Need advice on a severely messed-up profile

Question

I have an ancestor whom I assume I share with two other researchers.  I recently visited the profile, and found what I assume is new information which made a major mess in his children.  One daughter is listed twice (and she is manifestly the same daughter).  I have proposed a merge for that one.  Another daughter is listed FOUR times.  She was entered twice by one researcher, and twice by the other, based on the name of the listed profile managers.  Is there a way of fixing this without having to make multiple mergers one by one?

Comments

There were some notes about Rev War, wife and children, that was below the Sources section, so I moved Sources section below that, so it wasn't lost.  

 Based on the research notes, it looks like a merge may have been done that wasn't fully sourced.

---

I did propose three different mergers for the multiple daughters named Margaret (Patsey) into the lowest numbered (original one).  I cleaned up the data on the children as best I could with correct sources, eliminated the incorrect half-sibling relationships, and put in their approximate birthdates to order them up so they are easier to read.  Hopefully that will make it less likely that they get messed up in future.  Thanks for moving the notes below the sources - I thought I had fixed all that.  I think the note (was it about the will?) had originally been included as though it was a source, but wasn't properly formatted.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, the merges have to be done one by one.  The correct method is to merge each duplicate into the lowest-numbered one.  In other words, all three daughter merges should have the same 'into' profile.

Edit to add:  Although four duplicates require three separate merges, you can propose them all at the same time.  If you propose them as described above, it doesn't matter what order they are completed.

Comments

It looks like there have been multiple merges into that profile which probably caused the issues.  Unfortunately, many people propose a merge for one person and don't look at the spouse, parents or children to see if other merges are also needed at the same time or what the effect of the merge will be to the other related profiles.

---

Thanks for the star Chandra!

---

Thank you!  I did as you recommended.  I proposed three different mergers for the multiple daughters named Margaret (Patsey) into the lowest numbered (original one).  Additionally, I cleaned up the data on the children as best I could with correct sources, added/fixed their spouses, eliminated the incorrect half-sibling relationships (John had no issue by his second wife), and put in their approximate birthdates (based on siblings' known birthdates and known birth order) to order them up so they are easier to read.  Hopefully that will make it less likely that they get messed up in future.  I appreciate your help!

---

Great!  Happy to help.

Answer 2

Dear Annaliese,

The Lillard line in the 18th century is indeed a mess. My great-great-grandfather Thomas Madison Lillard is certain and his father Thomas Lillard probable. Thomas Lillard's father becomes more dubious - see Lillard-56. In the notes on at least one of these Thomases, I have mentioned the difficulty. I assume that the line preceding Lillard-56 is accurate, with the Benjamin forename reappearing in my maternal grandfather, Benjamin Lillard Hargis, though indeed that could also have come from his non-Lillard grandmother's family as his father, Benjamin Finley Hargis, had it as well. Please follow what I've done with this line in case it could be any help. I would appreciate anything you can come up with to provide more clarity.

Best wishes, Stoddard (Chip) Martin