User talk:John.St

Welcome!

Hello, John.St, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! .

I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, as you showed with the Richter magnitude scale we just try to keep the number of red links in the article to a minimum and external links really have to be relevant. I would encourage you, however, to have a go at creating a page for the Oaxaca earthquake (Mexico), 1999. I f you need any help just leave me a note on my talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike, presently I am writing a long series of articles on the Danish wiki, but I happened to search for Richter 7.5+ earth quakes, recalled my rather unpleasant experience in Oaxaca and added this quake to the page. One day (when I have finished my 43 Danish articles on astrophysics) I shall return and describe the Oaxaca quake in detail - I have a couple of sources, e.g. the Mexican newspaper La Prensa. John.St (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nuclide templates

Just in case you're not monitoring my talk page: I've moved this discussion to Category talk:Nuclide templates and provided an initial answer there. Good luck!! — SkyLined (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewitt's Report

John

Would be very interested to have a copy of Jewitt's report, feel free to contact me by email.

Given that copyright is long expired, it may be helpful to upload to Wikipedia on commons. I can do that for you if its a bit daunting.

Regards,

Wee Curry Monster talk 08:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can download it from here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/170781399/Report-of-David-Jewitt-Feb-1st-1821 John.St (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in touch with Lorton. A revision of almost all the (minor) errors is scheduled to sometime this week-end (19-20 OCT 2013). John.St (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Want to check the version uploaded to wikisource for me? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it, but it will take some time, as I am involved in a major publication on the subject and at the same time preparing my annual 178 days stay in Argentina. John.St (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quickie: Below are those corrections I sent to R. Lorton, which are also present in the upload.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words in [] (except for [sic!]) are faulty, correct text/word follows immediately after. - - -

I ordered the chase to be [progressed] pressed with all possible sail,

[Then I hailed] I then hailed her several times

and accordingly made the best of our way for the Islands, with light and baffling [winds and] winds, and in consequence our advance but very slow

I remained until ten [o'clock] o'Clock, when, in the disguise as before

by adverting to the [dictos - which was my first guess, but the original seems to have either 'dutos' or a misspelled 'duties' or 'autos', the letters are easy to read and the word impossible to recognize :-) ] and proceedings which followed.

I cannot omit my gratitude to my aid Lieut. Luciano Castelli whose cool, prompt, and energetic assistance shewed the Veteran, in a gallant youth – [the conduct itself. Vega] the conduct of Don Vega was unrivalled, the Captain of the troops the subordinate officers and soldiers, acquitted themselves to the [honour] honor of our standard.

being then about ten miles distant from the antient [sic!] town of Soledad

to shelter the sick which was done as early as early [sic!] [2 - ain't no '2' there] as possible.

Commission it will be found necessary to give her the requiste [sic!] repairs, and advisable to change most of the Officers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S.E.& O. :) John.St (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't from Scribd but you may note who got a credit for the transcription. I've added your corrections. The hand writing is quite difficult to read isn't it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand writing difficult? not in the least, except for the one unrecognised word, which I can read but which gives no meaning - but then I received training in reading mediaeval diplomas in my youth, have read hundreds (more likely a couple of thousand) of those :-) I expect to get back to the corrections when I am (again) settled in Argentina in a few weeks. I already owe Roger Lorton some translations of Argentine documents. John.St (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the translation service on Wikipedia? I've also got some scans of Perreyra that need translating independently. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will the translation service on Wikipedia translate for me? :-)

Sorry, but I have my hands full, the major publication + Reglamento provisional para el Corso, Argentina, 1817 + Debate in the Chamber of Deputies, Argentina, 1950 + Transcribing the de Bernhardt memo, FO, 1910. All from photos.

Furthermore arranging asados, wine tastings, and excursions with my Argentine friends (most of whom BTW say 'Falkland Islands' not 'Malvinas' and "forget those silly, windblown islands and solve the real problems") - and I am researching, researching, researching, sources to the first 66 turbulent years of proto-Argentine history, the civil wars 1814 to 1880 and their more than 420 battles. Proto-Argentina had two capitals, two presidents, two parliaments, etc. as late as 1859, and it can be argued as late as 1861 (the Buenos Aires rebellion).

BTW, I find it interesting that the errors in your transcript were identical to Roger's. John.St (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, did you notice who got credit for the transcription? Roger told me to ask you "What follows Don?". Wee Curry Monster talk 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger for the photos, but for the transcription? you? where does it say? John.St (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of how Roger got the photographs and why he might be reluctant to post them. The transcription for Wikisource was a joint work with Roger. I am also working on some other items with Roger, I believe you may be working on them as well. Did you understand the question btw? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understood the question, even though the comma is missing in "What follows, Don?" :-)

The grammar error was Roger's. :-) I think Roger referred to your Nome de Plume. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a Nome de plume, nor a nome de guerre, because I am actually called Don Alberto in Argentina. John.St (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message from Roger, he has lost contact via his email address and all of his email contacts. If you drop me an email via wikipedia I can send you an alternative. For understandable reasons he isn't clear on me sending it in the clear. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW also working on the Bernhardt memo :-) Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind offer, but I am already in touch with Roger via his new email addr. I'll tell him to give you my email addr. so we can correspond directly. The de Bernhardt memo isn't much, only a brief overview based on the documents the poor chap knew of in 1910 - seems to me that in those days, the FO had too many Bertie Woosters "working" in the office. It's only value is to refuse all the strange Argentino rumours about it's contents. Do note that the remarks Gerald Spicer, Ronald Campbell, Sir Malcolm A. Robertson, John W. Field, John Vyvyan, George Fitzmaurice, John Troutbeck, etc. made about the British sovereignity are all based on one single source, viz the de Bernhardt memo. John.St (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins' War

Hi, I've deleted your edit to Wars of the Roses, my reasoning is given here:Talk:Wars_of_the_Roses#Cousins.27_War. Essentially it seems to have been popularised by Phillipa Gregory, based on the writing of Alison Weir. I've never seen the war described like this anywhere else. Weir does not seem to provide any good sourcing for her assertion that "Cousins' War" was the contemporary term, and whether she is truly a Reliable Source has been questioned in the past. Weir apparently got the term from reading of other historians, but she doesn't specify which, so unless you can find the original, non-Weir source, or another good source providing support to contemporary use of the term, I don't think this can go in, sorry. --Merlinme (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Following your reasoning: If you cannot provide a reliable source for contemporary use (i.e. 22 August 1485 or earlier) of the name "Wars of the Roses", then the article should have no name at all, sorry :-) John.St (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry but that makes no sense at all! The name "the Wars of the Roses" was coined in the 18th century by Hume and popularised in the 19th by Scott, but there's a large amount of source material as to why it's called the Wars of the Roses, going back to Shakespeare and earlier; the symbolism of the roses was understood at the time (the Grocers' Company uprooted white roses and replaced them with red roses to show their change of allegiance in 1470). The red rose for Lancastrian was much less commonly used than the white rose for Yorkist, but the symbolism of the roses is why Henry VII adopted the Tudor rose, combining the different colours of roses to show he was unifying them by marrying a Yorkist. I've recently finished reading an edition of the Paston Letters, and they don't refer to the wars as a whole with a name at all that I'm aware. I doubt they'd have viewed it differently to an endless series of rebellions power struggles in medieval England; part of the dispute in the Wars of the Roses comes from Henry Bolingbroke (i.e. the eventual Henry IV of England) deposing Richard II of England, and that event didn't get any special name, at the time or since.

In any case the name a war comes to be known by is frequently not the name it was known by at the time. The American Civil War was known as War of the Rebellion or War for Southern Independence; World War I was was known as the Great War. If the event has been known as the Wars of the Roses for 150+ years, then in Wikipedia we need a very good reason not to use that name. If it was known by a different name at the time, that is interesting, but only to the extent that it can be supported by reliable sources. I have yet to see any proper evidence that the term was widely used at the time. The main "source" seems to be something Alison Weir half remembers and can't provide a reference for. --Merlinme (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have been in touch with Phillipa and she cannot provide a reliable source but she likes the alternate name :-).John.St (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Syntax

John,

If wiki-syntax drives you nuts, ping me and I'll fix it. W C M_email 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not wiki-syntax, but the tedious work of creating wiki-references.John.St (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]