User talk:Moxeeguy

Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

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

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 07:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong links on some of your edits [28 February 2019]

I noticed changes on some pages I'm watching and found that you had made some changes to them (mainly Mann family related). I haven't yet evaluated the substance of the changes, but I did see that your changes were sometimes corrupting the link to the "Place:" page of an event. For instance, in this edit of Elijah Man (1), you changed the place links for the birth and death events from Place:Wrentham, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States to reference Place:Wrentham, Alberta, Canada. Similarly in this Jemima Skinner (2) edit you added a place to an event and a new death event with a place, and one had a Wrentham, Massachusetts name shown but a link to the Alberta Wrentham, and the other place field said "Norton, Bristol Co; Massachusetts Bay" but linked it to a Norton in Kansas. I checked a couple of your edits of pages that are not on my watchlist and found similar problems, as in this edit.

I presume this is happening entirely unintentionally, and would guess that it is due to some way that you are editing the "Place" fields of events. I assume you know about the place-matching feature which allows you to select a link to a Place: page. (It pops up a list of possible matches for you to choose from.) Maybe you are somehow choosing the wrong Place: page link when you are editing an event place field. To figure out what's going on, I think you need to play with editing place fields and see how this result is happening and how to get the correct result. (A tip for this kind of experimenting: use the "Show preview" button at the bottom of the page to see a result without committing to the current set of changed values; it's much faster and doesn't require reversing unwanted experimental edits.)

Here's hoping you can easily find out what you need to be doing for place fields so that you can get back to contributing new improvements to the data on WeRelate. --robert.shaw 01:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of sources [18 March 2019]

This is a description of my analysis of one of your pages.

You added Rebecca Paine as husband of Samuel Dyer with no sources. Her birth was listed as Eastham in 1732, and her death as Truro in 1799. The marriage is listed only as 1750.

No such birth of a Rebecca Paine was recorded in Eastham by the town clerk, no death was recorded in Truro for a Rebecca Dyer. How are these dates known if not found in the town records? Now, a marriage to Samuel Dyer to Rebecca Paine is found in Truro on 19 Mar 1750/51, but why isn't this well-known data accurately represented? So, combined with the absence of sources, I begin to suspect it was copied from a random website, whose author is unknown to you (and who probably copied them from some person unknown to him, probably because it was the first place he saw that mentioned this couple). Then you listed one child, even though, as a colonial couple, they probably had close to ten (turns out they had 12), suggesting no great depth of research. That pretty much summarizes how a sourceless page looks to a disinterested reader.

Then you tried to add Joshua Paine and Rebecca Sparrow as parents. Joshua and Rebecca lived in Truro, not Eastham where Rebecca is said to be born, but regardless were dismissed to Connecticut in 1730 and were no longer in Massachusetts in 1732. So either Rebecca's birth information is wrong, or they are not her parents. Since their daughter is said by sources to have married a son of Col. Dyer, and they named a son Joshua Paine Dyer, I look and find Rebecca's birth in Connecticut on 18 Jun 1732, not 19 Jun 1732 (Barbour records of Connecticut Births for Canterbury), and obviously not in Eastham. Now, from the perspective of 2019, the difference in June 18 versus June 19 is hardly significant, the value being merely what the source says. So what is important then is identifying the sources, so that we can tell bad sources that say somebody was born in Eastham when they were not, from good sources that have credibility and reliability. If a source is not identified, it is usually because it is the bad kind.

Now what does that imply about your other information? No death of Rebecca in 1799 appears in the expected places (Truro VRs, americanancestors.org database, familysearch.org database, Mayflower Descendant listing of cemeteries in Barnstable county). That could be because she didn't die on that date, because she married a second time and didn't die under the name of Rebecca Dyer, or because the death is found in from an unusual source. The third item again illustrates why data without sources does not really help anybody but providing such a source that is hard to find would be a great help. Since I find the death date of 26 Nov 1799 on the gravestone of a Mary Dyer, 2nd wife and widow to Samuel's father, I suspect somebody saw that Samuel's wife died on this date, and erroneously applied it to Rebecca.

I did try to verify possibility #2. I looked to see if Samuel Dyer died early enough that Rebecca married again (though it implies your post added such a death date without documenting the second marriage, needless to say, presenting an incomplete and misleading presentation to the reader). Samuel and Rebecca's last known child was born in 1770 (possibly 3 more, depending on who died 1773, it turns out they are Samuel and Rebecca's as well, so last child born 1777). The only death record of Samuel Dyer in Truro is dated 1773 not 1779, but there appear to have been at least two Samuel Dyers living in Truro (Samuel and his father, and because the father married a second time to a younger woman, their childbearing overlaps). The will in 1773 (Barnstable Probate 17:770) shows this is Samuel's father (wife's name is Mary), and the gravestone (MD, vol. 12, p. 235) gives his age as 75, so born 1698, agreeing. There is another probate file for a Samuel Dyer of Truro, administration granted 20 Nov 1782 (Barnstable Probate 19:69), but unfortunately there is no will and the estate is insolvent, so no listing of heirs. However there is no widow's allowance in the accounting suggesting he was single (Barnstable Probate 23:113), and it was administered by Thomas Dyer, no relationship specified. I have no idea if this is Samuel, but the associated death date would probably be around 1782, not 1779.

At this point I am tired of cleaning up the mess you posted. I see several other pages being posted by you with no sources that I did clean up. Are the remaining pages any more correct than this is? It is hard to imagine they are. I was recently notified of several pages where you changed locations linking to ridiculous place pages: Amenia, Cass, North Dakota, United States|Amenia, Dutchess Co; New York, USA; Eastham, Cheshire, England|Eastham, Barnstable Co; Massachusetts Bay Colony; Harwich, Essex, England|Harwich, Barnstable Co; Massachusetts. This is addressed by the posting above, and presumably it is due to not taking the time to learn to use the website correctly. I will just add that many of the pages already had the *correct* place name in the standard format and did not need changing.

You posts could show a little more respect for the users with whom this space is shared, and a little more concern for presenting correct information to the readers, again emphasizing that it is the sources that matter. --Jrich 17:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an "auto correct feature within this site that often corrupts "place names". It is regrettable. I was unaware of the situation till recently. I now double check any place name I enter as well as rechecking those I have entered in the past. An example of this auto correct is the town of Wrentham, MA.--Moxeeguy 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)