as new text in red, but I certainly did miss that the text of the note was already on the page, and I am sorry for that.
I still feel it is pointless to clean up wrong data. Better use of time to actually find sources and do research before polishing up stuff that will just need to be removed or re-edited. And why remove UID from say Person:Thomas Cooper (22) yet leave a UID on the Family page Family:Thomas Cooper and Mary Raynor (2). What is the point of generating all those change notifications to bother people for such pointless changes. (Out of courtesy, you could mark them minor, as some people might request, but I review all changes I am notified about, so I personally don't care.)
Removing UID from pages could be more effectively and more efficiently done by some bot. Might be a better use of time rather than a lot of the pie-in-the-sky technology changes people talk about. I certainly think it can wait until there is something useful to be done to the page at the same time, so that the change notification is actually worth paying attention to. What this website needs is people to do the hard work of getting the information correct. This is the activity I want to see on this website, to show the true potential of collaboration, not just noise from lots of people saying nothing important. It is nice to know people care, but the substance affects all of us, the appearance is more likely to be a matter of personal preference. --Jrich 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Henry Clinton Wells [25 May 2014]

I am interested in any information you have on the Wells family. Henry Clinton "Clint" Wells was my 2g grandfather through his daughter, Edna, and her marriage to Willard Thompson. I'm very new to this game and can use whatever help I can get.


James T Hazlett--Jay 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help!--Jay 05:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dates [9 June 2014]

Need some help with a date if you've time. Here's what I have:

Watertown Records Vol. 1: 1650. Richard whetny and Martha Coldam : Maryed 19 (1) month. (1:15)

What is correct? 19 Jan 1650 as the person page currently reads, OR 19 Mar 1650?

Thanks--Frank 15:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The short answer: March.
Until 1751, in English controlled countries, legally the New Year started 25 March. March was numbered as the first month. (This made September the 7th month, appropriately, October the 8th month, etc.) Of course, we are aware now that once there was a different system, but back then, all they knew was that March had always been and still was the first Month. I can't imagine dealing with the year starting in the middle of the month: Hobart's Journal seems to put all of March under the new year, but the marriages in Buxton Maine seemed to be sent in to the town clerk all the way through the end of March when they did the year's returns. If you split March at the 25th, you end up with having parts of 13 months in your year, with March at the front and also at the end.
Some churches may have adopted a year starting in January before it was legally set, but town records like this were almost always based on what was the legal definition: March was the first month (after all, they usually had to be sent into the county courts and so their freedom to choose their system was constrained). Double-dating for this record would be 1649/50, since the date is before 25 Mar, and technically part of 1649 back then, but considered part of 1650 now. Many people don't understand this well, and it is not uncommon to see months (for some reason) 1, 2, or 3 months off in these cases. Likewise, a date between 3 Mar 1649 and 3 Mar 1650, is really 3 Mar 1649/50, input by somebody that doesn't understand what double-dating is. As always, each case must be judged on its own evidence, but generally pages with such errors are unsourced, and feel free to change them when you find them. Sometimes, though, even sources that should know better (Source:Koleda, Elizabeth Potts. Gaskill Genealogy) screw up dates pretty bad. --Jrich 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks.--Frank 17:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that date for Caleb Whitney. We just talked about that yesterday. Appreciate you double checking... :-)--Frank 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing WR pages [25 June 2014]

Hi John, I've been AWOL for awhile and coming back today, when I click on Help on the top right menu, the Support, Watercooler and Suggestion pages are blank! What is happening here? Were the pages taken down for some reason or were they hacked? The Portals page is still there. --janiejac 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the help menu was changed and I'm guessing an inadvertent error was made. The link is to an article in the main (unnamed) namespace Watercooler instead of to the actual watercooler in the WeRelate talk namespace WeRelate Talk:Watercooler, which is still there. Same for Suggestions and Support. --Jrich 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems the Nominate link is also affected under the Admin menu. I'll send Dallan an email to let him know of the problem. Thank you Janie for being so observant! --Jennifer (JBS66) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tinkman [29 June 2014]

Thanks for fixing my mistake with connecting her to the wrong Isaac Tinkman as father. There seems to be confusion of records on public trees about this family. But a cousin sent me her research today and the Isaac in the line I'm researching is the son of Helkiah Tinkman, not Ephraim.--Tammyhensel 17:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's Hezekiah. You might want to check your cousin's research against the primary records. It sounds suspect. The previous stuff certainly was. --Jrich 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well, my error. Hezekiah in some books, but Plymouth VRs do seem to say Helkiah. Clearly why the primary records should be consulted. --Jrich 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

She has access to better records than I, but hadn't had a chance to send anything to me and so I became impatient and started consulting public trees. You'd think I know better by now. Thanks again. I appreciate any and all help!--Tammyhensel 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mehetabel [8 July 2014]

Mehetabel is the Old Testament spelling and the most common, though not always used spelling. More tombstones use Mehetabel than not.--Neal Gardner 22:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jacobus used "Mehitabel" throughout Families of Ancient New Haven. See pages 767-68 for his take on the spelling or misspelling of names.--jaques1724 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that argument, Neal, is that you used Mehetable not Mehetabel. The misspelling was accurately cited in the source citation, but that doesn't mean the page should be titled that way. I am pretty much in agreement with Jacobus in thinking the spelling is not a matter of provable fact, mostly personal preference of the reporters (i.e., us). I never have figured out how to reconcile one spelling at birth with another at marriage and another at death, and none of those records written by the person themselves anyway, leaving me clueless if they had a preference. So for a page title I pick the one I think is the most universal, which I based on wikipedia defining Mehitable and not Mehetabel as a feminine given name. But bottom line, I didn't think it was necessary to change the spelling when you didn't even add anything to the page. Add your spelling as an alternate if you insist, but I bet if you bother to find a marriage or death for her, it will be spelled differently. Maybe Mehitabell, or Mahitable, or who knows what. I don't think the spelling of the record matters until at least the time of Webster's Dictionary (about 1830), maybe even not until the 1900s. --Jrich 01:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia, so what.. Leave it alone. Leave me alone. Pick on somebody else.--Neal Gardner 01:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change the title, by the way, Mr. Accuracy--Neal Gardner 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bristol Family [21 July 2014]

Thanks for your correction on Eliphalet Bristol, abt.1711-1803. I was installing a hook to attach a part of a large family history that my sister, Minerva Bristol Forker was working on in her last years. This is so her work will not be lost to the local family. She died before posting on the internet was a workable option for her. I found your assistance welcome and especially since there seemed to be a live person who took notice of the posting. More to come.--MEnMin 13:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph [24 August 2014]

Would you be interested in reviewing and/or editing the article I just created concerning the differences in sources for the marriage of James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph: Disambiguation. James Jackson and Mary Fitz Randolph. I'm trying to get some of the articles posted on my Jackson site input to WeRelate before my site goes away. At the time I wrote them, they were helpful to me, but how much should go on WeRelate is uncertain in my mind. If this pg abt James and Mary is good, it should be linked to their marriage somehow. --janiejac 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the article explains much of the confusion well. I would love to look into this if it was Massachusetts, but this region and these families are not really familiar to me. And this looks like it would take a lot of work to straighten out. --Jrich 20:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. --janiejac 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove me [29 December 2014]

Please delete everything I have posted. I now realize one must be proficient in html to participate. I don't understand what you mean in the long paragraph for Find a grave.

I tried to figure out how to mark as not a match, Sarah Bassett as a daughter of Nathan Bassett and Mary Huckins. She is the daughter of Samuel Bassett and Martha Pease.

I also made an error linking Samuel Bassett to Mary Huckins as his wife, which is incorrect Please delete that. Please remove the names I posted too.

Then please unsubscribe me from this site as it is far too complex for me to understand. I don't have the foggiest idea what you are trying to convey to me in the messages you leave for me.

As a newby this has been overwhelming, so I won't participate because I make too many mistakes which gender a scolding.--Riti 18:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that the system is confusing. I have been using it for a long time, so it seems easy, but it is not drag and drop. It is more of a markup language instead of wysiwyg, so it can seem like programming. It has its own features (e.g., sources pages) and its own templates layered on an outdated wikipedia base, but without wikipedia templates, and it allows html pass-through so you might see HTML on some pages. There are multiple ways to do the same formatting and the different sections of the page don't even format the same (e.g. wikitables work in the narrative, not in a source box). There is a sandbox where people could practice, but it is not well-advertised. There are help pages, but they are not well-organized, sometimes confusing, often not written to be tutorial in nature.
Most people learn by doing. There is a Show Preview button so you can check what it will look like before you Save. The history can be used to revert to an old version when a mistake does get through. One can go into edit mode to see how other users did things, and then cancel without saving so nothing is disturbed. There is a Support page where you can ask questions and get guidance.
But the advantage this website has is the ability to share the latest research on individuals and see how it impacts the big picture, not just one family, or just one line. It makes it possible that multiple researchers, through interaction and collaboration, could conceivably even advance the global state of knowledge about past lives. In short, the important thing about this website is the data. One can always hope the software gets better, but even the current version is good enough to manipulate the data if one invests the time to learn how to use it.
I cannot unsubscribe you. I am not an administrator. Try writing Dallan. I don't know your goals, but I believe this website is worth the time it takes to learn. Just my opinion. --Jrich 20:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Burial of Nathan Bassett [1 January 2015]

Please help me understand why my entry for his burial Able's Hill Cemetery was removed?--Riti 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, the source citation was cleaned up and the illegal value in the place field was cleaned up. --Jrich 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, might you clarify what that means?  I don't know what  was illegal.

Sorry I am so stupid.--Riti 19:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If the text in the location field does not match one of the predefined Place pages, it shows up as red. It usually means the place is named in a way that doesn't follow the conventions for naming places. So I moved the Cemetery name to the Description field which is free-form and put the valid place name into the location field. This was how things were done when it was a policy that cemeteries should not be places.
That policy has been loosened, and some people like to create place pages for cemeteries, i.e., Place:Abel's Hill Cemetery, Chilmark, Dukes, Massachusetts, United States, or Place:Chilmark Cemetery, Chilmark, Dukes, Massachusetts, United States, to use the Find A Grave preferred name. I do not, since it clutters up the place matching, nor do I believe as a general rule, that I have more expertise in that matter than the people who create the descriptions of cemeteries on Find a Grave, so I don't, and I didn't. But that would be the other way to fix the problem. --Jrich 20:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Number in parenthesis [8 January 2015]

When I go to Add a Person there is a list of name. Beside each name is a number in parenthesis. What does that mean?--Riti 17:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC) The numbers are by couples too.

There is a description on Help:Person_pages#Titles_for_Person_pages under the sub-heading Person Index Numbers.
The number is essentially random and meaningless. It is assigned by the system to make sure each page has a unique title since the system uses that as the unique identifier for that page. If there are 67 John Doe's and you add a new one, the system will number it 68. From then on, John Doe (68) will be the person you added and other John Doe's added later will be John Doe (69), John Doe (70), etc. If a page is deleted, its number does NOT get reused.
The same thing works with Family pages. Although it is much rarer to have matching names for Families, since both people have to match exactly, it does happen especially if part of the name is "Unknown". So if John Doe and Jane Public (1) exists, a new one will be added as John Doe and Jane Public (2).
If two pages end up talking about the same person, they are merged. If John Doe (68) is the same as John Doe (45) then merging combines the information onto one page and makes John Doe (68) redirect you to John Doe (45). That way if someone has stored a link to the old name, John Doe (68), the system will redirect that request to John Doe (45), and so it ensures that John Doe (68) still works, i.e., it retrieves the current page describing that person.
There is no advantage to having a smaller or larger number. One of my ancestors with a common name is #145 of that name, and all I need to do is ask for #145 and I get the right one. Of course, I can always search based on birth date, etc., but since I access that page a lot, I remember the number. --Jrich 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Very Helpful--Riti 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links [1 April 2015]

I'm always amazed how you come up with such great links. I was cleaning up with a broom, and your always coming behind me with a leaf blower.

Thanks again. Ken--Mebeforbes 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Haverhill Marriages

CHASE, Humphrey, of Plaistow, and Rebecca Nichols, Nov. 19, 1799.
PECKER, David, and Rebecca Nichols, Dec. 15, 1799

Greetings, not following the two Rebecca Nichols very well, (three including Rebecca Nichols 1761 - 1779, Sister to Rebecca Nichols 1780 - 1848)

Perhaps, one of the Rebecca Nichols was born somewhere else?--Mebeforbes 16:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you are asking. Marriages often occurred in the bride's home town, presumably it not being proper to send a young girl off to a remote location unescorted. The marriage record is over twenty years after the birth in 1778 (according to the monument). So the girl's family had plenty of time to move away from her birthplace, not to mention the possibility that the marriage occurred elsewhere and was only recorded in Haverhill because David Packer lived there. Of course, that wouldn't be obvious unless you find the marriage recorded somewhere else as well (i.e., New Hampshire, Boston, who knows). A notation of church or minister's name often is the signal that you have the actual marriage location, rather than just a record of the event. Of course, the record of the birth may have never been made, or lost, and a birth in Haverhill is still possible, but hard to prove unless you can show who her parents are and then show they lived in Haverhill at the time. Phineas's two daughters both were born in Haverhill, as known from their birth records, and their marriages to Follansbee Noyes Daniel Richardson (it shows the granddaughter married Follansbee Noyes) and Humphrey Chase, respectively, are proved by his will. Leaving David Packer's wife something of a mystery girl. Of the children listed, William is the only name shown that isn't obviously related to David. --Jrich 16:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yep the will. Thanks again. Ken--Mebeforbes

Are You related to David Parkhill? [13 February 2015]

Are you related this David Parkhill? I am. He was my 3rd Great Grandfather, and is descended from Nathaniel Parkhill ?--Jmpark3 13:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC) No. I mostly try to clean up pages that appear to have one problem or another. Migrations from North to South in the 1700s aren't very common and sometimes represent naive name matching by somebody frustrated at not knowing where their descendant came from. I was trying to add sources to show why the unusual migration is or is not valid. Obviously there is a discrepancy that makes things ambiguous in this case, but at least there is enough to justify this as a hypothesis. Not particularly familiar with sources much outside of Massachusetts, so I had to leave it for others to add further documentation. It probably would require a descendant to take the time to really chase down and document the harder to access sources. --Jrich 15:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources [26 February 2015]

Hello Jrich :-) I only just started...I was going to add sources....I have the Howe book and the Bigelow genealogies here at home. I'll be updating as I have time. I'm a student nurse and time is rare....but before my five year old grew up, I wanted to get this up and started. Thank you so much for your help !--LisaChristiansen 05:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mason source text [31 March 2015]

Thanks for the text additions to the sources for Joseph Mason, etc. My eyes were shot last evening. --SkippyG 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates [18 April 2015]

Got a question for you as you've time...

Rehoboth VRs: BIRTHS. SABEN, John, of William [born] 27 8m, 1666

Is this date 27 Nov 1666? I'm thinking I need to add three months to it because of the year...

Thanks,--Frank 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard other people mention 3 months, and would like to know why that is a belief out there? What is the reason that you believe 3 months might be needed? Some people seem to think Quakers numbers are different too, but my experience all says they used the regular legal numbering. It's just that they used numerical months predominantly.
The practice of starting the legal year in March, and therefore having March be month #1, goes back to Roman times. It is just two months.
For example here's a book that quotes a document from 1676 (about your time period) that refers to "the First Month (commonly called March)". Which makes the 8th month October, oct obviously being the prefix for eight. --Jrich 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitals [18 April 2015]

I spell it "Bef" on purpose because I believe it is like at the beginning of a sentence. Please do not change it. It is unnecessary since you don't even watch the page, annoying because I get notified of a change that is meaningless, and pointless since I continue to put them in with the first letter capitalized. Since I wrote the Help page on date conventions, following the GEDCOM standard, I know there is no rule against it. Thank you. --Jrich 05:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jrich ! I don't understand why it's so ... 1) "bef" is really not a sentence, and not a complete word, but only an abreviation. In France, but also in Germany, etc ... no reason to put a capital letter for an isolate word, and for an abreviation ! I know that with computers, the classical typographic rules are forgotten ... and young people want always spent no time to write correctly ! 2) I had never seen, that the GEDCOM standard wants absolutly a capital letter for these abreviations, but I am really not a specialist and my english is so bad ! 3) There is an important benefit to write these abraviations without capitals is the better lisibility and no risk to confuse with a month (always written with capital). Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 05:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete my gedcom [29 April 2015]

How do I delete my gedcom file? I don't wish to participate any further.--Riti 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you've asked this many times and don't seem to like the answers you've gotten from others, there probably is no answer I can give you as I am no expert in using gedcoms on WeRelate. I am not sure why you asked me. I suggest you go to settings, turn off email notices, and just never log in again. I have no admin privileges can't help you, don't know what stage your "gedcom file" is. If it was never processed, it will probably get deleted after a certain period of time, and if it was processed and turned into pages, people will use the data or clean it up as they get to it. There really is no reason to worry about deleting it. --Jrich 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't that I didn't like the answers, it was that the answer I received didn't solve the problem. On further browsing searching my own answer, I find I don't have a gedcom file. Sorry for the inconvenience.--Riti 19:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hingham -Tower [4 May 2015]

Thanks for the Hingham link (page has changed location). I tried accessing all the Hingham sources in WR, but since I have no memberships, no luck, except the original written records, which were a little hard to read. After browsing 40 or so pages, I gave up for now. Neal--SkippyG 03:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Too many names under the bridge. Don't really recall specifics. Always like adding sources when I think I know where to find it. --Jrich 05:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem.--SkippyG 05:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kelley family [31 May 2015]

Many many thanks for all the almost immediate source additions you have submitted to the Kelley family history materials I have been entering into WeRelate from the Eunice Kelley Randall's genealogy of David O'Killeia, aka the "Kelley green book." This is my wife's family history; as I have mentioned, I'm collaborating with other Kelley family researchers to update and expand the "green book" with additional data, plus sources.--Reammann 16:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I add sources because that is what is needed. No secondary source should be used standalone. --Jrich 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) The Kelley genealogy isn't a secondary source. In WeRelate terminology, it is a "questionable" source since it does not give or quote the original, primary source of the data. I have permission from the nephew of Eunice to add her work to WeRelate. (2) The changes you made to the birth location of Sophia O'Killey from East Hoosick ... Why did you erase the location I submitted? What is your source for the change you made? Please give an alternative birth date and source, rather than change data that has already been added from a source. Then, with further data in the future, we can make a conclusion on the actual location, taking into consideration the most accurate information. Some more information about myself: I am a retired professional genealogist / historian and have a PhD.--Reammann 13:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going by definitions found on BCG website in calling it secondary. Though I am willing to call it questionable. The book doesn't even appear to be copyrighted from what I can see. Don't know why that is an issue. It is a question of how much value it has to add a source that doesn't say how it arrived at its assertions, instead of better sources that are available that indicate the primary source of the information. Does citing this source help the reader understand why that information is believed true, and enable it to be compared to conflicting claims? No.
The family is found in East Hoosuck Friends records (Adams, Mass.) including events before and after this birth for Sophia. You cited a source that says "Easthoosuk", but doesn't give the state. By all appearances, you assumed New York. I believe a source would be required to think that is anything but an error, just like Cumberland being in England was probably an error. Then, depending on the nature of whatever source is presented, whether it can be considered a viable alternate, as opposed to that author's error. --Jrich 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you erase the Randall / Kelley reference to the marriage intentions of Thaddeus Burgess and Martha Lewis, which I had entered? As our Kelley working group goes through and revises the Randall volume, it will be worthwhile to see what Randall wrote and compare it with further information. I am fairly new at WeRelate; I do not to erase what others have submitted and hope that others will respect what I have entered, as well.--Reammann 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Because in it she identified the wrong wife of David O'Killey, and the citation offered no information about the actual marriage of Thaddeus Burgess and Martha Lewis (the page I removed it from), so was irrelevant. You are grossly over estimating the importance of Randall. She is the 1962 equivalent of an Internet family tree. She gives no sources; she makes so many typos half the time one page disagrees with another; her work is sloppy and incomplete (intentions represented as actual marriages, no specification of birth locations, spouses often identified by no more than a name, missing information that is readily available), and it is filled with errors (just today, misidentifying the David O'Killey, the wrong Temperance marrying David Wing, the wrong wife for Elijah Butler). There is almost no sign that she used quality sources like wills, deeds, etc. It breaks almost every rule of good genealogy as set out on the BCG website. --Jrich 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the positive, informative additions of data and source citations which you have added to numerous individuals and families which I have recently entered into WeRelate. This is the spirit of cooperation and collaboration I had hoped to find by beginning to place my genealogy / family history materials into WeRelate.

I have attempted to explain to you my background of genealogy / family history / local history involvement. I have been working in this field since the late 1980s, retiring a few years ago as the archivist and genealogist at a county historical society. I have given numerous workshops, presentations, and personal assistance to others for many decades and have been involved with and on the board of several local genealogical societies. I have always encouraged well sourced genealogical research from a range of resources. I also have a PhD in the social sciences and have taught on the university level in three continents.

I have also become involved with my wife's family history and have been working with other family members and published researchers to update the standard genealogical resource, which was a standard genealogical publication 50 years ago but now needs serious updating. I had concluded that WeRelate would be an ideal site for placing that earlier work and then to expand on it by collaborating with the other researchers to produce a more thorough family history.

I have now decided that WeRelate has too many inherent weaknesses. I will not be entering any more data at this time. In the past 90 days I have added over 2,000 pages, one by one. I view the GEDCOM process of data transfer as very limiting.

The primary weakness of WeRelate, and wiki pages in general, is the ease with which one can remove or erase information that someone else has entered. This can obviously be done an hour, week, year, or decade after information has been plaed in WeRelate. I essentially do not want to see my careful research, placed into WeRelate, discarded by someone else in the future. The way you eliminated events and sources I had entered (such as a marriage intention, in favor of the actual marriage event) has been incorrect and unethical in my opinion.

Two other WeRelate weaknesses have added to my decision to stop using WeRelate: (1) There is apparently an inablilty to cite a parent / child relationship, seemingly only through a birth event. Several genealogical software programs have the same weakness. This is a very basic, essential part of genealogical research which needs specific source evidence. (2) The jurisdiction of a location is too limiting. Documenting the larger political connection to a place, which has changed over time, is cumbersome. For example, the standard entry for Plymouth, now a town in the state of Massachusetts and the nation of the United States, always has to be in that primary form and not for a 1650 event within the jurisdiction of Plymouth Colony and the nation of Great Britain, then later in 1700 or so as within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay Colony.

I will be sending this note to the watercooler and to the WeRelate administration.

I wish you well with your genealogical endeavors. You have obviously done extensive, careful research and have many positive additions to make to WeRelate and others.--Reammann 10:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate misunderstanding is that this is, by design, a shared space. The book you were copying into WeRelate verbatim, gave no sources, so its content was not really of great weight, being merely one person's opinion, among many available. It contained numerous inconsistencies and demonstrable errors that had to be pointed out to the reader, and the WeRelate pages had to be changed to reflect what really happened, based on demonstrable evidence. If you wish to preserve the content of this work, or control formatting exactly, a shared space is not a good place for doing that. But no matter where you go to preserve this book, keep checking WeRelate, as we document more and more thoroughly each of the people involved, and continue to get closer to what was true about them. --Jrich 14:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion on my talk page [5 June 2015]

The lady who made the comment that we should have page ownership by alleged 'experts' posted a reply to me on my talk page; I am going to try and have the discussion there instead. The water cooler attracts too many pedestrian comments for a focused discussion.--Daniel Maxwell 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Howland

Hello, you have given me some good advise today. You have also deleted Arthur Howland, his wife, children and father and siblings. I think this was in error. I had sources which said he was a brother to the Pilgrim John Howland. You informed me he wasn't in Mayflower Families Through Five Generations. Descendants of the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth, Mass. December 1620 Author General Society of Mayflower Descendants

I assume from this you think he didn't exist. I would like to point out to you one of my earlier sources.

John Howland was born in Fenstanton, Huntingdonshire, England around 1591.[7][8] He was the son of Margaret and Henry Howland, and the brother of Henry and Arthur Howland, who emigrated later from England to Marshfield, Massachusetts.[7] Although Henry and Arthur Howland were Quakers, John himself held to the original faith of the Puritans

Will you consider putting them back into the system? Do they need to be connected to my line to be put back into the system?

Sincerely, Trixie43*--TeacherRoxie 08:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have misstated or misinterpreted nearly everything I did.
I deleted nobody. I detached Anthony Low, b. 1625 from John Low and Elizabeth Howland who married about 1665. He is still in the system here. Anthony Low was born 15 (or 20) years before Elizabeth was and so clearly she cannot be his mother. Elizabeth was born only 11 years (or less according to some sources) before the John Low who married Mary Rhodes and she cannot be his mother, much less his grandmother. I would hope people would try to confirm their data a little more than this before posting it on the Internet. You appear to have confused a Rhode Island family named Low with a Massachusetts family.
I have added the real children for John and Elizabeth Low on the same page you had for that couple. Arthur Howland's family is still here and Elizabeth is still listed as his daughter.
I never said anything about John Howland or his relationship to Arthur Howland. All I said was that there is no evidence Arthur came to New England before 1640 (i.e., not 1623 as your cut and paste blurb said). The source I mentioned was not MF5G, but Robert Charles Anderson's Great Migration Series, generally regarded to be the best work on immigrants to New England, but only covering those that came by 1635. Thus Arthur's lack of coverage indicates that this premier, credentialed genealogist agreed, after surveying all known evidence and credible literature, that he did not come before 1635. There is an entry on John Howland, who of course, came in 1620, and it does say Arthur is his brother. --Jrich 14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Anderson also has an entry for third immigrant brother, Henry Howland, who came about 1632. His sketch in The Great Migration Begins immediately precedes the sketch of the Mayflower passenger John Howland. I would add that the current WR pages for the three brothers and their parents are something of a mess, but I'm not inclined to take on that project at the moment.--jaques1724 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your help. It is important to me that the records be correct. I am glad these people are in the system. I am surprised they are not on my line, but you have shown me they are not. Thank you once again. Teacher Roxie--TeacherRoxie 00:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Jackman and Benjamin Marshall [6 July 2015]

Hi Jrich, I'm trying to determine if Hannah Jackman and Benjamin Marshall are the parents of my husband's ancestor Horce C. Marshall born 13 January 1830 in Bradford, Merrimack, New Hampshire. On his marriage record his parents are listed as Benjamin and Hannah Marshall. He and Benjamin are also on an 1860 Census record with the Perkins family, which I'm wondering if could be Benjamin's daughter and son-in-law. Hannah is not listed, which makes me think she died before 1860, which fits with Hannah Jackman. Do you have any more info about this family? Are there some online resources you can suggest to follow up?--Tammyhensel 15:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

no particular knowledge of this family, find nothing obvious online, looks possible but on the other hand, Horace not living with Benjamin and Hannah in 1850, the 1860 census is in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire, so the connection is not straightforward. You might try looking for more information on the Henry who is living with Benjamin and Hannah in 1850, but no real suggestions. --Jrich 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I found find-a-grave memorials for Benjamin Marshall and Hannah Jackman with a link to memorial for daughter Maria Marshall Perkins. All the info listed for Hannah is the same as on the WeRelate profile. Benjamin's death is in the same county as the 1860 Census in Massachusetts, so Maria Perkins was definitely the daughter of Benjamin and Hannah Jackman, and he is the Benjamin on that record. And her oldest son was named Horace. But I guess I still don't have any real proof that the Horace Marshall listed on the 1860 Census with that family is my husband's ancestor Horace. The first real documentation I have for him is the marriage record, which is 1867 in Pierce, Wisconsin. So if it is him, for some reason he left his family between 1860 and 1867 to migrate to Wisconsin. And I don't know why he wasn't on the 1850 census with the family, unless he was employed somewhere else. Still I'm not finding records for any Benjamin and Hannah Marshall family in the New Hampshire county where he was born other than this family. Circumstatially the connection seems to fit, but will keep looking for more documentation, before linking the WeRelate profiles. Sure wish I could find his birth record. Thank you for your help.--Tammyhensel 20:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't look into Maria much, but her birth about 1817 is nice because it fills the gap between parents' marriage 1816 and Horace in 1830. (Albert Perkins is her oldest son, 5 years older than son Horace.) But she is mentioned here which might not be obvious because mother's name is given as Bradford, but note that mother's name given as Jackman on a different page, so Bradford probably an editing error, author confusing town name and surname. This information is the kind of vague incomplete stuff ("had at least two children") that results from interviewing one of the family members, so one would assume somewhat reliable. --Jrich 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the St. Croix Valley by Augustus B. Eaton p. 592 says the Horace Marshall left his native state of New Hampshire at the age of 19 and went to Massachusetts where he resided until 1861, at which time he came to Prescott township, Pierce county, Wisconsin. That correlates with him not being on the 1850 census with Benjamin and Hannah and him being on the 1860 census in Massachusetts with Benjamin and Perkins family. I don't want to link the pages without your approval as you are the first watcher on the page, so I think you put it up. But I'm convince that Hannah Jackman and Benjamin Marshall were his parents. Let me know if you agree with the link. Thank you.--Tammyhensel 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I work on a lot of pages that I can't recall a thing about a week later, after processing say, 200 different names in the meantime. Even if I create a page, it is often only because I have a source in front of me that I want to record before I go onto something else. If you have a source and cite it, feel free to post what you want. No need to ask permission. --Jrich 18:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Tammyhensel 18:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks [22 August 2015]

I just noticed you fixing up a number of my recent edits. It was just starting to dawn on me that the source I was using had a number of mistakes. I'm sorry for all the fixing you had to do. I will ditch that source and try to correct things from primary sources. I am still pretty new to genealogy and am still learning. But as a result of all this, I discovered all the helpful information you have about sources on your user pages, I'm reading through and digesting it. Thanks! --Trentf 20:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow up: I've learned a lot from your pages, and the corrections you've made in my wake. I just want you to know that my goal is now to make changes for which you don't need to clean up my dumb mistakes. :) Thanks! --Trentf 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't bad and looks better now. You were using sources. That's the big thing. The rest is just seeing how different sources compare which is mostly learned by experience. And the sources available vary from region to region so the more one works in a region, the quicker it becomes. --Jrich 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

still can't edit [20 August 2015]

I am trying again, but have been unable to send a message to the support page to tell you that I got a warning message "Links to other *** are not allowed." I removed all mentions of *** and still got that message. I was on the PersonTalk:George Teater page.--Thurm 19:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

One message to you saved. I used w***s instead of the word website. So will this message go through with the word website in it?--Thurm 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The support page also told me "Links to other websites are not allowed" but there were no links in my message. I removed all mention of website or even the word from my edit on the George Teater page and still got the warning message about links. I wanted to give the source of my information, a photocopy of a book on a website.--Thurm 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you got these messages because I used "add topic" and then comment, but I can't use the edit feature.--Thurm 19:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to add to this message using edit to see if it will work.--Thurm 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) It did work. So why won't it work in PersonTalk:George Teater?--Thurm 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded on the Support page. --Jrich 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bosworth Lineage [5 December 2015]

Thanks for all the updates/corrections to the recent Bosworth family tree I've been working on. I am new at this wiki and only have some notes from a great aunt as well as some personal knowledge.

Weldon Bosworth--Wbosworth 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Ebenezer Munroe [14 December 2015]

There is a problem with Family:Ebenezer Munroe and Lucy Muzzey/Simonds (1) -- specifically too many Ebenezers. They look to be the same, except that they have different parents. Person:Ebenezer Munro (1) looks like it is basically copied from, without any actual evidence for the parents. Person:Ebenezer Munroe (2) is yours, and you do have a source. There are problems with Lucy, his wife, as well -- I think Muzzey is her maiden name and Simonds a married name, but don't have sources.

I can try to clean this up, or you may want to, since you have more knowledge of the family. Let me know which you would prefer. Thanks, Gayel --GayelKnott 18:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that much knowledge of the family, but the sad fact is the Ancestry data is clearly wrong even after the most cursory investigation, no big surprise. The birthdate given is found specifically naming different parents than the Ancestry-based page, and the page for the Ancestry parents look like they grabbed anybody with the same name: father born Rhode Island, died Connecticut and had a son in Massachusetts when he was only 18? Probably garbage. Further, the marriage date to Lucy is wrong, the intention in Woburn is 13 May 1781, so a marriage a month before that is wrong. The intention names her as Lucy Simonds. If she was born 1762, which I wouldn't trust based on the above, it is unlikely a marriage in 1781 at age 19 is her second marriage. The History of Ashburnham says the wife is Lucy (Muzzey) Simonds of Woburn, but yet says she married second after Ebenezer died, so probably confused: either it is Lucy Simonds, and John Adams was her 2nd marriage; or it was Lucy (Muzzey) Simonds and John Adams was her 3rd marriage. The only way to find out is to locate the purported marriage of Lucy Muzzey to Mr. Simonds or whatever evidence suggested Muzzey in the first place. Such evidence is unknown to me but several sources need to be checked. I don't know how much time I'll have today, but will look into when I can. --Jrich 19:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You obviously have more info on this family than I do. And, yeah, big surprise Ancestry is wrong -- just looking at the sources actually used will tell you why. I wish they would get rid of those Family Data Collection/International Marriage Collection data bases -- way too many people use them without any understanding that they are basically what somebody's granny said long ago. Anything you want to add (or delete) to those pages would be an improvement, and don't worry about time. Wassailing and eggnog may come first. Gayel --GayelKnott 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fay/Perrin families [25 February 2016]

I agree that it is a mishmash for Nathan Fay , however recent autosomal DNA results indicate that Nathan, husband of Mary Perrin, brother of David Fay , is the son of Edward Fay and Sarah Joslin. Use of DNA in genealogy is expected to increase exponentially. Is there a standard template at Werelate for using autosomal DNA?--HLJ411 00:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't put much faith in various statements about DNA. Since none of the actual ancestors themselves were tested, it is almost always dependent for conclusions, like the one you just stated, on somebody's research showing somebody is related to that ancestor, and since that research isn't detailed, it is hard to know how much to trust it. I frankly don't know the science much at all, but what I have seen, everything is couched in probabilities and ranges, never certainty. --Jrich 01:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic. It has potential, but I personally don't have much faith either unless several different donors are tested and can be shown with accuracy where they descend from. For my own family, I was originally tested as an alternate for Person:Basil Maxwell (1), and it did show the relationship, but I hoped to have at least 2 who descend from the other son of Basil's, William, but I have never found a living one. It gets even trickier when you're talking a line much further back. Again, has potential but I am seeing some pretty wild conclusions on some families drawn from DNA that seem awfully premature. Daniel Maxwell 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

needing a bit of advice [7 March 2016]

I have been doing Jackson research for quite some time now and have collected too many desktop PAF files - they are beginning to overlap and I am having difficulty remembering who is in which file. I'm considering putting them all into one master file and working to eliminate any duplicates. Do you think that is advisable? Do you see any major difficulties with this plan? I know there are quite a few different Jackson lines in these files as some of them were county-wide studies. I have been capitalizing the Jackson name when it is the earliest known ancestor. I am hoping you can tell me if this would work to eliminate my confusion or it it would make it worse. What do you think? --janiejac 01:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have any advice. It depends on what works for you. Personally, I try to study one family unit intensely, say for a week or two, reaching whatever conclusions I can, and then I move on. WeRelate is great at allowing me to do that. Whatever I save, is there later, to refer to, with all the links to whatever ancestor I may have discovered. I almost always assume I will forget whatever detail I am currently looking at, so try to identify the source well enough to easily find it again. On my personal computer I only document my ancestors and their siblings, so "different lines" are not a problem (my surnames, King, Wheeler, etc., are like Jackson: everywhere). I rarely trust PAF and similar sources, unless they are supported by more primary sources, and once I find those primary sources, I tend to discard the PAF files as redundant and less authoritative.
Re: Person:Frances Kendall (6) , "Chgd name fr Frances to Fanny". You do know that Fanny is a nickname for Frances, right? --Jrich 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but Fanny is what they put on her gravemarker and is on the 1850 census. Thanks for responding. --janiejac 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)--janiejac 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
What program are you using for your Jackson tree? I can probably give you some advice if I knew what you are using. Daniel Maxwell 10:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am using PAF 5.2 to compile my info. I started with just my Jackson line, but then began working on early lines with no known connection just to keep track of some of these other lines - and then other folks asked me about their line and now I've got all kinds of Jacksons. Ideally, I'll get them posted to WeRelate but I became discouraged when it was impossible to select which green file when matching. I know they've fixed that particular problem, but lack of further improvements remains a problem for me. I thought perhaps Jrich or someone reading here may have had similar situation and might tell me if putting it all in one master file would be advisable or not. --janiejac 22:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Janie - There are a couple of considerations, but one main thing is what you want to be able to do with the Jacksons once they are in WR.
  • If you want to be able to export groups of people later as separate "trees", then you should upload them as separate files now and do your Duplicate matching in WR. Remember also to pay special attention in the future when you add new Pages to make sure you are including them in the appropriate tree(s) by checking the correct box(es) at the bottom of the Edit screen. One person can belong to multiple tree files.
  • If you don't care about being able to export separate "trees" later, then you can certainly combine all the people into one file first, clean it up on your end, and then import just one file. From an GEDCOM POV, it doesn't matter if the people are blood-related or not - it is just a data file.
Disclaimer: I am not really a fan of uploading GEDCOMs in any circumstance. While it is a relatively easy process for the person doing the uploading, the files usually come with a lot of baggage that doesn't conform to WR conventions and requires manual editing of each page anyway. --Cos1776 00:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kirton family [8 March 2016]


"Philimore, England" was a wonderful smile to start a Monday morning with. It had to be shared with other genealogists.

I quite often delve into a place's "What links here" after expanding on Wikipedia's description of a place in the present. Gradually (by 0.01% a week) JustAlf's presentations are being ironed out. The red script he has caused by adding United Kingdom after every place on this island is humongous (sp?).

/cheers, --Goldenoldie 09:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Your Contributions to the Thurston Family [21 March 2016]

Hi Jrich ... I noticed you have added information to the Thurston family pages that I have just started posting. I'm not a direct descendant, but my cousin is. She is George Albert Thurston's great granddaughter. I'm researching and posting for her and for a grand daughter. Are you a relative? Thank you, Judith Taber--JCTNYC 19:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

no, not a relative, just killing time one day as a break from my long-term project. --Jrich 19:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Using redirect [27 May 2016]

JRich, I saw your help to Janiejac on redirecting duplicated sources. Can the same be done on Category pages?

Why? Sometimes I set up a Category and manage to make a spelling mistake in the title. After I added another Category with the correction I want to get rid of the "oopsie".

Thanks, --Goldenoldie 13:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't tried and hesitate to guess as they have special functionality. I presume you would need to use the #redirect[[:Category:xxx]] form, i.e., with the extra colon, but am not even sure about that. --Jrich 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this necessary? [31 May 2016]

I saw that you reverted a merge I made with this comment:

"merging garbage (doesn't reflect what the sources it cites says) with careful research"

Then, without comment, repeated the merge yourself less than an hour later. I inspected the before and after of the pages involved - and find very modest differences. Could you not have simply said "after review, not concurring with merge". Why the value judgements? Why particularly when it seems that you eventually concurred in the merge?

I hold your work in some esteem - all I ask is that you refrain from holding mine in open contempt. --jrm03063 16:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In answer to this comment:
How could he be, he was 10 when the other Timothy got married?
Because it was a mistake I had seen made elsewhere - it seemed useful to be explicit. Again - what is the harm?!?

--jrm03063 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The page being merged showed only one daughter for this couple, Margaret. It cited Robert Charles Anderson, who shows no daughter Margaret in the family. The page for Margaret, from an old GEDCOM dump, cited an NEGHR article that cites Chamberlain's Genealogies of Weymouth, who gives no evidence in asserting that parentage. Further the article is focused on Hull residents, so covers Margaret after she married a man from Hull, suggesting not a lot of work went into its assertion of her parentage. The page that was merged listed only one child out of many belonging to this couple, again suggesting superficial research. On the other hand, the other page cited the Reade Record, which was instrumental in sorting out the two William Reeds of Weymouth having lengthy articles on both. That was the basis of unmerging and the comment. And frankly, there was an error in the death date for William, a typo that I believe was made by myself, but a side effect being that it made the two Williams look different, making the basis for the merge even less clear, since the error was not fixed, nor any sources given to justify the merge. After doing further research, I fixed the error in the death date, remerged the pages because it was clear they were the same couple, whether or not Margaret was their daughter. The further research resulted in added sources to both Margaret's and her mother's page, Margaret's making it clear her parentage is based on circumstantial evidence, as it is far from clear she belongs. (Being a second wife of Richard Stubbs, she could be a widow, and no documentation connects her to William and Susanna. It appears to be based solely on a marriage in Boston, not exactly a small town, a few years after Susanna died there.)

The (opinion:ugly) mustard yellow tags tend to draw the eye away from all the other information on the page, focusing it on the thing that is not true, rather than on the stuff that is true. Further, the confusion isn't really about the two Timothy's: they have different birthdates and different parents (now clear after I added the birthdate to the second Timothy whom you created without that detail). Clearly, the one Timothy was born in 1678 and couldn't be marrying in 1688, so there is no confusion who married Martha Boyden in 1688, which is the page you were working on. The confusion can only be about who married Persis Kendall. So if a tag is needed anywhere it is on the Family page of Timothy Reed and Persis Kendall questioning who her husband was. However, the tag is useless by itself, as it provides no education about the nature of the confusion without an accompanying source citation or note, and if that accessory is there, the tag isn't really needed. Further, the confusion is all caused by insufficient data being shown on the pages, and the right way to keep readers from being confused would be to post more details, so the two men can't be confused. For example, one could show that both couples had sons named Timothy (so probably different men), show that Timothy and Persis had children in 1728 (unlikely for a man born in 1664/65), or add the probate for Persis' husband in 1758 (also unlikely to be the man born 1664/65). Other facts may be findable, this was simply a quick search.

Your methods determine the quality of your work, the quality of your work is what earns others' opinions. Change your methods, change the opinions. --Jrich 19:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would it ever be appropriate to treat others here rudely? If someone is problematic - shouldn't they simply be removed? If what I'm doing is so detrimental - please - take it up with others. Those who have been interested enough to know what I'm doing and why haven't shared your perspective. Perhaps - if your view isn't the aberration I've always assumed - you can be rid of me? --jrm03063 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Rude is in the eye of the beholder. I responded to your post with specifics, more is pointless, and I'm sure nobody else cares. --Jrich 05:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
As a reminder - the term you used was "garbage". Truly - you have a dizzying intellect. --jrm03063 00:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I certainly am aware I used the term garbage: if I didn't remember, which I do, your post still remains a few lines up, since, unlike other pages I know of, I don't delete other people's posts. It was perhaps a less than desirable choice of word to describe the pre-merge page, i.e. a page before you had contributed to it, but it had no sources, no other children in the family besides Margaret and did not appear to be careful genealogy. This page was being merged with a controversial family about whom any sources prior to 1900 are wrong, and for which there is a lot of "garbage" out there.
I behold that it is rude when pages on a collaborative website aren't written with any consideration of the readers or subsequent posters. For example, when they are posted with no dates, no sources, and no locations, so that it is hard to identify who they refer to, and they gum up search results with under-defined listings (e.g., [1]). Or when data is given, but posted with no sources (e.g., [2]), especially when it is ends up being probably or provably wrong. One would like to respect posters, and assume they took their data from a valid source, but that means wasting time searching for the source, when no help has been given by the poster, and the data might not even be copied correctly ([3]). Further, what message is implied by posters who won't take the time to add dates, locations and sources, leaving it to others, whose time is apparently less valuable, to deal with? --Jrich 19:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits [13 June 2016]

Recent edits 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Adgate [9 July 2016]

If you look inside, instead of at the index, Bk. IS used at the beginning of sections. For consistency I used 1st Bk. Part seems ridiculous: and Vol. appears confusing, since original was divided into Bk.--SkippyG 05:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

"Part 1" comes from the title page, not the index, where the publisher specifies the title they gave their work. I agree "part" is unusual, a part usually being only a section of a book and hence "Part 2" in a citation does not clearly communicate that it is the second volume of the set. But that is what the title page says, i.e., the publisher's choice, and hence one would suspect, what the card catalog says and what the google title says, and I think acceptable for that reason. I have always used Vol. 1 because I think in a two volume set like this, it more clearly indicates what it is, but if you don't like Vol. 1, I think Part 1 is the only alternative.
Book is confusing because to a genealogist it implies you are looking at the original town books, and the sections are called this because they correspond to the actual physical books. But in this case you would need to use the page number out of the original book and not the page number out of the published volume. Thus Ruth Adgate's birth would be p. 53, not p. 49. Her marriage would be p. 83, not p. 79. But that would not exactly be helpful to people trying to locate the record in the published volume. Or even to locate the published volume since how would they know book 3 is in the first volume, titled part 1? Further, the headings say book 1, 2, & 3 but the title of contents lists the sections as volume 1, 2, and 3.
Person:Thomas Adgate (6). --Jrich 14:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended reasoning. I ruminated about how to cite and assumed it would be apparent to me as I proceeded. Since I'll be using Norwich records often for a while, I'll use the Part 1 or Part 2 with pa.# from now on.--SkippyG 14:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Leavitt page [24 September 2016]

Great idea to put the Leavitt cunundrum on it's own page. Being rather late, I've not tried piecing anything together. That will have to be in between running errands before vaca. Since I have no memberships, such as Ancestry, I have a few minor Levet/Levit mentions from what I could find online yesterday. Witness of a deed by a Percival Levit, a Guild reference for two Levits, and a bare index entry for the surname, which I'm trying to find, but may be behind the Ancestry picket fence. I'll post Sunday or Monday. "A Consolidated Index to Paver's marriage licences 1567 - 1630" had no Levet/Levits, but may have other married-into surnames; widow "veilings" are also scattered among other entries. Neal--SkippyG 03:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Leavitt link [28 September 2016]

Thanks for correcting my link to the Leavitt page. And if you have a better description, please edit, I struggled with the wording.--SkippyG 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just converting it to use the WeRelate linking mechanism instead of a URL, being simpler. You can name it anyway you think makes sense if you want to add a pipe. --Jrich 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Buckmaster [11 October 2016]

Thought it may have been accidental; atypically there were no prose. --SkippyG 01:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! [9 November 2016]

Thank you for all of your help with multiple pages yesterday!

I am an experienced genealogist and author but I am still learning how to use WeRelate. I don't have big blocks of uninterrupted time most days, so I tend to make small, incremental changes over time. Sometimes, those changes are just brief reminders for future action.

I enjoyed reading your user pages. Thank you for your many high-quality contributions here, including correcting and enhancing my (slow) work-in-progress.

Perry--Streeter 13:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words.
Using WeRelate is a little awkward. But stick with it, one learns tricks that suits one's style (e.g. what to copy and paste, what to let the browser auto-complete, what to select out of drop-down lists, what your commonly-used sources are called, etc.) and it gets better. --Jrich 16:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ingoldsby [23 November 2016]

This is the source of my information on Elizabeth Ingoldsby:

Thoughts? Phil--Pmcmullin 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are pretty much like what is expressed in the Questionable template on her page. The cited webpage lists two sources
  • Source: S001691 Title: sfooks.FTW Repository: Call Number: Media: Other
  • Source: S125551 Title: Maltby 08282011.FTW Repository: Call Number: Media: Other
Both of which are FTW files, meaning it is basically copied from somebody's personal research but they didn't copy the sources if there were any, or for all we know, those FTW files were simply copied from somebody else, and perhaps that person copied from somebody else, and so it is a secret whispered around the room: more likely wrong than right. In summary, there is no indication that any of this data came from any kind of contemporary document or has any basis in fact, or if it is an assumption, why that assumption was made. --Jrich 20:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well we at least know that it is a weak link. What is an FTW file? Phil--Pmcmullin 20:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

FTW file query: "FTW files are files that contain family tree data that is used exclusively by Family Tree Maker software. Family Tree Maker is a genealogy program that allows users to build and share their family tree with others." --Jrich 23:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that the same as a Gedcom file? With your wider experience what web sites do you find have the best research family trees?--Pmcmullin 00:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It is somewhat like a GEDCOM file but is only meant to be understandable by Family Tree Maker software, whereas GEDCOM is meant to be understandable to any genealogy programs. There are many other sources that also indicate they are exchanged information, and accepting such information requires naively assuming the unknown author did quality research (sources like PAF, AFN, WFT, PRF, OneWorldTree, Ancestry Public and Private Trees, etc.) Many amateur genealogists (I believe perhaps as many as 95%) do not do quality research, but simply copy, and having found an answer, move on. The best websites use sources that are based on documents written while the person was alive or by persons that had first hand knowledge of the person. This includes vital records, church records, deeds, wills, court records, and other legal/official documents. Diaries, family Bibles, census records, and gravestones may also be useful. Most sources that have no reference to these type of sources have probably not done much in-depth research, and tend to show a large drop-off in reliability compared to those that do. Also, when you use a webpage that uses good sources, it is important to also capture what is being cited as the source of information, and not just the raw information, else the quality is lost. --Jrich 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Person:Sarah Guile (4) [2 March 2017]

Thanks for the probate. I know they're out there on FamilySearch, but I have a very difficult time deciphering them. Regards, WDC--jaques1724 18:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just seemed like the first place to look to resolve a father issue, and in this case, luckily both were there. --Jrich 19:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy wade 10&11 might be the same person [4 March 2017]

They were both born in the same place Medford, Middlesex, Massachusetts, the same year 1687. If she was the daughter of Mercy Bradstreet, then Mercy had her at age 40, NOT impossible, but less likely, whereas Elizabeth Dunster would have been 31.

What do you think?--Ben 03:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Or they might not be the same, since the town clerk recorded the birth of two Dorothy Wades in 1687 to different parents see here. (Actually a year apart since one is 1686/7 and the other is 1687/8). --Jrich 04:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably you are interested in somebody named Dorothy Wade who lived, which based on what is posted rules out the daughter of Jonathan, since she must have died young (his estate is divided 23 Mar 1697/98, a double share to Dudly Wade as oldest son, single shares to Debora Dunster, Prudence Swan, Katherine Wyor, Susanna Wade and Eliza Wade, the only surviving children - Middlesex Probate 23413). The will of Nathaniel (Middlesex probate 23417) names daughter Dorothy Willis. If this is the person you are looking for, it is indeed the daughter of Nathaniel and the 40 year old Mercy (Bradstreet) Wade. In my experience, as rough guidelines, 40 is not unusual if a woman has been having children all along. 45 is reaching the limits and 50 is unusual. --Jrich 05:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought they were born the same year.

In the profile pages it says"Person:Dorothy Wade Birth:12 MAR 1687 for one, and Dorothy Wade, Birth:7 Feb 1687/88 for the other. So one is born 1687 and the other is born 1687/88. I thought that meant there was an uncertainty factor.--Ben 05:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The one profile page has been carelessly entered losing information that the original records actually captured. You should refer to the vital records cited above, which reflect what the town clerk recorded at or near the time of their actual birth. The beginning of the year shifted from 25 March, which had been used since Roman times, to 1 January, as we use now, starting in 1752. So before 1752, the months from Jan through March may be written by the town clerk as 1686, but mean the year we call 1687 (a combination that is indicated using the notation 1686/87), or they may have been have been written as 1687 and mean the year we call 1688 (indicated using 1687/88). To be fully precise, any date between 1 Jan through 24 Mar before 1752 should use "double-dating". Meaning that 12 Mar 1687 is not complete. You can read more here if you want, which you should do if you want to do genealogy before 1753. --Jrich 05:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


[Please stop posting to the subpage and post here. Thank you.]

the population of Medford in 1800 was only 1,114

Also, the population of Medford in 1800 was 1,114, so in 1687, it must have been only in the low 100s.--Ben 05:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is probably somewhat immaterial. Regardless of the population, the town clerk recorded the births in the town. Second, towns did not start from zero, but split off from other towns when the population was big enough to support a church. Many towns had a nearly constant population due to the constant western migration that occurred throughout American history. --Jrich 05:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick Thank you. [17 March 2017]

Just a quick thank you for the follow through on George Harrison.--GayelKnott 00:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It had/has many symptoms of a page that needs watching. The importance of peer review and simply watching, as a tool of data quality improvement, does not get stressed enough. Both you and Amelia handled it well, I thought. --Jrich 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Census Citation [1 April 2017]

The microfilm number for a census year is a constant and only changes based on which year you're referencing, therefore, including it in the citation is viable. According to most genealogy websites on citing census records, the microfilm number in some form of "NARA microfilm publication XXX" should be included when sourcing census records. The "XXX Census of the United States", I will admit, is extraneous, so it's not overly important if it is removed from the citation. In any case, if including the microfilm reference doesn't belong in the Subtitle of a census record, where should it be included so as to appear as part of the source citation? It is immaterial to me where it appears in the citation, as long as it is included so as to make the citation appear more complete on the pages in which the census record is being referenced. Thoughts?--khaentlahn 19:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a page with 6 or so census citations on it and one looked very noticeably different than the others and stood out. I made it follow the same pattern. I doubt you're volunteering to make the thousands of pages be consistent?? That information, of course, would be trivial to add to the template for the appropriate census if it isn't already there... --Jrich 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, updating census sources is a project of mine, so, as crazy as it sounds, I am in the process of going through all those census pages, cleaning up existing ones and creating pages for those which are missing. So, with that in mind, the NARA publication reference, if not in Subtitles, where else? Or if Subtitles is perfectly acceptable, I can cut it down to only the NARA reference and leave out the "XXX Census of the United States", if the former entry appears to be too much.--khaentlahn 20:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not the person to ask. I don't like the current treatment of census sources, and not understanding why that approach was taken, am probably not who should review your ideas. The difficulty, though, may be another reason why, in my mind, they should never have been cited to the county level. All one organization designing and administrating the census, one form used across the whole country, the whole census should have been one source. Seems like half the counties I cite census for have incomplete sets of source pages and I end up creating half the pages I want to cite, and no GEDCOMs ever match to the county level. That rant aside, it does not seem like the information being added is part of the title. --Jrich 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Funny thing about that. If you go to the microfilm title page, for example 1830, "Roll 19" (ie. NARA microfilm publication M19) and "Fifth Census of the United States" both appear to be part of the actual title. In any case, after much experimentation and with how government sources are handled on WeRelate, if not added in the Subtitle field, there is no other field that will allow information to appear as part of the citation.--khaentlahn 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Has anybody bothered to read Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills? Try p. 265 and following. My other question: How many researchers actually use the NARA microfilms, and how many people make use of images (or indexes/extractions, etc) from database searches. If you are going to be obsessive, you should distinguish between the NARA microfilms, and the databases (and each database is different). One of the first goals of a source citation, after all, is to tell other researchers where you found the information you are providing, and the NARA microfilms are not the same as the databases. Some purists insist that you have to specify which database you are using. This would tend to preclude putting the NARA microfilm number in either the title or the subtitle, which would ultimately be misleading, unless you want to create categories for every database as well as for the NARA microfilms. --GayelKnott 22:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean all 800+ pages givings rules and rules about how to bibliographies with no apparent system. I tried, and gave up after an hour. --Jrich 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a system, starting with the distinction between the NARA publications, and the different databases. But agreed, obsession with "correctness" can get a wee bit out of hand on occasion, especially since we are probably lucky to get many of the people uploading to WeRelate to just cite a census record. --GayelKnott 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I have erred on the side of assumption. Databases are a starting point only, since supposedly all of the census databases needed to have used the original census microfilm to create their databases in the first place. Assuming that database entries are 100% accurate is a fallacy. Therefore, it is up to the researcher to verify the original microfilm and not simply assume that the databases are correct, which in many cases they are not. You can have umpteen million databases, but there is still only one set of original microfilms produced by the NARA. I don't see the difficulty with creating the census pages to follow the NARA microfilm. Databases will not always exist, but unless there are massive fires all across the country or the government gets a wild hair and decides the physical copies are no longer of use, the microfilms aren't going away any time soon, regardless of whether people readily utilize them right now or not (though I am good friends with my local microfilm reader). I am not of the opinion camp that believes there needs to be umpteen million different source instances to show all the various databases from which someone may have pulled their data. That's ridiculous. So obviously I am not a "purist" in that sense. Go as original as possible... That is valid research since everyone has access to the original if they choose to bother looking (even though unfortunately original records have been known to be wrong, but that's a whole different kettle of fish and completely off topic). If a researcher wants to utilize the links to Ancestry or FamilySearch (or whatever other database) for the sake of expedience and to create a reasonable reference point, all the power to them. If you want to obsess over the database from which their information was derived, go to the actual source instead and skip the database middle-man. It is still up to the next researcher in line, and all the researchers after them, to verify the research originally provided and not take the earlier researcher's (or the database's) word for it that the research is correct. Long-winded, I admit, but that being said, the census sources should be references to the original microfilm and not to a database so as to keep the citation relatively simple and repeatable.--khaentlahn 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, plus a note on the graves of Samuel and Susanna Lawrence [6 April 2017]


This is an overdue note to say thank you (!) for your help in cleaning up and adding to the material I contributed a week or ten days ago. It really speaks to the benefits of collaboration in a project like this. I'm very appreciative!

One small note: I saw that, for whatever reason, the burial/ grave info for Susanna (Parker) Lawrence (URL: is incorrectly recorded. There IS a stone to her and her husband, Maj. Samuel Lawrence, b. 1754, at Mt. Auburn, so that part is correct, but their actual remains are in the Groton Town Cemetery ( . The monument there is a sort of obelisk shape, near the top of the hill.

The mistake is confined to Susanna's page as the WeRelate page for Major Samuel Lawrence doesn't list a burial and is semi-locked and just has the Wikipedia material.

BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying you had any hand in the error. It may have crept in with my material, where I did record the monument at Mt. Auburn and its Findagrave link. Or, it may have been there before and I just didn't notice it. But at any rate, the graves are in Groton...

I have to undergo surgery later today, or I would spend some time trying to learn how to fix this and do it myself.

Again, my profound thanks for all your help!--W4h2t7c6 07:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is an error, it is mine, as (none of) your citations of Find A Grave identified the specific memorial page being cited. This, of course, requires that the reader re-establish which one is intended on their own...
I don't see Susanna mentioned on the Groton stone. Certainly the Find A Grave contributors only created one memorial page for her, in Cambridge. Her husband does have two different memorial pages, reflecting his being named on two different stones.
A stone does not necessarily indicate burial occurred there. It will take more research by some dedicated descendant to determine which stone is correct, and posting of the sources that justify the answer. Given that Susanna died last, it is possible the body was moved so she could be buried with her husband, etc.
Find A Grave can be a useful site, but must be used with a giant grain of salt. See the commentary on the source page.
Best wishes with your surgery. --Jrich 13:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Cemeteries for Leeds [19 April 2017]


This comes from your comment on the Cos1776 talk page.

I'm not sure if you disagree with me on the principle of giving a second page to places in the UK which changed their name and their physical size in the 1970s or not. I have done so mainly because metropolitan boroughs (the new places) have probably renamed and reorganized their archive offices as well as their other governmental responsibilities and we need to know about those.

The problem comes about because people can add new cemeteries as places without inspecting the place page for the town in question. The box below the list of cemeteries on the [[Place:Leeds (metropolitan borough), West Yorkshire, England]] page was put there as a warning that it is better to use the other page. But if you don't see the red light, you are very likely going to drive through it.

The 1900 rule is a good one, but we must remember that it doesn't stop places from having different names before and after that date. To use an example in another part of the world: my ancestors settled in Upper Canada in 1800, in 1841 they found themselves living in Canada West, and in 1867 they started living in Ontario, Canada. For the family, house moves were never more than ten miles, but the name of the place at the top of government documents, the documents we call sources, changed twice in the century.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The 1900 rule is limited and at best a flawed compromise. It was probably developed so the Mormon Church could index their catalog by a predictable place name. If they use the current name, things will constantly be changing, so they picked an arbitrary date in the past to be able to name a location with a fixed value that didn't need an army to keep current. It might make sense to change it to the 2000 rule, but that would require a discouraging amount of changes to the existing data, so it doesn't appear that anybody is planning that.
I am sure places in the world have it far worse than England or Canada or the U.S., such as places where the 1900 name was in the boundaries of a bitter enemy country but today is a more friendly name. Those people are never going to like the 1900 name. But it does remove the time element of the naming, and I am sure any more appropriate solution would be really hard to implement, and not mesh well with incoming GEDCOMs. But being presented as how places names are done on WeRelate, every deviation, for whatever reason, simply make WeRelate harder to understand. Is every country supposed to work differently? Most people don't understand the subtleties because they have always just named things how they wanted to, this being the first time they have had to mesh with others. Location naming is one of many places that needs some major software attention and that will probably never get it. (I would think somehow the input name should translate to geo-coordinates and then display with the appropriate name based on an associated date field, somehow linked to the place name field.)
My primary disagreement was with the comment that the cemeteries should be in the older name? Not sure why that is any better then the current location name? Should the place page provide the location a person wants to look up on a map to go to visit the cemetery? Then the new name. Is it where the body lies? Then either name should work. Only if it is the name at the time of burial does the old name seem to make sense to me. Even if the location had the same name in both time frames, cemeteries change name too. Do we name the cemetery as it is now or as it was then? Which name works with the mapping software in WeRelate (I assume either, but my testing of this hasn't investigated anything beyond historical names, which map incorrectly). --Jrich 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Weld (16) of Medfield [5 May 2017]


Thank you for your work on Daniel Weld (16). Dr Daniel Weld (14) is my wife's ancestor.

I have used WeRelate many times but I just 'joined' the site today so please forgive any clumsiness.

The reason I am writing is that your Talking Page entry for Daniel Weld (16) may have a typo: The sentence "... show that Joseph Weld of Medfield was the brother of Thomas Weld of Roxbury" in your February 3 entry should probably say "... show that Daniel Weld of Medfield was the brother of Thomas Weld of Roxbury"

I have tried to make this edit myself but failed. I still have a lot to learn at WeRelate. Is either Daniel Weld your ancestor?

Regards, Jim Stevens (jstevens<at>lisco<dot>com)--JimStevens3 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not related. Just spent some time researching him to see if I could clarify things any. Thanks for pointing out the error. Hopefully I fixed it. --Jrich 20:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Trescott [13 May 2017]

No proof given that her name was Dyer, so how would I know definitively. Dyer still left as Alt surname, until Dyer proven by someone with access to that Probate proof you mention. You haven't even given me 2 minutes ! to search for any extra Dyer info. No one else to badger today ?--SkippyG 16:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a continuation of a conversation started elsewhere. Response given on user's page, but apparently not satisfactory to him, as he chose to erase some of it, which I add here. Saving changes notifies all watchers pretty much right away, in fact by email if the watcher has so chosen, and so users making edits should act accordingly. It does not, however, notify us of a user's future plans.
I am not sure what your point is. I get notified of changes when the system chooses to notify me, which is probably when you do the save. Presumably you are changing based on a source so it should not be that hard to cite a source in the same edit you post a change in, and then everybody is happy. Please remember, the original comment, it was renamed without sources, without edit summary and without you watching it. It is very difficult for me to guess what you are going to do, and the minute I look at it, it is removed as an active change in my watchlist, so if I don't respond right away, I have no reminder. --Jrich 22:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not create this page, merely added children to the family, so the lack of sources was not my doing even though I ended up on the watchlist (hence explaining why I was notified of the change, though it propagated to about a dozen other pages I was watching as well). While sources are not required at WeRelate, this is a perfect illustration of why they should be. However, the original poster added no sources, it was then changed without adding any sources. Bottom line, the original poster at least had the advantage of being correct. I will post some evidence to the page. --Jrich 23:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Lydia Kebby [25 May 2017]

Thanks for straightening that out. I don't use this site often and I'm always confused at how to put info on. Actually I find it so intimidating that I rarely do. I also found a reference for the marriage in Nourse The Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts. 1643-1725. He called her Widow Lidea Bennett.

Here's a couple of other tidbits I found On 11 Aug 1656 deposition was taken from Lidia Cibie, aged about 19 yrs, and Sarah Waters, about 20 yrs. Taken from Wyman's notes on Middlesex Court files. (WikiTree) Sarah would have been a cousin of Lydia.

Prob right (Putnam): George Hughs d. 20 Feb 1711, Sudbury, Middlesex Co., MA (MA Vital Records)

A George Hewes served in the Falls fight under Turner 18 May 1676, was said to be of Springfield. (Not sure this is the right George Hewes) On a petition presented Oct 1704 from Lancaster to the governor, George Hewes lost 2 oxen and 2 cows. (Lieutenant Joshua Hewes: A New England Pioneer, and Some of His ..., Volume 1, By Eben Putnam, )

Didn't find what I was looking for - Lydia's death date.

Dianne--Dkmac86 23:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The family of Isaac Appleton, b. 1704, and Eliz. Sawyer [30 May 2017]

Hi-- just wanted to flag something for you to look at as I trust: a) your judgment, b) your prodigious research ability, and c) your sense of protocol/ manners here. The family of Isaac Appleton, b. 1704, and Eliz. Sawyer, no DOB, appears to need correction and work. (link: There is no birth date on the page for Eliz., though other sites have 5 Sep 1709. The entry for her daughter, Eliz, b. 1717, actually cites a source saying she was daughter of a Daniel (!) and Elizabeth. So, almost by definition, that entry is wrong. Not to mention that if the mother Elizabeth was really born in 1709, she was 8 at the birth of her first child. Secondly, I can't find any other mention of a son, Daniel, born 1723. Preliminary looking on my part has their first child, Isaac Jr., born in the far more sensible year of 1731. I did find a son, Daniel, born 1745. I'm sure you will find other issues once you start looking. If this were just my own tree, I'd start pruning, as it were, but I'm new here and don't want to step on toes needlessly. Note I did add a son, Joseph Appleton, b. 1751 (baptismal record indicates he was son of Isaac and “Eliza” Appleton) but otherwise am deferring changes. Anyway, thanks for taking a glance at this. I'm sure whatever changes you choose to make will be a significant and helpful improvement.--W4h2t7c6 22:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I think most people would laugh at your comment about my "sense of protocol/ manners", but that's another issue. It does look like the family is messed up, which happens due to merging snafus, and hitting select instead of add, and various reasons like that. Some children of Daniel and Elizabeth Appleton appear to be entered here. I don't see that the Family page for these parents has been created yet, so I probably won't get to it until this evening. I would like to consult some Appleton sources besides just the raw vital records - which by the way seem to be correctly cited, despite the possible data entry error in linking those children to the wrong parents. I believe William Sumner Appleton wrote an article on the Appleton family in NEHGR, if not a book, that will probably just help provide perspective. If you have sources ready, feel free to go ahead and make changes - it's always okay to correct an error if you have the appropriate sources. --Jrich 23:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
William Sumner published Ancestry of Priscilla Baker … Wife of Isaac Appleton in 1670. I have the third volume of Royal Families: Americans of Royal and Noble Ancestry (2007) which covers the descendants of Samuel Appleton and Judith Everard (I descend from the first Samuel through his son Samuel). With the Watson book in hand, it probably makes sense for me to tackle this, starting with Daniel & Elizabeth (Berry) Appleton and then moving on to Isaac and Elizabeth (Sawyer). Comments and suggestions welcome.--jaques1724 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A quick word of follow-up to say I thought you did a beautiful job on cleaning up/ restoring the family of Isaac and Elizabeth Appleton. It’s irrational, I know, but it does feel like the universe is just an infinitely small amount more ordered today than it was two days ago. My sincere thanks! All best,--W4h2t7c6 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so, so nicely. It's really just trying to drill down to primary sources. --Jrich 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Gove corrections [12 July 2017]

Thanks for your improvements. I note that the persons were from a gedcom I did in 2009. Any reference to MRIN numbers can also be removed as they only pertain to my files. If I have time I will try to find and remove the MRIN.--HLJ411 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Martha Walker [6 August 2017]

 Thank you for your explanation concerning Martha Walker as I now stand corrected. .  I appreciate any updates provided since I am working with dated material. Njack--Normiejac 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [22 August 2017]

Thanks for the compliment. I'm humbled...--SkippyG 16:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Clapp/Leeds [7 September 2017]

Thanks for filling out the Samuel Clapp family. I'd not gotten back to it after quoting the Clapp Memorial.--SkippyG 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)