User talk:Persisto


Welcome [18 October 2009]

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

  1. Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do.
  2. Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial video to learn how to make ancestor web pages.
  3. Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed.

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! Debbie Freeman --DFree 18:30, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

That is what it was called, I believe, but it seems redundant to have an article that links to all the 22 counties and then have another place name called the Northern Neck Proprietary. Maybe that is what they objected to when they pulled it down. The ARTICLE page is still there and I am still working on it.--Persisto 14:05, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

External Web Site Reference [8 October 2009]

To do something like this, do:

[ this]

--Jrm03063 14:27, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

welcome! [8 October 2009]

Hi and Welcome to WeRelate! I recognized your user name from the edit you posted on the Northern Neck Research Guide page. I'm glad you found your way here and were able to add a correction. I see even more has been added (by making more names to be links) since you posted. So hopefully, as more folks add to this page it will become more helpful to folks. This site, being still in beta, will have some bumps along the way, but I appreciate the opportunity to be part of building such a site even though I'm wiki challenged. There are video and text tutorials and help pages; even these are constantly being upgraded. The folks who are attracted to such a wiki site, are generally very helpful and more than willing to share. I hope you'll be back to explore some more. --Janiejac 15:23, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Persisto & Persisto1 User Names [8 October 2009]


Welcome To WeRelate. I hope you find WeRelate a good addition to your genealogy. I noticed that you have 2 WeRelate User Names. It is not necessary to have more than one. Did you want 2 User Names? Thanks Debbie Freeman --DFree 18:35, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Who am I? [16 October 2009]

I'm just interested in helping. Consider anything I offer just an idea, to be taken or discarded as you like. Never be concerned about going back to the page history to get back a previous version if you don't like what I offered.

I just wanted to suggest some ways to technically flesh out the presentation with more live links and, perhaps, some more direct prose. It's great material that you've put together, and I wanted to try to help it appear to best advantage.

But, as I said, they're just ideas.

--Jrm03063 20:09, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

wiki versus conventional publishing, etc. [16 October 2009]

I think wiki versus conventional publishing is a series of trade-offs. A wiki is sort of like tossing your work out to the world and giving all comers a red pen. You get a lot of feedback fast. "Ownership" is sort of diminished at the same time, but that's how you get interest and very fast turn-around. It probably isn't a great way to put out truly original scholarship, unless it's on something that has really narrow interest (for example, Eastman Cemetery).

Indeed, changing stuff is trivial. It's also worth remembering that every changed "state" of a wiki-page file is kept, so an increasingly common idiom that's appearing is a reference to a wiki source and "accessed as of such and such" (more helpful would be: "version dated xyz"). For some sites, that will only let you know if things have changed, but for a true wiki you'll be able to diff the present with that past page - and anything in between - which is arguably the best of both worlds.

Interestingly, PDF may provide a slight middle ground on all that. Since a PDF upload is image data (in the computer science sense - not just "images"...), no one can just jump in and edit it (unless they somehow download it, mess with it on their own machine, and then re-upload the changed version destructively over the original - both unlikely and obvious).

When we first started putting PDFs up, we did it via the "Digital Library", which is an alternative parallel mechanism for posting stuff that may provide more control over if/when it gets changed (for example, see this entry for the Epsom Cemetery Book. I don't know the current usage state of that mechanism (it's still there and working anyway), but had also heard that you can directly load PDF to WR. Just now I tried as much: Epsom Cemetery Book.

In another note, I am sort of intrigued by the confluence of a professional researcher working here on a free site. While some folks might find it a little counter-intuitive, coming as I do from a computer science world, it makes sense. In that space, being known for significant contributions to notable free/open software efforts can be strong resume material. Even a small contribution serves as a more concrete sort of "calling card" than bland statements on a dead page. Sorta cool I think... --Jrm03063 03:23, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Your last paragraph is very interesting. One thing I like about this site is that I can develop ideas and articles that are of interest to me and to a broader audience, cite my sources and have it "out there" and come back to it so I don't have to reinvent the wheel. And get "instant feedback" as you say. It could well be I have completely missed a very important point. I haven't learned yet how to track who changed what and when and why. I am SO slow at this. I have really just got to lock myself in a room and make myself go through the tutorials. Trying to do this or that one thing at a time has been very frustrating. (I just tried to upload my photo to my profile page....well I managed to upload the photo but to just WHERE I don't know. It sure wasn't to my profile page and I don't seen any instructions on how to link the two. Care to help me here?)

  • Every page has a "history" button at the top right - click it and you'll see every state the page has ever had, along with buttons that let you choose different versions to "diff".
  • To find something you just did and "sorta lost track of", you can check your "Contributions" which will list everything you've done. Walk back the list and you should see the image upload.

I also like the fact that it is NOT under copyright by anyone, including WR. That way, I can offer it for publication at a later date to this or that journal. (Getting into copyright law is another can of worms. But for the sake of brevity, I the author own copyright to anything I create, whether for a client or an article.) I realize I assign copyright interests for what I contribute to WR, but they in turn don't claim a copyright themselves. At least I think I've got that right. If not, then I had better reassess the matter. (It is largely irrelevent in any case.)

  • You never give up your right to publish your own work by putting it here. Since it was yours to begin with, you don't even have to note that it's here too. Of course, if you put it here as a wiki page, then the page is modified, and you plan to publish the combined result, that would be a little different. Other contributions would have to be excised from what you publish and/or you would have to attribute them separately. Still, not a problem in either case (I mean, as long as the work was substantially your own...).

I'm glad to know that WR will support PDF files. I have no idea how to upload them of course. But for example, this article I am working on on the Northern Neck Proprietary. I would much rather get if finished, with footnotes, and post it. I don't think I'd much appreciate it being altered after have I done that. I'd much prefer a message saying "Hey, you should change this sentence to read thus and so" or "You dummy, didn't you know...."

  • Indeed, for this purpose, you may be best served by doing that as a publishable paper, generating the PDF, and then uploading that. To do that, use the "Add" button, select "Image", upload your ".pdf" as if it were an image file. When referencing it from documents, instead of using "Image:", use "Media:". Just load something small to try it out - you can't break anything and you can delete it later. For my example above, the text source contains: [[Media:Epsom Historical Association-Epsom Cemetery Book.pdf|Epsom Cemetery Book]].

Then again, seeing instant feedback is more fun and instant gratification is everything these days, especially on the web. [I really wonder what panic would ensue if all the satellites in orbit all fell into the ocean at once.)

WR to me offers a unique middle ground to do a LOT of things. I don't know that I'll be uploading any of my own family history research from a gedcom. To me that is always a work in progress and as such is full of little quirks and errors that I have not got around to fixing. In other words, it is only a perpetual working paper. In fact, I have not even explored ANY family tree on WR. I think I would just get aggravated. However, I may well consult some of them in the course of client projects.

  • Depending on how you like to do business, and what your clients want, they might want the results of their paid effort made public on a venue like WR. That could take the form of a PDF that amounts to a one-off publication of the end-stage of their contracted work, and/or actually putting the family tree up and getting initial pages for the different folks/families out there. While the result is free and available to the world, you can certainly accept payment for doing that work on someone's behalf.

What appeals to me is the ability to write articles and have my research for those all in one place, and the feedback of others. Having my work ALTERED of course is always a big wince to the ego.

  • Yeah, I'ld like to say that you get used to that but, maybe not! But seriously, I think you get past that a little bit and start to get some gratification from the fact that someone else is paying attention to your work, adding to it, etc.

I'm glad you are here and willing to help the real dummies like me learn the ropes of this site and wiki in general.--Craig--Persisto 04:03, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

  • There are a lot of niggling technical details to pick up at first - it's no sin - just get what you need when you need it. Honestly, I was hoping that my edits were serving the dual purpose of a bit of a proof-read/edit but also showing some of the things that are possible in a concrete way. One thing to remember, you can edit any page and then cancel, just to see the wiki-directives that were used to accomplish something - sort of the quick and dirty tutorial approach.

P.S I notice in your talk page here there was some discussion of my all-time favorite person, Steven Hopkins. Now HE was a character. I have special place in my heart for him for stepping up on behalf of my great-something grandfather Jonathan Hatch who was rebellious youth who had been apprenticed to a bad master, punished for running away and finally rescued by Steven Hopkins, rogue that he was. Kindred spirits, I think.--Persisto 04:08, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

  • I had once thought that StevieH was a relative, but alas, disproved it within the last year (at least via the line that had been claimed). On the good side, I did find that I'm part of the masses of Alden descendents, so my family's claims were at least a little true. --Jrm03063 04:39, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

uh oh! conflicting info?? [17 October 2009]

I just spent a good bit of time continuing to fix links but before I got it saved, you have also worked on the page. So now I have a page telling me to fix or merge the conflicting info and I am unsure just how to do that. I hate to close my edit page and lose what I've done - but don't know what else to do. I've never run into this problem before - two of us working on the same page at the same time. Would be no problem if it were just a sentence of two, but I've tweaked all the links. Guess I should have been saving as I went.--Janiejac 18:12, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I went to the watercooler to ask someone to put up better instructions on what to do in cases like this. The instructions on that page were not helpful to me. --Janiejac 18:27, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

I wish I knew how to just post a REPLY to this instead of using "EDIT"....but as I wrote to you privately, RUT-ROH. As I also wrote to you privately, the best two bafoons like us (me more than you) will ever learn is by this case doing a lot of things wrong. But the point about two people editing the same page at the same time is bound to come up for everybody here. Just what is the procedure for such a case?

Place:Northern Neck of Virginia [29 October 2009]

Hi, I am a volunteer admin for WeRelate. I am sorry, but we do not allow place page for non-jurisdictional locations. That is, you can have place pages for cities, towns, countries, districts or counties (depending on the country). The place database is used by our search engine and is extremely hierarchial. There simply is no place to index a non-jurisdictional locale. I have deleted the page. Hope you understand.  :) --sq 22:12, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

===It was originally an article and the article asked for a place name. I'm not sure what you mean by non-jurisdictional locations. The Northern Neck Proprietary WAS a jurisdiction in terms of granting land. Over 5,000,000 acres in fact comprising 22 counties. Perhaps you do not understand what it was. An article on The Northern Neck Proprietary was created by me yesterday. I hope you did not wipe that out too. It is under development

I'm not sure what the page name was, but perhaps that was part of the problem. I would have thought that it should be named "Northern Neck Proprietory, Virginia, United States"? --Jrm03063 08:25, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
It appears to be a region, distinct from Northern Neck Proprietary. I'll rename it to Place:Northern Neck, Virginia, United States. Places must be put within a jurisdictional hierarchy because the system uses the place page structure internally for various things. Adding "Virginia, United States" to the title solves the problem.--Dallan 12:37, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

A trifling prose issue on the N. Neck Research Page... [19 October 2009]

In the definition, you note that the Northern Neck runs inland for 100 (or so miles) .... until windmill point (or some such).

Would it be more correct to say that it runs inland from windmill point?

Page is getting really slick by the way - I wish something like that existed for areas that I'm focused on! --Jrm03063 13:30, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Help with formatting [19 October 2009]

It's looking good!! Perhaps this will be helpful:
Help:Formatting--Janiejac 17:05, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Hi Craig, how can I help [20 October 2009]

Craig, what can I do to help you and welcome to WeRelate. --Beth 22:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

The wikipedia links were not working because of the spelling; I corrected the spelling in one of your articles so they now are working. You had wikopedia instead of wikipedia.--Beth 23:08, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Well DUH on me. Thank you. It is slowly getting there. It's a bit experimental, as you can tell.--Persisto 23:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Your page is a wonderful addition to WeRelate; excited to have you on board. I must have missed some of the wikipedia links but Janie fixed the others. Enjoy. --Beth 23:47, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Jane is a doll, and I'd have quit long before now but for her help and encouragement. Jane is new too. We are both babes in the woods. Me more than her. I have a lot to offer in terms content, she is in great ideas. We need help of course. Who does't?--Persisto 23:56, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Look what I found - land grants [22 October 2009]

I just found this: MySource:Rharrison/Virginia Land Office Patents and Grants/Northern Neck Grant and Surveys. I've just written to him suggesting we might have some mutual interests and suggesting that he make the general interest part of that page into a regular article linking it to the repository. If he responds maybe this could be linked to from your page??? Maybe save you a lot of typing? I'm wondering where he got that info. . .--Janiejac 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

On quick once-over, it looks good. Let me finish my on WIKI story first, because there are some things that I think really need explaining. This is why this site is so good. We get to meld our individual knowledge and skills. I am really swamped the rest of this week. But I promise you--MORE LATER. Jane, you have been such a help to me and I know only more good things will result. It just takes TIME--Craig--Persisto 12:02, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

another site to examine [23 October 2009]

I don't want to flood you with sites to look at - at the same time I think you should have a look at this too: Early Settlers of Old Augusta. When you click on the alpha list of settlers, you can see he's done a tremendous lot of work here. I clicked on 'M' but sure didn't try to read it all. I went here because you mentioned the Borden grant and I knew he had worked on that but I didn't know how much. --Janiejac 02:29, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

That is a nice page and I'll have get it linked to the NN Proprietary article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will also include Borden Manor in my list of examples. (I only mentioned Beverely Manor.)--Persisto 12:11, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Breathe... this is a wiki [24 October 2009]


Been following your posts and concerns about the edits happening on your contributions. While I am not familiar with the content of your contributions, I hear that they are really great. I'm also reading between the lines of some of your posts that the wiki-culture is really alien to your experience of writing and publishing articles. And you're probably not used to complete strangers "tightening up" your writing. I encourage you to breathe your way through this introduction into wiki-land, bringing an explorer's curiosity. We are thrilled to have you here. Like any group of people/community, each person comes with their own experience, personality and set of opinions. We're quite "diverse" in that sense, here. Anyway, just wanted to send a note of welcome and encouragement. I look forward to seeing the results of the Northern Neck work. My brother-in-law may have ancestors there who also lived on the eastern shore of Maryland.

-- Jillaine 12:35, 24 October 2009 (EDT) (Washington DC)

Great to have you on WeRelate [25 October 2009]

Hello Persisto,

I too would like to add my Welcome and "Great to have You" aboard. WeRelate is what we collectively make it, but with respectful co-cooperation. Feedback is important on both sides. I am learning from your research & hard work. I have some ancestors that got tangled up in the "Lord Fairfax land mess" who were (probably) German. Debbie Freeman --DFree 14:03, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

There were "way many" Germans in the Northern Neck Proprietary. I haven't got to all the fuss about the ones in the Shenadoah Valley yet. But the first group of Germans who dealt with the NNP did so on a very amicable basis. This was the so-called First Germanna Colony who initially came in April 1714 under Gov. Spotswood's auspices, and by late 1718 had worked off their agreements with Spotswood (they were not technically indentured, but they may as well have been) and moved to Fauquier County and founded Germantown. In this we can see the fine hand of Robert "King" Carter who was the NNP's agent at the time.--Persisto 21:09, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the warm welcome... [25 October 2009]

I do appreciate the encouragement to "stick with wicki." It is an alien culture for me. Having my articles edited is something I think I can learn to deal with. Most all of them have been improvements. I am not sure I will be able to deal so well with gecoms. I should have never chosen the BALL family as my first essay into this new world. While one of the administrators confidently informed me it would be no problem to start merging people and correct many of them connect only peripherally to what I uploaded and I have done no solid research on those people, I am reluctant to start merging everyone. Worse were the many error in what has already been submitted. It would probably take me months to go through all of it.

And YES, I can hear you pros now--don't worry about it and take your time! That is probably what I'll have to do. But learning to do it is another curve to turn. So, I do appreciate the supportive comments from all of you. I can tell it is a happy family who does "get it"--much better than I do at the moment.--Craig--Persisto 21:05, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Editing a Non-Existant Place [25 October 2009]

I am TRYING to get this. I am trying to match/merge a place event. In this case I click on the non-existant place that is clearly hot-linked in the erroneous and "semi protected" wrong place. It says it does not exist. Of course it does not exist. I click on edit. I try to type in the correct name. I am told I have to create the WRONG place that does not exist according to WR, and I have no idea how to that, and even if I did, does this just mean I create something I have to back and delete in order to change it, and if so, why does it show up on the data base in the first place. HELP, please.

The case in point is Epping Forest, Lancaster County, USA (wrong) for place of marriage of Mary Ball to Augustine Washington (wrong).

If we can solve this, how and where do I explain this?--Persisto 01:51, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Hello, If you search WeRelate for the keyword "conflicting information" or something like that it will give you some ideas on how to handle this. It is encouraged by WeRelate to start a conversation on that couple's marriage TALK page. The Talk page gives you and the other person the room to discuss, and hopefully come to a mutually agreed date and place. Don't forgot just because it is a source does not mean that source is correct. It will also allow other researchers to read and come up with their own opinion.

If I remember right usually people leave the incorrect information on the marriage page, and add a second "correct" information as the second date or place, and a source. They then can add a note to the incorrect date or place on that incorrect date or place note area.

Please remember one of the theories is that the good information rises to the top and the bad will fall to the side in time. Hope this helps, Debbie Freeman --DFree 09:02, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Craig, I have removed the incorrect marriage place for Mary Ball and Augustine Washington. You do this by going to the family page and select edit below the blue bar. The edit page appears and you will see the event marriage, date, place, sources, and image. I deleted Epping Forest, wrote a summary of the changes, previewed the change, and then saved. To add the correct place you need to edit the page again and add this under marriage place and add your source. You should note the proof text regarding the different place. I would write this on the text section of the family page. The original uploader of the gedcom has not returned to WeRelate and did not reply to my earlier questions regarding a merge so you may or may not get any reply from the original uploader. --Beth 09:37, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Thomas Chinn and Sarah Mitchell [30 December 2009]

Please take a look at Thomas Chinn and Sarah Mitchell (3) and Thomas Chinn and Sarah Mitchell (2). We seem to have two different Sarah's but there is not enough information to determine if there are two different Thomas's. If so, since the families and spouses look so similar, it is a good idea to put a nomerge template on their talk pages. The system is turning them up as potential matches. --Judy (jlanoux) 12:46, 30 December 2009 (EST) (WeRelate volunteer)

Mary, wife of Joseph Ball [10 July 2010]

I noticed you've made changes to Mary (Unknown) Johnson/Hewes/Ball after I added her will and other documentation. Based upon your comment, you don't appear to agree with the evidence uncovered by the House of Montague regarding her parentage. I believe the documents cited by them are fairly compelling in proving her parentage and the record of her (probable) first marriage. Do you have any other sources to prove otherwise? Your comment seems to indicate that you may.... Also, you've changed the section heading of Mary's will after I added it, was there a reason for that?


Jim Volunteer Administrator on WeRelate--Delijim 12:11, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

What, pray tell, compelling evidence does the House of Montague have to prove that the 2nd wife of Joseph Ball was Mary Montague? I don't think there is any. But if there is, we at the Mary Ball Washington Museum and Library would love to learn of it.--Persisto 17:19, 10 July 2010 (EDT)

Renaming pages [11 July 2010]

Hello Persisto, I noticed that you are making edits to a few pages (changing married name to maiden name). This is a good first step, as this follows WeRelate's naming conventions. However, I'm not sure if you are aware that changing the name in the edit screen does not rename the page itself. One example is Person:Mary Bertrand Ballendine (1). Her page is still titled Mary Bertrand Ballendine, even though her name in the blue box appears as Mary Ann Bertrand.

The next step would be for you to rename these pages by clicking on Rename in the left menu. In the case of Mary Ann Bertrand, please rename the page to only Mary Bertrand, as pages are titled without middle names. Let me know if you have any questions. --Jennifer (JBS66) 09:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT) (volunteer admin)

I re-named the page for Mary Ann Bertrand. Why would middle names be exluded there? Sometimes that is the only way to discern one person with the same first name from the other? What is the reasoning behind this?--Persisto 11:04, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

There has be a lot of talk about this over the years, with people feeling strongly about each side of the coin. Essentially it's about consistency and reducing confusion. Variations in spelling, differences of opinion as to the middle name, an ancestor not knowing the middle name and incorrectly creating a duplicate page - those are all often cited reasons for the policy. Our software also automatically removes middle names when adding a new person and during GEDCOM uploads. This is due to multi-part surnames such as van der Wal.
Remember, this is only the page title, you can add middle names, prefixes, etc that will appear in that blue box. Also, the full name as it appears in the blue box is searchable. --Jennifer (JBS66) 11:22, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Sarah Mitchell - apparent duplicate [7 November 2010]

Hello, I noticed the following two persons that appear to be duplicates:

Sarah Mitchell, b. 10 March 1716-17, parents Robert Mitchell and Susannah Payne.

Sarah Mitchell, b. 10 March 1717, parents Robert Mitchell and Mary Chilton.

According to a couple of submissions to familysearch and ancestry, this Sarah Mitchell's parents are listed as Robert Mitchell and Susannah Payne (the first one listed above).

There is also a duplicate marriages for Thomas Chinn and Sarah Mitchell, even though they appear to be the same husband and wife:

If they appear to be the same persons, they should probably be merged to avoid further confusion.

Thanks and best regards,

Jim--Delijim 11:54, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

[3 March 2011]


Thanks for your message... When I was first starting out I had a question about protocol about middle names, and posted a question in one of the Help sections, and was told that it was okay, and, as I understood it, even a good idea to do so.

But thanks for letting me know and I will cease and desist from doing that.  :)

Nora--Norajames 19:29, 2 March 2011 (EST)