User talk:Susan Irish/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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:

1. Take the WeRelate tour to se e 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!--Beth 17:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Family Names

Hi Susan,

This is the recommended method of entering family names. If there are 2 or more families with the same name the index number will identify them.

a. Enter the first given name and surname of the husband and the given name and maiden name of the wife of the family you want to create. It is okay to leave fields blank if you do not know them. Do not enter other information such as middle names, nicknames, or titles. For example, if the husband's name was Robert Harold Townsend III and the wife's name was Lady Sarah Bradley, you would enter "Robert" and "Townsend" as the given and surname of the husband, and "Sarah" and "Bradley" as the given and surname of the wife. There will be an opportunity to enter additional information later.

--Beth 22:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Susan,

I noticed you've edited details about my grandparents, surnames LUCAS and GILBY, I can't see how we are connected could you let me know?

ETA: I just realised you've edited pages about other relatives too - but I still can't see a connection between us.

best wishes, Kate--Kateblogs 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Vital Record of Rhode Island

[19 October 2008]

The actual title of the work is singular (not vital records). A minor nit, but one would think all aliases should point to the real thing, not that the real thing should point to an alias, IMHO.

[1]

--Jrich 23:14, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Merges [19 October 2008]

Hi Susan,

I just got a bunch of messages from you merging the Whites/Allgars. It's nice to see those getting fixed, but be careful when merging to uncheck the duplicate data. Several people ended up with duplicate data that's human but not machine recognizable (i.e. a birth of 1562-3-11 when there's already 11 Mar 1562 in the record.)--Amelia 21:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Amelia, I have been merging lots of duplicates in my line. I do try to be careful.--Susan Irish 21:18, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Whaley Family [19 October 2008]

Hi Susan. My name is Brent Whaley and I noticed that you accessed some information regarding my family on We Relate. I was wondering what the connection may be. I have been researching my family tree off and on for some time and I am always looking for new information. Regards, Brent Whaley--Bwhaley 21:43, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Hello Brent, I have been merging many duplicate pages. I have a very remote connection to a Lydia Whaley who married John Sweet. She died in 1754 in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. I think her father was a Theophilius Whaley but for some reason I did not add him to my genealogy program.--Susan Irish 22:16, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Volunteer Hours [28 October 2008]

Hi, I am very grateful for your help with WeRelate. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind recording the time you spend helping out. WeRelate is a 501C3 nonprofit organization. In order to keep our tax deductible status, we need to show public support. Time is the same as money. So we ask people who work on projects, or work on things beyond their own stuff to record their time at Volunteer log. Thanks so much.--sq 11:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Hannah Perry [4 November 2008]

Susan, I received this message an hour and a half before your edit on Hannah:

You are receiving this notification because you have chosen to be notified via e-mail when a page in your Watchlist has been modified by another user.

The following page has been changed by Bill Wright at 20:03, 4 November 2008. Edit summary: Remove incorrect parents.The parents of this family are unknown.

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Family:Edmund_Perry_and_Sarah_Betts_%281%29

View changes since your last visit: http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:Edmund_Perry_and_Sarah_Betts_%281%29&diff=0&oldid=10237196

Leave a message for Bill Wright: http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_Wright --Scot 18:07, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Can I get a gedcom file for Hannah Holbrook? [12 November 2008] Hi, I get a lot of emails from changes that you make. I tried updating my database, but it would be more accurate if I could get a copy of your gedcom file. -- Larry Maddocks 801-759-1604 My web page with Holbrook: [2]--Waterart 22:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Larry,

The reason for so many changes was that there were 4-5 gedcoms that had been uploaded each containing the name Hannah Holbrook who m. Ephraim Pierce. I merged these Hannahs into 1 page.

I didn't do a good job in documenting my source when I discovered that my ancestor, Elizabeth, 2nd wife of John Holbrook was Elizabeth Stream. I think it was an article in NEHGR a few years back. My source placed Hannah as a daughter of John Holbrook and first wife, Sarah and so I moved Hannah to that marriage.

I am happy to share what I have but I don't have any more details about Hannah. My ancestor was Sarah Holbrook, first child of John and Elizabeth (Stream) Holbrook. She appears to have been named after John's late wife which was a common practice.--Susan Irish 22:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Hello Susan,

Today I received a long list of pages you are changing/merging, etc. So, I visited some. I noticed a different lineage for Giles Smith (1604-1669). Upon searching, it seems your lineage assigned to him is more likely correct. As Giles is in my direct line, at a juncture leading back to the 14th century along more than one line...I rediscovered something I had noticed earlier. While Giles' lineage seems to be as you assigned on the redirect, his wife, Mary's lineage (Thomas Wheeler and Ann Halsey) appear to probably be incorrect. It was part of a lineage series obtained on the couchgenweb site, during my first breakthrough on the Couch line (much of which has proven correct). If the dates given are assumed correct, for Mary to be the daughter of Thomas and Ann, her mother Ann would have been 10 years old at her birth, and would have been married (1623) to Thomas when she was 8 years old. Perhaps this is as simple as an incorrect date being passed down to us, but clearly as it is, there is a very unlikely relationship sequence.

Do you know of any documentation regarding both Giles' and Mary's lineages?

Thanks, Doug Couch --Dougcouch 18:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Meaning of code UID: [1 December 2008]

Hi Susan, I appreciate all of your great work on our many mutual ancestors of Rode Island, etc. Recently you gave Robert Burdick's wife a last name with the reference: UID: A987DFD0440BD61189932C4A07C100006FFF. What does UID and the accompanying number mean? Thanks, Sheri Iamele of Worthington Ohio aka Gramma's Garden--Sheri 09:27, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Sheri, That UID code was uploaded by somebody's GEDCOM and whenever I find it I delete it. Sorry I missed it when merging the Burdick file. We must be related many times over. --Susan Irish 19:17, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Susan, I had been deleting it also but was afraid that I really made a big mistake since you had left it in. Glad I am on the right track. Yes I am sure we are cousins many times.

Stephensons [6 December 2008]

Hi, Susan -

I'm very interested in the work you have done merging into "my" Stephensons. I know of only a couple of cousins who are working on this line so am intrigued to see someone else interested in this family. Lynn Alan Hetlet just published a book on 4 generations of these Stephensons. I have pictures if you would like to see them. Kathryn Hall Allahyari, Mercer Island, WA--Katsus98040 03:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Kathryn,

Greetings from Bellingham. I have been helping with the merging of duplicate pages project. I probably came upon your Stephensons from one of my surnames but I don't know which one right now. One of the goals of WeRelate is to have only one page per individual and family so when duplicates are uploaded someone has to merge them.--Susan Irish 14:18, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Susan - Sigh. I was all a twitter thinking there was a new cousin - and one interested in genealogy, too! I apologize for uploading two gedcoms that must have contained a generation in common. Sorry for the extra work I caused...... Kathryn (in sunny, warm WA on Dec. 6, 2008!!!)--Katsus98040 15:32, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Frederick & Margaret (Spangler) Erickson [25 December 2008]

Hi Susan, How are you related to Margaret (Spangler) Erickson? She was my maternal Aunt.--sandyink 23:50, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Hi, I am not related. There are lots of duplicate pages on WeRelate and I have been helping out with the merging process. Are you interested in help with the merging?

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Merging_pages --Susan Irish 16:00, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Partnering in our Merge Efforts [30 December 2008]

Hi Susan. I see that you and I are merging pages today. You're also merging pages that are relate to one of my trees. Shall we coordinate our efforts? Or at least keep each other informed? If it helps, I'm "jilpaints" on AIM and geo.jillaine on Skype, both of which I have running right now. jillaine 09:45, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Susan; nice chatting with you recently. FYI, I'm following your lead-- sort of. I'm going through the alpha list of duplicates and looking for Colonial New England surnames that I recognize. I am absolutely blown away by the sheer quantity of duplicates that exist. It's INSANE. jillaine 14:18, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Ellis family line [30 December 2008]

Hi Susan,

I found your info on the Ellis family, John Ellis married to Suzannah Royall. Their son John Ellis II had a son John Ellis and his son was Jezereel Ellis,who had a daughter Sarah Cytha Ellis that married a Shoemaker. Sarah Ellis is my gggggrandmother. By any chance do you have any information on her descendants? Her ggggranddaughter Elizabeth Nan Shoemaker married Frank Schubert and he is my gggrandfather on my mother's side. Thanks for sharing all your information.

Have a Happy New Year! Donna--Dtutt 12:37, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Donna,

I don't have Ellis family information. I have been helping with the merging of duplicate pages on WeRelate. Your file and another file had duplicate entries and when that happens someone has to merge them. Take a look under the heading "My Relate" and you will see an option called "Show Duplicates" you may find that there are more duplicates to your pages that can be merged.

Happy New Year to you too. Susan --Susan Irish 16:52, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Categories [7 February 2009]

Hi Susan,

I checked Robert Viner (1) and his article is included in the Viner surname and Viner in England. Maybe the problem has been corrected. --Beth 07:20, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Susan,

Forgive me as I am having some problems on learning how to use this site. I see that you have been busy with a lot of Calkins data. Are you related in any way or as I see from other postings you are helping to merge and clean up files? I have an extensive database on the Calkins Family. I am past president of the "Calkins Family Association" (CFA) and Administrator for the Calkins Family YDNA Project at FTDNA. Since we began this project it has become apparent that a considerable amount of data accumulated over the years is not correct. Ydna results for too many Calkins with ,supposedly, well documented ancestries, myself included, are in fact false. 67 markers tested on 14 Calkins with different lines of descent. Because of differing mutations and lack of any mutations proves this. If you would like to contact me by email my address is: acalkins@frontier.net--Calkins1931 13:29, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Sarah George Miles [16 February 2009]

I have received several notices that you've changed some data I entered around this person. I put it up a long time ago, and haven't been back to learn how We Relate works, and don't have time right now either. Please contact me directly. jgen@telus.net--Damon 11:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Nice work on Sabin merges [18 February 2009]

I like how you're augmenting/editing the Sabin merges. Nice work linking to the disputed pages. -- jillaine 21:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

thanks [21 February 2009]

...for fixing the misspelling in Person:Suanna Woodward (1), I didn't notice it.

--Jrich 22:51, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Merges [24 February 2009]

Hi,

I am helping to clean up the abandoned gedcoms. The feeling is that we may want to delete gedcoms of people who have elected not to recieve email from WeRelate. We can't colaborate with people who do not want to be contacted. You have merged many of the pages from these gedcoms and are not watching those pages. The unwatched pages would be deleted. Would you mind taking a look at WeRelate_talk:Duplicate_review#Unsubscribers_with_a_lot_of_duplicates_.5B24_February_2009.5D and giving us your opinion on these gedcoms. I don't want to do a global delete on a gedcom that is important to you. Thanks. :)--sq 13:43, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Hold on Fgdavis01 Merges [27 February 2009]

Susan,

I *think* you're working on the recently uploaded GEDCOM of User:Fgdavis01. I saw all these early Colonial dupes just show up recently. Please hold on doing any further merges on this gedcom (if that's what you're doing). Dallan is going to delete the GEDCOM and tell the user to re-upload after the merge-upon-upload is ready. -- jillaine 10:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Mary Unknown [8 March 2009]

It seems a little odd to have the name given as Mary Opp on a page titled Person:Mary Unknown (4234) and involved in a marriage of Family:John Crandall and Mary Unknown (1).

Is there a reason you decided the more precise name isn't right? I didn't see any comments explaining why Mary Opp is wrong. Just because something isn't proven (surmising that is the reason), I am not sure that is sufficient to do this, since a comment that this is unproven would probably be enough to communicate this fact, and regardless of how poorly documented the claim is, there is always the presumption that the person they copied it from had a reason for thinking that name was correct.

I don't have any particular stake in this, not knowing either way, but unless this was a mistake during merging where the wrong page got used as a target (the history looks like it was a rename, not a merge), it seems only reasonable that at a minimum, a source should be supplied to change somebody else's data? That source would presumably show that Mary Opp couldn't have been John Crandall's wife, or provide the correct name. Otherwise, as I said, I think a comment on the marriage page that this is not proven might be sufficient?

--Jrich 16:08, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I still question removing the name, since you haven't really proven it is wrong, but at least I think you cite your source in a note on the page, or on the Talk page, to justify it, since at least it hints that somebody did an exhaustive search? --Jrich 17:59, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Hello Susan Irish & Jrich,

First Thank You for this discussion. I appreciate it.

Can I step in with a suggestion?

Could we put this wonderful paragraph or so on the disputed Mary Opp on her person page.

I had not heard about there being a problem with Mary Opp before this.

Can I also suggest as well we copy this over on to the Unknown wife's page as well.

Then add a link to each page Mary Opp, and unknown wife?

What do you think?

Debbie Freeman --DFree 22:40, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Early Winthrops [11 March 2009]

I see you've started doing some merging on at least a couple of early Winthrops. I started poking around and see that there's quite a bit of merging to do there still. But didn't want to step in if you were focused on this. Let me know if/how I can help you. -- jillaine 06:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I just had a couple of sources, mostly information from the Dictionary of National Biography which I posted. If you have more info. and sources feel free to continue with the Winthrop cleanup. --Susan Irish 16:44, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Sources needed [16 March 2009]

It is pretty much a matter of courtesy that if you are going to change a page, you should indicate what your data is based on. You changed the birth date of Person:Hannah Sherman (3) from Feb 1648 to 1647 and erased the source of the original data (an ancestral file) and put none. While you may not consider an ancestral file a good source, it is more than the source you gave. I agree with your change from point of view of fact, but making changes without putting sources is tantamount to having a shouting match, the loudest wins. That is not the precedent that needs to be set, as why would not the author be justified changing it back? Besides, one needs to ask, since there was an alternate birth given of 1647, did the change need to be made? It has all the earmarks of being a calendar error. --Jrich 00:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

The source doesn't belong on my Talk page, it belongs on Hannah Sherman's page.

ahem. then why didn't you start this conversation on Hannah Sherman's talk page instead of Susan's talk page? (Whatever one may think about it), common practice here appears to be that when people start a conversation on a WeRelate user's talk page, it goes back and forth between the respective user Talk pages. Seems like when there is a discrepancy or disagreement about a particular Person page, the conversation should take place on -- as you ultimate pointed out, jrich -- the talk page of (in this case) Hannah Sherman... -- jillaine 20:06, 15 March 2009 (EDT) I started here because Susan made a couple of changes on pages I happened to get notified about, without giving sources. I am not arguing about Hannah Sherman but about Susan's practice of changing existing data without providing a source. I would not have complained a bit if there was a source provided to justify the change. Then I could have started a discussion on the Talk page about the validity of the source and other sources about Hannah. I might not even complained if she hadn't removed the AFN reference. But it is not right to reject somebody else's data, with a nominal source at least, without providing your own source. Look, nobody complains about Ancestral Files more than me, but there are some fraction of them that represent very good data (you just have to prove it all over for yourself.) --Jrich 21:37, 15 March 2009 (EDT) If you don't have the title, perhaps it would be better not to make updates based on it until you can find out what it is. It may well be based on Rev. David Sherman's work on the Sherman Family, which was republished in Rhode Island Genealogies, but the research was done back in the late 1800s. He says Hannah was born in 1647. But it could certainly be some other source, too. Without the name of the source, nobody can assess how valid or dated the information may be.

The problem here, too, is that there seemed to be no thinking going on. You erased a more precise date "Feb 1648" in favor of the less precise "1647", apparently just because that was what the one source you used said, and despite the presence of an Alternate Birth date of 11 Feb 1647 which already informs people that 1647 is a possibility. Finally, all apparently without realizing that perhaps everybody is talking about the same date with different incomplete forms. For if the contemporaneous sources say Feb 1647, it would be the year 1648 in the modern calendar, but should actually be written Feb 1647/48, as is done for Hannah in Art Cohan's Sherman database ([3], Art being keeper of the SOY website). And Art cites his sources: JHS-91 John H. SHERMAN - four volumes pub. 1991 "Sherman Directories", and SHERM-68, which is, I suspect, using an old indicator for RVS-68 Roy V. SHERMAN - book pub. 1968 "Some of the Descendants of Philip Sherman, First Secretary of Rhode Island".

Finally quoting some secondary source is not all that useful unless it indicates what primary evidence the date is based on. So your date of 1647, even if you could remember the name of the book you saw it in, is not a great revelation unless it is explained why such an imprecise date is all we know, and how we know it. If it is an estimate or derived, it should say Abt. If it is not an estimate, why is it not more precise? --Jrich 18:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Could we please focus our disagreements not on each other's personalities, but on the data (or lack thereof)? I find your language here, Jrich, a bit harsh. Susan is one of the more active WeRelate users and I'm sure everything she does is well intentioned. Starting from such an understanding is far more likely to lead to productive collaboration. -- jillaine 20:06, 15 March 2009 (EDT) I am interfering here. All of you are valuable oontributors to WeRelate. I saw no disagreement posed because of personality differences. The post was regarding the change in the date with the accompanied deletion of the source.--Beth 00:12, 16 March 2009 (EDT) I was bringing this up entirely in the spirit of productive collaboration. Productive, meaning that each change should attempt to better the data through higher quality sources, more precision, more clarity. Collaboration, meaning the data is a shared resource and should be input to maximize its benefit to others. Yes, changing somebody's data without the benefit of any explanation (i.e., source) does seem a little incourteous to me, and yes I don't think this change was all that necessary (possibly a different form of the same date, duplicated the alternate birth date somewhat, less precision may indicate less validity, no basis provided). --Jrich 21:37, 15 March 2009 (EDT) Okay, let me "model" an alternative approach that gets at the same issues without accusing people of being discourteous and unthinking and that also promotes collaboration:

On the pertinent Person talk page:

"Hi Susan, I noticed you just changed HS's birth year from an AFN-sourced date to an unsourced date. When I make such changes, I include the source for the replaced date or at least make a notation as to my logic or reasoning for the change. What's yours in this case? Let me know if you need any help with this; I have a variety of source information on this Sherman branch-- some stronger than others."

jillaine 08:43, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Sherman family [15 March 2009]

Hi Susan I am in possession of several pieces of info on the family, including the book "New Light on Henry Sherman" by Stratton.

A few years ago the Odding/Butter relationship was explained by "Thane" Sherman, at that time published on the "Sherman of Yaxley" website, now run by Art Cohen.

Suggest that you go to the site and then we will discuss this, OK?

Bonnie--Bboops 11:29, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Bonnie, is this the website you are referring to? [4] --Susan Irish 17:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

The Sherman's of Yaxley [15 March 2009]

I didn't know the soy site was still active. Type in the above to get the updated information.

Bonnie--Bboops 18:30, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry to horn in, but it sounded interesting. I tried searching for "Butter" in the search SOYsite field. There were two articles returned that looked relevant. One was in issue April 1999 Vol. 4 - No. 3 (32 pgs), but this issue is not on-line. The other is Letter from Michael Wood and sounds like what is being referred to? --Jrich 19:50, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Asa Wilcox [17 March 2009]

Hi, Would you take a look at Asa Wilcox merge. It looks like Asa (3) and Asa (5) have very little in common. Also the spouse Matilda and Mary seem to be different women married to the same man. Do you know, are Matilda and Mary alternate possibilities for Asa's father's wife, or is one the first the other the second wife, one being the mother of Asa? Thanks, --sq 21:16, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Asa Wilcox (b. 1802) had 2 wives, Mary and Matilda m. 1881 when he was age 78. This Asa was the son of Hezekiah Wilcox (2). Asa Wilcox b. abt. 1776 was the brother of Hezekiah (2); so Asa Wilcox (7) and Asa Wilcox (5) are identical. --Susan Irish 22:21, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Richard Jackman (2) and (3) [19 March 2009]

Susan, I am new at this site. How do I connect/merge Richard Jackman (3) with your Richard Jackman (2)? I'm not even sure how we are supposed to communicate. Howard of HLJ411--HLJ411 17:05, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Welcome Howard, This help page gives the directions and philosophy for merging. It sounds complicated to begin with but is really quite easy. http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Help:Merging_pages To begin bring up one of the Richard Jackman's page. In the upper right corner there are a number of drop down menus, find "More" and select the "find duplicates option, find the correct name and number you are looking for and place a check mark in front of it and then click "compare." Then use the information on the Help page to continue through the process. If you think you made a mistake, there is an "undo" option. --Susan Irish 17:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

James Jackman [27 March 2009]

Susan, I just merged my James Jackman (5 Sep 1686) with yours. Hope it's OK. Howard--HLJ411 16:21, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Howard, I changed the locations of birth and death of Richard and James to the WeRelate preferred format; town, county, state, country -- use full names and no "caps" --Susan Irish 16:31, 26 March 2009 (EDT) Unfortunately all my Legacy files are cap for the county and abbreviations for state/province and country so the gedcoms will continue to be a problem. I use caps for counties in Legacy to make it clear to me that it is a county and not a town with the same name. When I see only caps I know that I don't know the town yet. Another format that bothered me was town-township-county-province-country. Hopefully things will be standardized eventually. Howard--HLJ411 21:53, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Ann Ladd [9 April 2009]

Hi Susan,

My info came from the Pane-Joyce Genealogy on the web at cs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/gen/report/rr01_315.htm

When I started to sight her source, I found that all it said was "New Haven Vital Records"; no Vol or Page #, so I hesitated until I could look myself. If you prefer, I'll remove the surname until I find the record she's quoting. By the way, I descend down to a grgrgrmo in the Bunnell line. I recently lost all my genealogy work of 20 years, and am trying to piece together everything, mostly by memory.--Neal Gardner 11:37, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Hi Neal, Sorry to hear of your genealogy loss. Thank you for the link to the Payne-Joyce web site. There is a lot of great research there. The New Haven Vital Records only give Ann's first name and date of death I believe. Using this website as a source until something better is located is a fine. I descend from Lydia Bonnell and Francis French. --Susan Irish 17:30, 9 April 2009 (EDT) [add comment] [edit]

John Durham and Ann Senter [19 April 2009]

Thank you for the information regarding John and Ann Durham. I'm not yet very well versed in using werelate.org and it took a while to find out how to thank you. I was aware that they had eventually made their way to MO but I had no details. This info increases my own knowledge base and it's appreciated.--Svenska 21:11, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

▼ Nice Clean-up, Susan [1 May 2009] Thanks for the great clean-up you're doing on early New England colonists. Looks good.

--jillaine 08:13, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Peter Crandall (14) [23 May 2009]

When you merged Peter Crandall (17) into Peter Crandall (14), why did you keep the birthdate from 17 which had no source, and throw away the birthdate from 14 which did have a source? --Jrich 00:52, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

your merge gives parents to Margaret Fitz Randolph (2) [1 June 2009]

You have merged pages that now give Margaret Fitz Randolph (2) different parents than I have. I had marked her Family page Abraham Vail and Margaret Fitz Randolph (1) as "no merge with Abraham Vail and Margaret Fitz Randolph (2)" but forgot to mark her person page, so you have merged pages that gives different parent but with NO SOURCES. It's too late tonight to work on it, but I would like to go in tomorrow and record the parents I have with sources - but I don't know what to do now with the unsourced parents you have added.

I have Margaret's parents as Edward Fitz Randolph and Phoebe Jackson. I have good sources for Edward and Phoebe, but proving the Margaret who married Abraham Vail is their dau may be problematic. My sources are only someone else's work.

Also I notice her birth date is a year or two different from what I have. I cannot tell if this is a result of adding info from the merged pages or if this is what Ssmith525 originally uploaded and I just hadn't noticed the difference.

These Quakers named so many of their children with the same names that it is difficult to sort them out! So how do we work this out? --Janiejac 01:19, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Janie, Sounds like "unmerge" would be the best way to go and then you can mark the person page as "no merge." You can do the "unmerge" or I can as you prefer. My connection to Fitz Randolph comes farther down the line when "Fitz" was no longer used. --Susan Irish 17:10, 1 June 2009 (EDT) OK. Just to be sure, I went to 'compare' Abrahm Vail and Margaret Fitz Randolph (1) and (2) and sure enough, my 'no merge' shows well on the family page but is not on Margaret's page. And when comparing Margaret Fitz Randolph (7) and Margaret Fitz Randolph (2), they do have different parents and ages. I'd feel more comfortable if you would do the 'unmerge'. I've never tried that yet. And when that is done, I'll put a 'no merge' on Margaret (7). --Janiejac 18:31, 1 June 2009 (EDT) now I am confused. The merge I made was Robert Fitz Randolph and Catherine Taylor (1) and Robert Fitz Randolph and Catharine Taylor (1). During the merge daughter Margaret Fitz Randolph (5) was merged into Margaret Fitz Randolph (2). This merge did not affect Margaret Fitz Randolph (7). Do you want me to undo the Robert & Catherine Merge? or just remove parents from Margaret Fitz Randolph (2)? --Susan Irish 19:02, 1 June 2009 (EDT) Susan, you do not need to do anything. Trying to figure out what happened that I got a merge msg and saw what didn't look right to me. I must have 'watched' the Abraham Vail and Margaret Fitz Randolph (1) page by default when I put the 'no merge' msg on it. That's the only thing I can figure out. Anyway, things look good to me now and I've put 'no merge' msgs on both family pages and the two Margaret pgs and the 2 Abraham pags. So I think it's covered. And I'm not 'watching' the wrong set anymore! My, how easy it is to get messed up!

Parker & Hall edits [4 June 2009]

Hello,

I just wanted to say Thank you for your edits on the Parker and Hall families. --DFree 22:10, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Mercy or Marcy Cottrell [14 June 2009]

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Family:Thomas_Utter_and_Marcy_Cottrell_%281%29 Hi Susan, On the above page and on some of the connecting pages both Mercy and Marcy are used. Should it really be Mercy? I can correct for you but since it was more than once thought I would check. Thanks for your on-going diligence. Sheri--Sheri 07:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia as a content source... [18 June 2009]

It appears that you are removing the wikipedia content source template from a number of pages. The purpose is to fill in wikipedia content without burdensome hand-operations, and the turn-around is about a week. Were you aware of this...???? --Jrm03063 22:19, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Hi, The link to wikipedia was already there. What you added was redundant. --Susan Irish 22:20, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

The two pieces are not redundant, they serve different purposes.

The source entry documents the facts, the content entry provides a target that will be filled in with body content from the wikipedia page (typically done on Sunday PMs, by a werelate agent).

--Jrm03063 11:50, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

May I request that you review Proposed_Guidelines_for_use_of_Wikipedia?--Jrm03063 11:58, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

wikipedia "content" entry [18 June 2009]

I definitely see how the terminology can lead to confusion.

You correctly observe that, at least initially, the content entry provides nothing that the source entry doesn't provide. However, on a weekly basis (Sunday afternoons presently), Dallan runs a werelate "agent" that replaces the content template entry with two new templates. The first is a custom template that is created expressly to hold the initial section of the wikipedia article. The second is a wikipedia content copyright notice.

So, a page like Person:Domhnall, Earl of Lennox (1), is automatically turned into a page like Person:William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (1). Also notice, when looking at the content for William Stanley, that the links to William's parents (in the page body - not the WR margin) are not WP links, but rather, WR links. The WP template created by the agent's processing of the content template, recognizes that there is an association between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley%2C_6th_Earl_of_Derby and Person:William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (1).--Jrm03063 15:00, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

I kind of agree with Susan, it seems redundant. I read the explanation, and look at the examples, and I still don't see the need for two entries. It is clear that the automatically-included information is being drawn from wikipedia, so it would seem that a separate source citation would not be necessary. If, on the other hand, wikipedia is being specifically cited as a source to justify a WeRelate fact in preference to other sources, then it suffers from the same shortcoming as any other website, namely, it may change, and end up being cited as the source for a fact it no longer supports. If the wikipedia is a properly cited article, it seems it would be better to cite the primary sources given by wikipedia, (including appropriate credit to wikipedia for doing the research). Presumably the primary sources won't change, and will continue to support the fact in WeRelate, even if Wikipedia changes. If somebody changes the facts in WeRelate, then hopefully they will add the new primary sources that justify it, perhaps again distilled from Wikipedia research, perhaps independently of it. --Jrich 15:32, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

The practice of having both entries was something that Amelia requested and justified. Dallan concurred and I accepted their judgement. I believe Taylor is also following this practice this Summer (as doubtless required by Dallan). Others did weigh in on the practice too, and I wrote that all up as best I could in the WP guidelines document - which was also reviewed and critiqued by a number of folks.

If you think the guidelines are wrong, feel free to open a discussion on the watercooler. But please understand that there are/were reasons for doing things this way, and they are not my independent or arbitrary creations.--Jrm03063 16:28, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Brownells brickwall [14 July 2009]

Hi Susan, I've been enjoying working with you over the last few days. Anyway, so there I was last night, reading Little Compton Families and updating Brownells (sometimes in error, sorry), happily working my way down to where the Brownells connect with the Slocums in my lineage... and then I got stuck. Turns out the Stephen Brownell that I had assumed connected via daughter Mary to Capt. Charles Slocum may not be the right Stephen Brownell.

I hoped you might have some insight into this dilemma, as you are clearly really knowledgeable about the families of this area. The family I connect with is Family:Charles Slocum and Mary Brownell (1), and the record of their marriage says Mary is the daughter of Stephen. Mary is born about 1784. My notes say in Fall River, but I don't have a source cited for that, so it may or may not be true.

Age-wise, if her father is in this tree, it would seem more likely to be Stephen Brownell the Rev. War vet, from his first marriage to Cynthia Wilbor. But I haven't found records of their children, if any. Do you have any insight into who my Stephen and Mary might be?

Thanks,-Brenda--kennebec1 07:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Hi Brenda, On page 89 of Little Compton Births and Deaths Arnold says that Mary Eldredge was the 2nd wife of Stephen Brownell and no children are listed for them. Just above is listed Stephen Brownell b. 29 Nov 1726 and Edith Wilbor his wife and their list of children ending with Stephen b. March 18, 1762. So we see Stephen Brownell b. Nov. 29, 1726, m(1) 1747 Edith Wilbor and m(2) 1771 Mary Eldredge. Arnold says the Stephen Brownell who married Cynthia Wibor in 1784 was the son of Stephen and Elcy (Edith?). I don't find any children for this couple in the Little Compton births. So my conclusion is that your Mary Brownell b. 1784 was the daughter of Stephen and Cynthia and was born in MA or at least not in Little Compton. Would this work for you? I have many ancestors from the Dartmouth to Westerly and Stonington area and have found cousins kept marrying cousins over and over down the lines. I did purchase copies of Arnold's Vols. 4 & 5 from Higginson Books which had/has a print to order business. However, both of my books from them are missing pages. I always enjoy working with "cousins" and trying to sort out RI families. --Susan Irish 13:41, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Walford family [20 July 2009]

Good Evening I have not reseached for a few years but can add to this line.How are you connected? Thanking you for your time Mark Walford.--Walfie 14:02, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Mary Mansell [19 August 2009]

Thank you for your comment on the Mary Mansell (wife of John Thomas) page I put online. I am a descendant through her daughter, Mary Mansell Thomas, who married John Palmer. This couple emigrated to the US, originally settling in Missouri, then Illinois and finally California. They had two children who lived to adulthood: Robert Henry Palmer (my great-grandfather) who settled in Texas, and John Palmer, who settled in California with his parents.

mansell cadoxton juxta neath [28 August 2009]

contact brucepbarrett@roadrunner.com he is researching ELIZABETH MANSELL CADOXTON JUXTA NEATH christened 23 may 1819 FATHER GEORGE mother MARY JENKINS--Moggs 15:29, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

We have just barely started on this line, and have notes written in 1923 that state "Father’s mother, Mary Williams, had two brothers and seven sisters. One brother, named Marsel/Mansell V. Williams was a machnist in the government plant in New Zealand, married the first white child born in New Zealand." One can see they had Mary's name wrong (the family didn't obtain the wedding records until the 1960's).

I have Mary's birth record and wedding record from the UK, if this would be useful to you.

Any information you have on this line would be welcome to us.--Mitzymoo 17:08, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

Adding sources now [7 September 2009]

Hi Susan, I noticed that you are adding sources. The source pages are being revised and one will have to redo their source citations after the revision is complete. You may want to wait on adding additional sources until this project is completed. See this: [5]. --Beth 23:05, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi Susan [12 September 2009]

Hey there... I thought I should say hello. I'm the one who caused the stink about source citations and such. My name is Amelia J. (88buckaroo, but I have to change that user name : ) As you may know, I'm a new user here, and in the course of asking many newbie questions, I was saying that I was using the featured pages as examples of how to do things. I, of course, looked at your great page about Edgar Irish. I was trying to figure out how to see the source citations for your page and so I asked. It never occurred to me that the text on his page was all written by you. Amazing. Because I'm not much of a writer, I mistakenly assumed that it had come out of some text about Mr. Irish. My hapless question was just an attempt to understand how to do source citations. anyway... I was really impressed with the sources you added later. Quite comprehensive and it made me realize that you were the author of the text on Mr. Irish's page. wonderful stuff.

I just thought I would let you know that it was my inadvertent stumbling that led to anyone questioning your page, which obviously deserves to be featured.

I think life will be more comfortable when I grow out of my newbie status : ) nice to meet you, Amelia J.--88buckaroo 16:14, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Viner family [14 October 2009]

Dear Susan,

I'm a very new visitor to We Relate - brought here by a Google search while digging up Viners. I haven't quite managed to work out how to navigate around the site properly, so this may seem a silly question:

How do you relate to the Viners? My mother-in-law, Monique Viner was a descendant of Charles of Bath, through his son Henry Lewis, perfumer, Lewis Henry, and then Hugh, her father.

I'd be very interested to know more. And what became of the descendants of Charles's son, William Litton Viner (Letton in DNB) in England and USA.

I look forward to hearing from you. Charles in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, UK.--CFMWright 06:24, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Viner family [14 October 2009]

Dear Susan,

I'm a very new visitor to We Relate - brought here by a Google search while digging up Viners. I haven't quite managed to work out how to navigate around the site properly, so this may seem a silly question:

How do you relate to the Viners? My mother-in-law, Monique Viner was a descendant of Charles of Bath, through his son Henry Lewis, perfumer, Lewis Henry, and then Hugh, her father.

I'd be very interested to know more. And what became of the descendants of Charles's son, William Litton Viner (Letton in DNB) in England and USA.

I look forward to hearing from you. Charles in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, UK.--CFMWright 06:24, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

About to import GedCom [2 November 2009]

Hi Susan - I'm about to import a gedcom that impacts alot of the names you've recently updated (Slocum, Seabury). I've tried VERY HARD to not add any duplicate items or names, and to not add a bunch of not-useful sources. But I apologize in advance if something goes awry in the import (which I probably won't complete until later in the week) and I make a mess of any of your great recent work on these pages. I'll do my best to clean up after myself... the Gedcom import process seems to be much better than it used to be, so hopefully all will go well. But let me know if I need to do anything after the import to clean up any extra data/duplicate names/etc. Thanks - --Brenda (kennebec1) 11:01, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Removed East Cemetery from Root burial listing ?

Wondering why you removed East Cemetery from the Burial info for Salmon Root family. This is my direct line and I created the East Cemetery page specifically for them. What gives ?--Neal Gardner 11:22, 2 November 2009 (EST)