text:
H1 antagonist

H1 antagonists, also called H1 blockers, are a class of medications that block the action of histamine at the H1 receptor, helping to relieve allergic reactions. Agents where the main therapeutic effect is mediated by negative modulation of histamine receptors are termed antihistamines; other agents may have antihistaminergic action but are not true antihistamines.

In common use, the term "antihistamine" refers only to H1-antihistamines. Virtually all H1-antihistamines function as inverse agonists at the histamine H1-receptor, as opposed to neutral antagonists, as was previously believed.

Medical uses
H1-antihistamines are clinically used in the treatment of histamine-mediated allergic conditions. These indications may include:

 * Allergic rhinitis
 * Allergic conjunctivitis
 * Allergic dermatological conditions (contact dermatitis)
 * Rhinorrhea (runny nose)
 * Urticaria
 * Angioedema
 * Diarrhea
 * Pruritus (atopic dermatitis, insect bites)
 * Anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions—adjunct only
 * Nausea and vomiting
 * Sedation (first-generation H1-antihistamines)

H1-antihistamines can be administered topically (through the skin, nose, or eyes) or systemically, based on the nature of the allergic condition.

The authors of the American College of Chest Physicians Updates on Cough Guidelines (2006) recommend that, for cough associated with the common cold, first-generation antihistamine-decongestants are more effective than newer, non-sedating antihistamines. First-generation antihistamines include diphenhydramine (Benadryl), carbinoxamine (Clistin), clemastine (Tavist), chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton), and brompheniramine (Dimetane). However, a 1955 study of "antihistaminic drugs for colds," carried out by the U.S. Army Medical Corps, reported that "there was no significant difference in the proportion of cures reported by patients receiving oral antihistaminic drugs and those receiving oral placebos. Furthermore, essentially the same proportion of patients reported no benefit from either type of treatment."

Side effects
Adverse drug reactions are most commonly associated with the first-generation H1-antihistamines. This is due to their relative lack of selectivity for the H1-receptor and their ability to cross the blood–brain barrier.

The most common adverse effect is sedation; this "side-effect" is utilized in many OTC sleeping-aid preparations. Other common adverse effects in first-generation H1-antihistamines include dizziness, tinnitus, blurred vision, euphoria, incoordination, anxiety, increased appetite leading to weight gain, insomnia, tremor, nausea and vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, dry mouth, and dry cough. Infrequent adverse effects include urinary retention, palpitations, hypotension, headache, hallucination, psychosis and erectile dysfunction.

The newer, second-generation H1-antihistamines are far more selective for peripheral histamine H1-receptors and have a better tolerability profile compared to the first-generation agents. The most common adverse effects noted for second-generation agents include drowsiness, fatigue, headache, nausea and dry mouth.

Continuous and/or cumulative use of anticholinergic medications, including first-generation antihistamines, is associated with higher risk for cognitive decline and dementia in older people.

Pharmacology
In type I hypersensitivity allergic reactions, an allergen (a type of antigen) interacts with and cross-links surface IgE antibodies on mast cells and basophils. Once the allergen cross-links Immunoglobulin E, tyrosine kinases rapidly signal into the cell, leading to cell degranulation and the release of histamine (and other chemical mediators) from the mast cell or basophil. Once released, the histamine can react with local or widespread tissues through histamine receptors.

Histamine, acting on H1-receptors, produces pruritus, vasodilation, hypotension, flushing, headache, bradycardia, bronchoconstriction, increase in vascular permeability and potentiation of pain.

While H1-antihistamines help against these effects, they work only if taken before contact with the allergen. In severe allergies, such as anaphylaxis or angioedema, these effects may be of life-threatening severity. Additional administration of epinephrine, often in the form of an autoinjector, is required by people with such hypersensitivities.

First-generation (unselective)
These are the oldest H1-antihistaminergic drugs and are relatively inexpensive and widely available. They are effective in the relief of allergic symptoms, but are typically moderately to highly potent muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (anticholinergic) antagonists as well. These agents also commonly have action at α-adrenergic receptors and/or 5-HT receptors. This lack of receptor selectivity is the basis of the poor tolerability profile of some of these agents, especially when compared with the second-generation H1-antihistamines. Patient response and occurrence of adverse drug reactions vary greatly between classes and between agents within classes.

Classes
The first H1-antihistamine discovered was piperoxan, by Ernest Fourneau and Daniel Bovet (1933) in their efforts to develop a guinea pig animal model for anaphylaxis at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Bovet went on to win the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his contribution. Following their discovery, the first-generation H1-antihistamines were developed in the following decades. They can be classified on the basis of chemical structure, and agents within these groups have similar properties.

Common structural features

 * Two aromatic rings, connected to a central carbon, nitrogen or CO
 * Spacer between the central X and the amine, usually 2–3 carbons in length, linear, ring, branched, saturated or unsaturated
 * Amine is substituted with small alkyl groups, e.g., CH3

X = N, R1 = R2 = small alkyl groups X = C X = CO

 * Chirality at X can increase both the potency and selectivity for H1-receptors
 * For maximum potency, the two aromatic rings should be orientated in different planes
 * for example, tricyclic ring system is slightly puckered and the two aromatic rings lie in different geometrical planes, giving the drug a very high potency.

Second-generation
Second-generation H1-antihistamines are newer drugs that are much more selective for peripheral H1 receptors as opposed to the central nervous system H1 receptors and cholinergic receptors. This selectivity significantly reduces the occurrence of adverse drug reactions, such as sedation, while still providing effective relief of allergic conditions. The reason for their peripheral selectivity is that most of these compounds are zwitterionic at physiological pH (around pH 7.4). As such, they are very polar, meaning that they are less likely to cross the blood–brain barrier and act mainly outside the central nervous system.

Examples of systemic second-generation antihistamines include:

 * Acrivastine (Benadryl Allergy Relief (UK), Semprex-D (US))
 * Astemizole (Hismanal) – withdrawn
 * Bepotastine (Talion, Bepreve)
 * Bilastine (Blexten, Fortecal, Lendin)
 * Cetirizine (Zyrtec, Benadryl Allergy One a Day Relief (UK))
 * Desloratadine (Aerius)
 * Ebastine (Evastin, Kestine, Ebastel, Aleva, Ebatrol)
 * Fexofenadine (Allegra)
 * Ketotifen (Zaditor) – also mast cell stabilizer; sometimes classified as a first-generation antihistamine, see Ketotifen § Classification
 * Levocetirizine (Xyzal)
 * Loratadine (Claritin)
 * Mizolastine (Mizollen)
 * Quifenadine (Phencarol, Фенкарол)
 * Rupatadine (Rupafin)
 * Terfenadine (Seldane (US), Triludan (UK), and Teldane (Australia)) – withdrawn

Examples of topical second-generation antihistamines include:

 * Azelastine
 * Levocabastine
 * Olopatadine

Over-the-counter
H1 receptor antagonists that are approved for over-the-counter sale, at least in the United States, include the following.

First-generation
Common/marketed:

 * Brompheniramine (Dimetapp, Dimetane)
 * Chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton)
 * Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine, Gravol) – combination of diphenhydramine and 8-chlorotheophylline
 * Diphenhydramine (Benadryl)
 * Doxylamine (Unisom)

Uncommon/discontinued:

 * Chlorcyclizine
 * Dexbrompheniramine
 * Dexchlorpheniramine
 * Methapyrilene
 * Phenindamine
 * Pheniramine
 * Phenyltoloxamine
 * Pyrilamine
 * Thenyldiamine
 * Thonzylamine
 * Triprolidine

Second-generation

 * Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
 * Fexofenadine (Allegra)
 * Levocetirizine (Xyzal)
 * Loratadine (Alavert, Claritin)

title: H1 antagonist


text:
Ulisse Dini

Ulisse Dini (14 November 1845 – 28 October 1918) was an Italian mathematician and politician, born in Pisa. He is known for his contribution to real analysis, partly collected in his book "Fondamenti per la teorica delle funzioni di variabili reali".

Life and academic career
Dini attended the Scuola Normale Superiore in order to become a teacher. One of his professors was Enrico Betti. In 1865, a scholarship enabled him to visit Paris, where he studied under Charles Hermite as well as Joseph Bertrand, and published several papers. In 1866, he was appointed to the University of Pisa, where he taught algebra and geodesy. In 1871, he succeeded Betti as professor for analysis and geometry. From 1888 until 1890, Dini was rettore of the Pisa University, and of the Scuola Normale Superiore from 1908 until his death in 1918.

He was also active as a politician: in 1871 he was voted into the Pisa city council, and in 1880, he became a member of the Italian parliament.

Honors
He has been elected honorary member of London Mathematical Society.

Research activity
"Thus, by the year 1877, or seven years from the time he began, he published the treatise, since famous, entitled Foundations for the Theory of Functions of Real Variables (Fondamenti per la teoria delle funzioni di variabili reali). Much of what Dini here sets forth concerning such topics as continuous and discontinuous functions, the derivative and the conditions for its existence, series, definite integrals, the properties of the incremental ratio, etc., was entirely original with himself and has since come to be regarded everywhere as basal in the real variable theory."

"Nell'analisi del XX secolo ha avuto innanzitutto ampio sviluppo la teoria delle funzioni di variabili reali (inaugurata nel 1878 da un libro del Dini) in relazione alle operazioni classiche del calcolo."

Dini worked in the field of mathematical analysis during a time when it was begun to be based on rigorous foundations. In addition to his books, he wrote about sixty papers.

He proved the Dini criterion for the convergence of Fourier series and investigated the potential theory and differential geometry of surfaces, based on work by Eugenio Beltrami.

His work on the theory of real functions was also important in the development of the concept of the measure on a set.

The implicit function theorem is known in Italy as the Dini's theorem.

Teaching activity
One of his students was Luigi Bianchi.

Books by U. Dini

 * Serie di Fourier e altre rappresentazioni analitiche delle funzioni di una variabile reale (Pisa, T. Nistri, 1880)
 * Lezioni di analisi infinitesimale. vol. 1 (Pisa, T. Nistri, 1907–1915)
 * Lezioni di analisi infinitesimale.vol. 2 part 1 (Pisa, T. Nistri, 1907–1915)
 * Lezioni di analisi infinitesimale.vol. 2 part 2 (Pisa, T. Nistri, 1907–1915)
 * Fondamenti per la teorica delle funzioni di variabili reali (Pisa, T. Nistri, 1878)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ulisse Dini


text:
Olynthus

Olynthus (Ὄλυνθος Olynthos, named for the ὄλυνθος olunthos, "the fruit of the wild fig tree" ) is an ancient city in present-day Chalcidice, Greece. It was built mostly on two flat-topped hills 30–40m in height, in a fertile plain at the head of the Gulf of Torone, near the neck of the peninsula of Pallene, about 2.5 kilometers from the sea, and about 60 stadia (c. 9–10 kilometers) from Poteidaea.

The city flourished between 432 BC and its destruction by Phillip II of Macedon in 348 BCE. It was finally abandoned in 316 BCE. Excavations were conducted across four seasons, spanning from 1928 to 1938. Artefacts found during the excavations of the site are exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of Olynthos.

History
Olynthus, son of Heracles, or the river god Strymon, was considered the mythological founder of the town. The South Hill bore a small Neolithic settlement; was abandoned during the Bronze Age; and was resettled in the 7th century BC. Subsequently, the town was captured by the Bottiaeans, a Thracian tribe ejected from Macedon by Alexander I.

Following the Persian defeat at Salamis in 480 BC, and with Xerxes having been escorted to the Hellespont by his general Artabazus, the Persian army spent the winter of the same year in Thessaly and Macedonia. The Persian authority in the Balkans must have significantly decreased at the time, which encouraged the inhabitants of the Pallene peninsula to break away. Suspecting that a revolt against the Great King was meditated, in order to control the situation, Artabazus captured Olynthus, which was thought to be disloyal, and killed its inhabitants. The town had priorly been given to Kritovoulos from Toroni and to a fresh population consisting of Greeks from the neighboring region of Chalcidice, who had been exiled by the Macedonians (Herod. viii. 127). Though Herodotus reports that Artabazus slaughtered them, Boetiaeans continued to live in the area.

Olynthus became a Greek polis, but it remained insignificant (in the quota-lists of the Delian League it appears as paying on the average 2 talents, as compared with 6 to 15 paid by Scione, 6 to 15 by Mende, 6 to 12 by Toroni, and 3 to 6 by Sermylia from 454 to 432).

In 432 King Perdiccas II of Macedon encouraged several nearby coastal towns to disband and remove their population to Olynthus, preparatory to a revolt to be led by Potidaea against Athens (Thuc. 1.58). This synoecism (συνοικισμός) was effected, though against Perdiccas's wishes the contributing cities were preserved. This increase in population led to the settlement of the North Hill, which was developed on a Hippodamian grid plan. In 423 Olynthus became the head of a formal Chalkidian League, occasioned by the synoecism or by the beginning of the Peloponnesian War and fear of Athenian attack. During the Peloponnesian war it formed a base for Brasidas in his expedition of 424 and refuge for the citizens of Mende and Poteidaea that had rebelled against the Athenians (Thu. ii, 70).

After the end of the Peloponnesian War the development of the league was rapid and ended consisting of 32 cities. About 393 we find it concluding an important treaty with Amyntas III of Macedon (the father of Philip II), and by 382 it had absorbed most of the Greek cities west of the Strymon, and had even got possession of Pella, the chief city in Macedon. (Xenophon, Hell. V. 2, 12).

In this year Sparta was induced by an embassy from Acanthus and Apollonia, which anticipated conquest by the league, to send an expedition against Olynthus. After three years of indecisive warfare Olynthus consented to dissolve the confederacy (379). It is clear, however, that the dissolution was little more than formal, as the Chalcidians ("Χαλκιδῆς ἀπò Θρᾴκης") appear, only a year or two later, among the members of the Athenian naval confederacy of 378–377. Twenty years later, in the reign of Philip, the power of Olynthus is asserted by Demosthenes to have been much greater than before the Spartan expedition. The town itself at this period is spoken of as a city of the first rank (πóλις μuρἰανδρος), and the league included thirty-two cities.

When the Social War broke out between Athens and its allies (357), Olynthus was at first in alliance with Philip. Subsequently, in alarm at the growth of his power, it concluded an alliance with Athens. Olynthus made three embassies to Athens, the occasions of Demosthenes's three Olynthiac Orations. On the third, the Athenians sent soldiers from among its citizens. After Philip had deprived Olynthus of the rest of the League, by force and by the treachery of sympathetic factions, he besieged Olynthus in 348. The siege was short; he bought Olynthus's two principal citizens, Euthycrates and Lasthenes, who betrayed the city to him. He then looted and razed the city and sold its population—including the Athenian garrison—into slavery. According to the latest researches only a small area of the North Hill was ever re-occupied, up to 318, before Cassander forced the population to move in his new city of Cassandreia.

Though the city was extinguished, through subsequent centuries there would be men scattered through the Hellenistic world who were called Olynthians.

Topography and archaeology
Due to its proximity to the ancient city of Potidaea and the presence of some inscriptions, the British adventurer William Leake reasoned that the site of Olynthus was at the village of Agios Mamas, seven kilometers south of the actual location. This viewpoint was shared by a number of scholars, including Esprit-Marie Cousinéry, but was challenged in the early twentieth century by Adolf Struck and English archaeologist Alan Wace, among others. Wace in particular found no evidence of an ancient settlement at Agios Mamas, Leake had evidently not visited there himself, and that the inscriptions were taken from stones found at Potidaea by local residents. Utilizing descriptions provided by Thucydides and Xenophon, he reasoned that Olynthus must actually lie further north near the village of Myriophyton. In 1915, Wace conducted a preliminary survey of the area in hopes that the British School of Athens might pursue an excavation, but nothing came of it.

On February 17, 1928, David Moore Robinson and a large team of archaeologists and workmen began excavations at Olynthus in collaboration with the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. They found that the ancient city extends over two hills that detach from a small coulee and possess an area ca. 1500 m long and 400 m in width. Robinson conducted three additional excavations in 1931, 1934, and 1938, publishing the results in fourteen volumes. Some of his writing was later found to have been plagiarized from another excavator, Mary Ross Ellingson. The excavation had uncovered more than five hectares of Olynthus and a portion of Mecyberna (the harbor of Olynthus). On the North Hill this hurried pace proved relatively harmless due to the simple stratigraphy of an area of the city occupied only for 84 years and subjected to a sudden, final destruction; but the data from the South Hill was badly muddled. Nonetheless, the work was excellent for its time, and remains supremely valuable. Much of the stratigraphy of the North Hill has been reconstructed by Nicholas Cahill (University of Wisconsin). The site is now in the charge of Julia Vokotopoulou, and the XVI Ephorate of Classical Antiquities.

The Neolithic settlement is located in the edge of the southern hill and was dated in the 3rd millennium BC. The houses were built by stone blocks and had one or two rooms. The pottery that was found was the typical of that period comprising monochrome ceramic vases. The end of this rural settlement was abrupt and is placed around the 1st millennium.

The archaic city was built under a provincially urban plan and extended throughout the whole south hill. Two avenues were revealed along the eastern and western edges of the hill that intersected with crossing streets. Along the south avenue shops and small houses were found while the administrative part was located in the north part of the hill, where the agora and a deanery were found.

The classical city was established on the much larger north hill and to its eastern slope. The excavations, which cover only 1/10 of the city's total area, have revealed a Hippodamian grid plan. Two large avenues were discovered, with an amplitude of 7 meters, along with vertical and horizontal streets that divided the urban area into city blocks. Each one had ten houses with two floors and a paved yard. Very important for the archaeological research are considered the rich villas that were excavated in the aristocratic suburb of the city located in the eastern part of the north hill since there was found some of the earliest floor mosaics in Greek art.

Both the archaic and classical city were protected by an extended land wall. Parts of the foundations of the wall were revealed in the north hill and elsewhere, but they are not enlightening on which method was followed for their construction. Archaeologists suppose that it was built with sun-dried bricks with a stone base, but it is difficult to tell, since the city was literally leveled by Phillip.

As it concerns the public buildings, the agora is placed in the south edge of the north hill, near the eastern gate, along with a public fountain, an arsenal and the city's parliament building (Βουλευτήριον). There is a small museum featuring artifacts recovered from Olynthus, and the whole archaeological site is open to public tours during daylight hours.

Notable people

 * Callisthenes (c. 360-328 BC), historian
 * Ephippus (4th century BC), historian
 * Euphantus (4th century BC), philosopher
 * Sthennis (4th century BC), sculptor
 * Stratis, an ancient Greek historian

Modern Olynthos
The modern village, formerly Myriophyton, now called Olynthos or Nea Olynthos, sits on a small plateau on the western side of the river Olynthios or Resetenikia (in ancient times known as Sandanus), across from the ruins of the ancient city.

title: Olynthus


text:
Rye House Plot

The Rye House Plot of 1683 was a plan to assassinate King Charles II of England and his brother (and heir to the throne) James, Duke of York. The royal party went from Westminster to Newmarket to see horse races and were expected to make the return journey on 1 April 1683, but because there was a major fire in Newmarket on 22 March (which destroyed half the town), the races were cancelled, and the King and the Duke returned to London early. As a result, the planned attack never took place.

Historians vary in their assessment of the degree to which details of the conspiracy were finalised. Whatever the state of the assassination plot, plans to mount a rebellion against the Stuart monarchy were being entertained by some opposition leaders in England. The government cracked down hard on those in a series of state trials, accompanied with repressive measures and widespread searches for arms. The plot presaged, and may have hastened, the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion and Argyll's Rising.

Background
After the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II in 1660 there was concern among some members of Parliament, former republicans and sections of the Protestant population of England that the King's relationship with France under Louis XIV and the other Catholic rulers of Europe was too close. Anti-Catholic sentiment, which associated Roman Catholicism with absolutism, was widespread, and focused particular attention on the succession to the English throne. While Charles was publicly Anglican, he and his brother were known to have Catholic sympathies. These suspicions were confirmed in 1673 when James was discovered to have converted to Roman Catholicism.

In 1681, triggered by the opposition-invented Popish Plot, the Exclusion Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, which would have excluded James from the succession. Charles outmanoeuvred his opponents and dissolved the Oxford Parliament. This left his opponents with no lawful method of preventing James's succession, and rumours of plots and conspiracies abounded. With the "country party" in disarray, Lord Melville, Lord Leven, and Lord Shaftesbury, leader of the opposition to Charles's rule, fled to Holland where Shaftesbury soon died. Many well-known members of Parliament and noblemen of the "country party" would soon be known as Whigs, a faction name that stuck.

The plot
Rye House, located north-east of Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, was a fortified mediaeval mansion surrounded by a moat. The house was leased by a republican and Civil War veteran, Richard Rumbold. The plan was to conceal a force of men in the grounds of the house and ambush the King and the Duke as they passed by on their way back to London from the horse races at Newmarket. The "Rye House plotters", an extremist Whig group who are now named after this plot, allegedly adopted the plan out of a number of possibilities, having decided that it gave tactical advantages and could be carried out with a relatively small force operating with guns from good cover.

The royal party were expected to make the journey on 1 April 1683, but there was a major fire in Newmarket on 22 March, which destroyed half of the town. The races were cancelled, and the King and the Duke returned to London early. As a result, the planned attack never took place.

The Rye House and other plotters
The conspirators of this period were numerous, and the resort to some sort of armed resistance was widely debated from the early 1680s, on what was becoming the Whig side of the factional division of British politics. The form it should take was uncertain, and discussions of the seizing of control of cities other than London, such as Bristol, and a Scottish uprising, were in the air. The subsequent historiography of the Plot was largely partisan, and scholars are still clarifying who was closely involved in the planning of violent and revolutionary measures.

The West cabal
The assassination plot centred on a group that was convened in 1682–1683 by Robert West of the Middle Temple, a Green Ribbon Club member: it is now often called the Rye House cabal. West had participated in one of the cases that wound up the Popish Plot allegations, that of the false witness Stephen College. Through that association he made contact with Aaron Smith and William Hone, both to be plotters though aside from the main group. John Locke had arranged accommodation for West in Oxford at that time and had other associations in the group of revolutionary activists (Smith, John Ayloffe, Christopher Battiscombe and Israel Hayes), of whom Ayloffe was certainly implicated in the Rye House Plot, leaving Locke vulnerable. Rumbold was introduced to West's group by John Wildman, but when the plot was discovered, both had distanced themselves, Wildman by refusing to finance Rumbold in the purchase of arms and Rumbold by losing his earlier enthusiasm.

The uprising plans
Cabal members such as Richard Nelthorpe favoured a rebellion rather than an assassination, aligning much of the West group's discussion with the plans of Algernon Sidney, in particular, and the more aristocratic country party members making up the so-called Monmouth cabal. There were discussions in the group around Monmouth in September 1682 of an uprising, having participants in common with the group around West. The "cabal" was later named as the "council of six", which took form after the Tory successes in summer 1682 in the struggle to control the City of London. A significant aspect was the intention to employ Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll for a military rebellion in Scotland. Smith in January 1683 was sent to contact supporters in Scotland, for the "six", with a view to summoning them to London; but apparently botched the mission by indiscretions.

In fact West's contacts with the Monmouth cabal, and knowledge of their intentions, were in part quite indirect. Thomas Walcot and Robert Ferguson had accompanied Shaftesbury to the Netherlands in his self-imposed exile of November 1682. They then both returned to London and associated with West, who learned from Walcott of Shaftesbury's own plan for a general rebellion. Walcott went on to say that he would lead the attack on the royal guards, but he was another of the plotters who drew the line at assassination. During the spring of 1683 there were further contacts between the Monmouth cabal and West's group about drafting a manifesto, through Sir Thomas Armstrong in particular, there being disagreements about whether a republican or monarchical constitution should result from revolutionary measures. In May 1683 West and Walcott discussed with a larger group the prospects for raising a force of several thousand men around London.

Scottish and American connections
The interpretation of actual Whig intentions at this time is complicated by colonial schemes in America. West had a stake in East Jersey. Shaftesbury was heavily involved in the Province of Carolina. In April 1683, some Scottish contacts of the Whigs arrived in London, as briefed by Smith, meeting Essex and Russell of the Monmouth cabal. They were under the impression that the matter concerned Carolina, or they gave that out as a pretext for their presence. They included Sir George Campbell of Cessnock, John Cochrane, and William Carstares. The Earl of Argyll had left London for the Netherlands in August 1682 but kept in touch with Whig notables through couriers and ciphered correspondence. Two of them, William Spence (alias Butler) and Abraham Holmes, were arrested in June 1683.

Informers and arrests

News of the plot leaked when Josiah Keeling gave information on it to Sir Leoline Jenkins, and the plot was publicly discovered 12 June 1683. Keeling had contacted a courtier, who put him in touch with George Legge, 1st Baron Dartmouth, and Dartmouth had brought him to Jenkins, Secretary of State. Keeling's testimony was used at the trials of Walcott, Hone, Sidney, and Charles Bateman; and it earned him a pardon. It also started a lengthy process of incriminated persons confessing, in the hope of clemency. Using his brother, Keeling was able to get further direct evidence of conspiracy, and Jenkins brought in Rumsey and West, who told him what they knew, from 23 June; West had volunteered information via Laurence Hyde, 1st Earl of Rochester, on the 22nd. Over several days West explained the Rye House plot and his part in purchasing arms, supposed to be for America. He did little to incriminate the Monmouth group; his testimony was later used against Walcott and Sidney. West received a pardon in December 1684.

Thomas Walcott was arrested on 8 July, and was the first conspirator to go to trial. A meeting of the plotters had been held at his house on 18 June; but rather than escape, he chose to write to Jenkins, with the offer of a full confession in return for a pardon. Among the plotters, John Row from Bristol was considered particularly unreliable, and he had a direct connection to the Monmouth household to offer as information; a number of steps were taken to silence him, and his life was under threat more than once. After the meeting Nelthorpe and Edward Norton called on William Russell, Lord Russell, with an appeal to take up arms immediately; when Russell was unwilling, Nelthorpe left the country.

Walcott named Henry Care, publisher of the Weekly Pacquet which was a leading anti-Catholic and Whig paper of the time; Care ceased publishing the Pacquet on 13 July, and began co-operating with the court. Among those later informing against Walcott was Zachary Bourne. Bourne was a conspirator, arrested trying to leave the country with the nonconformist ministers Matthew Meade, for whom an arrest warrant was issued on 27 June, and Walter Cross; he informed against another minister, Stephen Lobb, who was prepared to help recruiting for an uprising. On 6 July the arrest of Lobb was ordered, and he was picked up in August.

A royal declaration of the heinous nature of the plot was issued on 27 July. Many more were arrested. Although the principal conspirators were minor figures, and not directly concerned in the Monmouth cabal, the court party made no distinction between the groups. The ministers involved may have known Ferguson but not West; Meade had sheltered the Covenanter John Nisbet, and may well have known of the plans for a rebellion. William Carstares, a Church of Scotland minister and intermediary with the Whig grandees, was found in Kent on 23 July.

Executed

 * Sir Thomas Armstrong, Member of Parliament for Stafford – Hanged, drawn and quartered
 * John Ayloffe – Hanged, drawn and quartered for subsequent participation in Argyll's Rising
 * Henry Cornish, Sheriff of the City of London – Hanged, drawn and quartered
 * Elizabeth Gaunt – Burned at the stake
 * James Holloway – Hanged, drawn and quartered
 * Baillie of Jerviswood – Hanged
 * Richard Nelthorpe – Hanged
 * John Rouse – Hanged, drawn and quartered
 * Richard Rumbold – Hanged, drawn and quartered for subsequent participation in Argyll's Rising
 * William Russell, Lord Russell, Member of Parliament for Bedfordshire – Beheaded; remembered as a Whig martyr
 * Algernon Sidney, former Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports – Beheaded
 * Thomas Walcott – Hanged, drawn and quartered

Sentenced to death but later pardoned

 * Charles Gerard, 1st Earl of Macclesfield
 * Charles Gerard, Viscount Brandon

Imprisoned

 * Sir Samuel Barnardiston, 1st Baronet – Also fined £6,000
 * Henry Booth, 1st Earl of Warrington
 * Paul Foley, Member of Parliament for Hereford
 * Thomas Grey, 2nd Earl of Stamford
 * John Hampden, Member of Parliament for Wendover – Also fined £40,000
 * William Howard, 3rd Baron Howard of Escrick, was arrested and turned informer at the trial of William Russell, Lord Russell (July 1683). He gave accounts of meetings at John Hampden's and Russell's houses, which mainly led to Russell's conviction. His evidence similarly ruined Sidney.
 * Matthew Mead
 * Aaron Smith
 * Sir John Trenchard, Member of Parliament for Taunton
 * Sir John Wildman

Exiled/fled

 * Sir John Cochrane – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * Robert Ferguson – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * Ford Grey, 3rd Baron Grey of Werke – Escaped from the Tower to France
 * Patrick Hume, 1st Earl of Marchmont – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * John Locke – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * David Melville, 3rd Earl of Leven – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * George Melville, 1st Earl of Melville – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * Edward Norton – Fled to the Dutch Republic
 * Nathaniel Wade – Fled to Dutch Republic

Committed suicide

 * Arthur Capell, 1st Earl of Essex – Cut his own throat in the Tower of London while awaiting trial

Tortured

 * William Carstares

Implicated

 * Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll – Beheaded after Argyll's Rising in 1685, although on an earlier 1681 treason charge
 * James Dalrymple, 1st Viscount of Stair
 * Edward Hungerford, Member of Parliament for Chippenham
 * James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, Charles' illegitimate son – Obliged to retire to the Dutch Republic; later beheaded for leading the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685
 * John Owen
 * James Burton – present when the assassination was discussed by his accomplices, he escaped punishment by accusing Elizabeth Gaunt, a charitable Baptist matron, and John Fernley, a poor barber in Whitechapel, whose only crimes were helping his escape.
 * John Rumsey – arrested on suspicion of complicity; saved himself by accusing alderman Henry Cornish

The final trial on the Rye House charges was that of Charles Bateman, in 1685. Witnesses against him were the conspirators Keeling, who had nothing specific to say, Thomas Lee, and Richard Goodenough. He was hanged, drawn and quartered.

Having fled abroad the previous year, Sir William Waller moved to Bremen in 1683. While he was there he became a central figure in a group of the erstwhile conspirators who were in political exile. Lord Preston, the English ambassador at Paris, called him "the governor" and wrote that "They style Waller, by way of commendation, a second Cromwell". Waller would accompany William of Orange to England in 1688 but William chose to overlook him when his government was formed.

Evaluations
Historians have suggested the story of the plot may have been largely manufactured by Charles or his supporters to allow the removal of most of his strongest political opponents. Richard Greaves cites as proof that there was a plot in 1683, the 1685 armed rebellions of the fugitive Earl of Argyll and Charles' Protestant illegitimate son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. Doreen Milne asserts that its importance lies less in what was actually plotted than in the public perception of it and the uses made of it by the government.

Popular reaction to the Tories' reactive excesses, sometimes known as the "Stuart Revenge" though that term is contested, led to the discontent expressed decisively in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

title: Rye House Plot


text:
User talk:Mintguy/archive 3

Using the useful [WWPerson database], a fine, though not always completely reliable database of European noble and royal genealogy, I was able to determine the name, but not the dates, of the 2nd Baronet Grosvenor. For future reference, baronets are referred to as: Sir Firstname Lastname, #th Baronet. The wife of a baronet is known as Lady Lastname, just like the wife of a knight. john 00:42 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Baronets, I think, could have article titles that are just their names. for instance, Sir Samuel John Gurney Hoare, nth Baronet, should have an article titled "Samuel Hoare". As far as peers who are knights, the sir is unnecessary. Firstname Lastname, 9th Lord/Viscount/Earl/Marquess/Duke of Placename, or 9th Lord Placename, or whatever, is sufficient. And the full Burke's titles are massively long, in that most of the higher nobility is going to have five or six different titles. The late Duke of Norfolk, for instance (the senior Duke and Earl of England), was according to Burke's "Sir Miles Francis Stapleton Fitzalan-Howard, THE 17TH DUKE OF NORFOLK, Earl of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Earl of Norfolk, Lord (Baron) Beaumont, Baron FitzAlan, Baron Maltravers and Baron Howard of Glossop, K.G., GCVO, CB, CBE, MC, DL W Sussex", or some such. john 02:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mint, (good work on the disambigulation!) There is a row brewing on the Republic of Ireland page. Put simply, we have an agreed template, structure and text. Scipius, who wanted to ignore the consensus some months ago and change the name of the article and factual details to a version that was factually incorrect, is now back. This time, even though there is agreement on what should be in the page, he wants to remove relevant information he almost alone thinks irrelevant, change facts to his own inaccurate understanding of them, etc. He tried to ignore the consensus last time. He now wants to pull the same stunt again and highjack the page to introduce his own factually inaccurate version again. If you could visit the page and join in the chorus of telling him to stop messing the article it would be most appreciated. It took a lot of effort the last time (from a lot of Irish people who were furious at what he was trying to do!) to stop him. Every bit of help in stopping this nonsense before it becomes a full scale edit war a second time would be most appreciated. There is clear agreement on what should be in and out. Yet again, it is Scipius back doing his 'lone ranger' routine that wants to change everything to a version he likes, and as before ignore the consensus that disagrees with him. wikilove. FearÉIREANN 03:36 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi there Mintguy, just thought I'd point out that JTD's representation of me is somewhat off. You can see User talk:Jlk7e for a lengthier reply. It's a pity that JTD is not in a particularly cooperative mood, but I'd like to mention that my intentions and edits aren't anything near what JTD suggests they are. Thanks for listening. -Scipius 22:58 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Subpages are definitely out."
 * Why? MB 15:17 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Well then, I don't see any compromise.  MB 15:36 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, Taku appears to be pretty unexperienced with programming (I may be wrong). In any case, he says he is in his 20's, but based on info from his page, it sounds like he is in school (maybe college, I don't know).  In any case, he needs guidance, and the articles he has combined, need to be scrutinized.  The Wikipedia works this way, and I hope that you contribute more to these articles in light of these things.  BTW, I've never new subprogram was a proper term?  MB 18:32 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Fine, but if you want the wikipedia to be correct (I certainly do, then you need to stand-up when you don't think somethingi s correct. If you ever get around to correcting these problems, I will back you up (assuming you are correct, I like to research these things a little to make sure I am right most of the time).  I hope you will put your expertise to work.  MB 18:57 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes they are the same guy. On the list, where someone was reappointed, they were simply named by title, with the full name used only for the first appointment. (That was how the list was recorded elsewhere and it was simply copied straight in.) I suppose in Abercorn's case, maybe put ''formerly. . . . '' in italicised brackets after the Duke reference might make sense. And on his own page, he should be in as the 1st Duke of Abercorn with a redirect from his previous title. For example, George III, who changed from King of Great Britain to King of the UK of GB and I during his reign is in as his later title, George III of the United Kingdom. FearÉIREANN 16:50 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

Well, this is kind of hard for me to understand, becuase I am not totally sure why anyone would want to make up such myths in the first place. In addition, I'm not sure what the statement "Note: Three-sided football is used by the AAA as a valueable training exercise for Autonomous Astronauts. This introduction is by East London AAA" on the "Introduction To Three-Sided Football" is all about. What is the AAA, and what do they mean by excercise. Are they excercising intellectually? Are they practicing perpetualizing a lie? Are they truely physically excercising? MB 13:29 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Mintguy seems very bold in making assertions about things which they clearly know nothing about. Space 1999, Ten days that shoke the universe was a "Festival of independent and community-based space exploration" held in London, Earth from June 18th 27th 1999. It started with a protest against the militarisation of space outside the headquarters of Lockheed Martin. This was also part of J18 global festival against capitalism which initiated a wave of anti-capitalist protests including confrontations as Seattle, Prague, Gothenburg, Genoa and most recently Evian. It also included a conference, performance, astral travel, music, film, discussion and training. The festival explored "the new possibilities that open up when we form autonomous communities in outer space". Check the calendar of events - there is only one session which was about art: The Foundation for Art in zero-Gravity Environments launch event. (Indeed there was much discussion amongst the organisers as to whether such an event should be included as many participants felt that art constitutes a bourgeois category inappropriate to the acrtivities envisaged. In fact the Association of Autonomous Astronauts was an world organisation with events in Italy, Austria as well as London, with branches in New Zealand as well as across Europe. The idea that Space 1999 was an "art exhibition" is what we call Absurdist. As for MB's question, on page 39 of ''Space 1999, Ten Days That Shook The Universe! there is photograph of the winners of the first ever Intergalactic Triolectic Football Cup (Hard copy of these documents will be posted to you if you e-mail your address.) Your friend, Harry Potter 11:28 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded to your comment in User_talk:Muppet. Muppet 15:53 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * See Cambridge United F.C. Muppet 14:25 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ebola also linked to prostrate. Please let me make an article there without blanking it between edits. LittleDan 13:02 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe that peerage titles are supposed to be capitalized, at least in English. john 16:38 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please stop assuming that British small towns are the only places in the world of any importance. In particular, Exeter in England cannot be the only link for "Exeter." The place in New Hampshire is a site of a famous private school, where among others a President of the United States was educated. In the United States, the name "Exeter" nearly always refers to the school, never to the jerkwater town in England.

As for my putting Holyhead in England instead of Wales, I apologize; but that even more shows why you should not assume an unqualified placename makes sense. I happen to have heard of Cardiff, so I knew it was in Wales; your tiny little British towns that you deem so important, but with less than a hundred thousand (or just over, like Exeter), are not the major sort of places that deserve treatment as if they were London! Nobody outside the UK has the slightest idea where Holyhead is, and perhaps the same even holds for Exeter. -- BRG July 9 2003

Any town with only 100,000 people is certainly a "jerkwater town." And of the Wikipedia articles I was looking at that linked to "Exeter," several had meant the school. As you say, Wikipedia is an international community. It seems that the Britons on here are most guilty of assuming that "Exeter" or any unqualified placename must mean the one in England.

Some time ago I had argued that we should _never_ use unqualified city names, that even "London, England" and "Paris, France" should be treated the same way. I was overruled, but the decision was that only major city names get special treatment. London would qualify. Perhaps Cardiff. Certainly a jerkwater town of 100,000 people (which is not "more than 10" times as large as Exeter, New Hampshire, for example) is not major. (The UK census says Exeter, England had a 2001 population of 111,078. The US census gives Exeter, New Hampshire a population of 14,058. It is much smaller, but not by a factor of 10.) BRG July 9, 2003

YOU learn the conventions. Nobody outside the UK has probably even ''heard of your jerkwater town of Exeter. The rule is that you assume a single place only for major cities like London, Paris, Rome. Not some place that is small enough to omit on most maps. Unless I see a consensus to the opposite, I will continue to revert Exeter to a disambiguation page every chance I get. BRG July 10, 2003

Please note that your comment that "What you are saying is that YOU have never heard of Exeter. This is your problem. Perhaps you should read [1] and enlighten yourself. Whatever, my point remains that the word Exeter is most associated with Exeter in Britain, and this is the convention." is more insulting than my characterizing a tiny place of 100,000 as a "jerkwater town." which it is! I know more about British geography than 99% of Americans --- I remember in an online chat with some guy from Sheffield that he was surprised that I knew Sheffield was a city, as I was the first American he'd spoken to who had even heard of it. I think _you_ should enlighten yourself. You referred to a Google search that found most of the links to the name Exeter referring to the city in the UK. What proportion of those were from sites in the UK? If you can find even _one_ site anywhere that is put up by someone outside the UK that uses "Exeter" unqualified to refer to the one in England, and does not preface that with some reference to England, Britain, or the UK (to make it clear that he's talking about UK places!) I would like to see it! --  BRG July 10, 2003

Well. This is a daft challenge. How about the Columbia encylopaedia

Dont worry I was G-Man 22:16 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes things go fast. :-) I saw your Naming-convention mentionign of Helsinki, made a minor note on the size of the Capital Region's population, and you removed Helsinki again. Actually, I regard Helsinki to be Scandinavia's second-most metropol-like city, beaten by Copenhagen in some, but not all, respects, ...and fully comparable with Hamburg, which culturally is more of a Northern-Europe-city than a Continental-Europe-city. -- Ruhrjung 06:17 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re: Attlee Cabinet, I say just do it however you see fit. Just to note that it's not "Privy Secretary" but "[Lord] Privy Seal" john 14:22 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Naming conventions (city names) article that convinces me that you have a consensus for considering 100,000-population cities as major cities. -- BRG July 11

You say "There is no need to get so uncooperative and make statments like revert (once again, until you darned well give up, Mintguy!)). this is not very constructive or helpful." It is you who are being non-constructive. Until you quit reverting my reverts and leave the articles as I've made them, I keep having to waste my time restoring my reverts. There is _nowhere_ a consensus that I have seen that towns of a puny 100,000 are in the category of London, Paris, or Rome. The arrogance of Britons amazes me. They assume that "if it's in Britain, it's the only one." Thus the UK has an exemption from the UPU's rule that a country must put its name on its stamps; all they put on is a silhouette of the Queen, despite that she is also queen of Canada, Australia, and several smaller countries! Also the USA has the American Chemical Siciety and the American Automobile Association, while in the UK the corresponding organizations have no "national" name; they are just the Chemical Society and the Automobile Association.

Nobody has the arrogance that UK people seem to there. Name one reason why putting "Colchester, England" as thye article title harms anyone; yet you keep reverting, as if I'd put Colchester in Scotland or something. -- BRG July 11

Look this has nothing with me being British (I'm actually Irish by heritage) other than the fact that I know more about British history than say French history. There are about 50,000 town in Britain, a few of them are of great historical significance, Exeter and Colchester have long histories. This means that a lot of links for these places need to be created, hence it has been established that in such cases these places take precedence. Mintguy

 * There's no big difference between a Colchester which redirects to Colchester, England and an article Colchester about Colchester, England. But the latter setup has the advantage that you don't get the redirect message when following a link from other places (since they all link to Colchestor, not Colchester, England.) ( 15:20 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When I was going through all the articles that linked to Exeter to fix them, several actually should have linked to Exeter Cathedral or Phillips Exeter Academy and at least one to Exeter, New Hampshire. It is when people get led astray to the wrong one like that that the whole Wikipedia system falls apart. That's why I don't like even the redirects at pages like Exeter but prefer these pages to be disambiguation pages. That way, perhaps you need one more click to get to Exeter in England, but if the real reference is to Phillips Exeter Academy you don't get totally lost. -- BRG

 * That's why there's a disambiguation block at the top. Try Notre Dame. Mintguy

You didn't even provide that in your version of Exeter! -- BRG
 * I think you'll find that before you started monkeying around with things Exeter had it's own disambiguation block. Mintguy

 * It's a point of view, but you are arguing for a major policy change to Wikipedia disambiguation. This would affect lots of articles, not just place names ( 15:33 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, it's not a major policy change. What I'm asking for is a rule on when a place is major enough to get the London treatment. Right now we do one thing for places like Springfield and another for places like Berlin, and nobody has drawn the line -- BRG

As I keep telling you, this has already been debated, over Durham. see talk:Durham (disambiguation). Mintguy

I looked at that page and I don't really see what was decided. It makes a distinction which was supposed to be explained on the wikipedia:disambiguation page, but I don't see where it is explained on that page. Also, it seems that the decision in regard to Durham was hardly clear, 3 to 2 with one abstention! -- BRG

The vote was actually 4 : 2. Some stuff was tidied up on that page, and I guess some of the debate took place elsewhere. But look at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Durham_(disambiguation)&oldid=709086 for Nevilley's impassioned argument. Mintguy

Short's comments were carried on the ITV News at 10.30 tonight. It didn't say it but it looked as though it was made on a morning TV show on ITV this morning. FearÉIREANN 22:16 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I took the wording from the ITV headlines. I should have known not to trust the ITV News! In the good ol' days ITN was equal in reliability to the BBC but since the early 1990s it has gone tabloid and is a pure shadow of its former self. I will change the entry. FearÉIREANN 22:46 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What!!! Britain still using the Julian Calendar for tax purposes??? I know Ireland changed in I think 2002. We had an eight month tax year and then hey presto we were into the gregorian calendar, only a couple of hundred years too late! I understood from a Treasury briefing I got some time ago that Britain was planning to change. I presumed when Brown moved the budget date they must have made the change. Our budget date was changed to reflect the new year and normally because of how close the Irish economy is tied in to the UK one we stick to what Britain is doing. (That is why we chose with Julian not Georgian after independence. FearÉIREANN 01:34 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Grin. :)  Ahh, but it's still British arrogance, only he's picked it up second-hand. The arrogant bastard poms write horribly biased history (e.g., about how the wonderful English won the Battle of Alemein when, in actual fact, the single largest share of the ground fighting was taken on by the Australians, with major contributions also from the New Zealanders and the Scots, not to mention the South Africans and the Indians). There are countless other examples. Point is, the British complain like crazy about Americans pretending that they won the war all by themselves and forgetting about the massive contribution made by the UK, but they are even quicker to pretend that they themselves did a great deal of stuff that was, in reality, done by Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, various other small Commonwealth nations, and last but most certainly not least, the Canadians. We colonials watch the movies and read the history books and get the double whammy: if we are smart enough to figure out that John Wayne didn't actually win the war all on his own, we fall back on reading British history books that tell us that the British did it all by themselves.

PS: I'm allowed to say "arrogant bastard poms" because that is a vital part of my national heritage. Same as you are allowed to call me "ignorant spawn of convict scum", because looking down on the colonials is part of your heritage. It's a family thing.

Cheers

Tannin

Fair enough, I'll revert jim

Hello. I see that you moved List of places in London to List of places in London, England. Was there a reason for this? -- Oliver P. 13:29 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Oh, er, are you sure? I was just looking at this page... - Oliver P. 13:37 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Thanks for explaining. I think I'll move it back. The title as it stands seems a bit silly to me. :) -- Oliver P. 13:50 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the pix of Lewes. Maybe you could manage a few other Sussex sights, eg. Fishbourne Roman Palace. Deb 18:05 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what to say about Magenta. I was going by the BBC, who normally bill her as Magenta De Vine (note capital D). Deb 17:03 15 Jul 2003 (UTC) -

Do you know anything about David's project? If so, could you add details to the page? If not I'll ask him for further info. --Eloquence 12:12 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not sure of your question regarding Bulletin Board Dmsar 23:19 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like your disambiguation of Secretary of State, but I think the Secretary of State page would probably be better disambiguated if the UK and US definitions were on completely separate pages (well, there already is a US page, so the revised article could just be two links, one to UK, and one to US. As it stands, the US one is buried at the bottom.  --Daniel Quinlan 10:24 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, British spelling annoys me too. Oops, that's not what you're trying to say on your annoyances page, is it? Hits on Google: --Daniel Quinlan 10:36 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * "colour" (8,150,000) vs. "color" (43,300,000)
 * "aeroplane" (233,000) vs "airplane" (1,940,000)
 * "spectacles" has more meanings than "eyeglasses"...
 * "pincer movement" I agree with you, it's the traditional name

Wow, that image of the London postal codes is very useful, though perhaps we might want to shrink it. Where did you find it? James F. 04:46 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I found something similar on a website somewhere and basically traced over it using paintshop pro adding my own colours and text. The size is a bit of a problem. That's about the smallest you can get it whilst allowing EC2 and EC3 to still be readable.
 * Mintguy 17:18 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I've uploaded a smaller image for London postcodes.
 * Mintguy 13:52 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * And I've just run pngcrush on it to save the last few bytes of peoples' bandwidth ;-)
 * James F. 16:24 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I've just saved another 8362 bytes/23%, courtesy of careful depth reduction and optipng version 0.4.1. JamesDay 09:20, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just want you to know that Sir Michael Checkland came to my 40th birthday party. (It was a pure fluke; we happened to be on the same holiday.) Deb 21:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, he's a very nice man - bought us a few drinks. On another subject, have you seen next week's Radio Times? It not only mentions Magenta De Vine (sic) but gives her real name. All we need now is for someone to start an article. Deb 21:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * You mean Magenta De Vine isn't her real name? Oh how disappointing! What is it, Mary Brown, Tracey Dumpling? Marla Horlsbruken-Wittselsbach-Carlsberg? lol :-) FearÉIREANN 03:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks for the Queensbury comments. I must confess that I can't remember if I had been arguing some other position (I hope not) though I think I may have pointed out that some people count him and some don't, because of confusion about a novodamus of 1706 that was supposed to cut James out of the succession but which was decided in 1812 not to have done so, and that's why the numbering is sometimes "off-by-one" and you need to check the name as well as the number to be absolutely sure which one is being talked about. If I didn't quote it before, I should quote the Complete Peerage now, if only as "print" confirmation of the website you found:James (Douglas), styled Earl of Drumlanrig, 2nd but 1st surviving son and heir; b. 2 Nov 1697; was an idiot,(a) probably from birth, but certainly before June 1706, when he was passed over in the entail of the estates as also in that of the titles of Duke of Queensberry, &c. He, however, de jure(b) succeeded to the peerage [S.] as Marquess and Earl of Queensberry, &c. [S.]., on his father's death, 6 July 1711, though he never assumed such titles. He died unmarried, and was buried 17 Feb. 1714/5, as "Earle of Drumlanrick," at Lanesborough, Yorks, among his mother's ancestors. (a) He was called the "Cannibalistic idiot" from a terrible incident which occurred in 1707. He was kept in confinement in a cell at Holyrood, but was left unguarded, while the servants went out to see the riots at Edinburgh during the debates on the Union. He escaped from his cell and fell upon a cookboy, who was turning the spit in the kitchen and whom he killed, spitted and roasted before the fire (Maxwell, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 284; Chambers, Traditions of Edinburgh, p. 355). (b) According to the decision of the House of Lords, 9 July 1812, the Marquessate of Queensberry (1681/2), the Earldom of Queensberry (1633), the Viscountcy of Drumlanrig (1633) and the Barony of Hawick and Tibberis, not being mentioned in the resignation and regrant of 1706, are not affected by it and descend according to their original limitation (see Riddell, vol. ii, p. 668). So the numbering was in question between 1711 and the House of Lords decision of 1812, another reason for confusion. It's so hard to get a novodamus done properly. (On the Hamiltons, for what it's worth, Bay Middleton's mother was a Hamilton, though I haven't been able to find out what her connection is with the dukes thereof...) -- Someone else 21:17, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"don't insult the reader's intelligence". Yes, it was obviously unnecessary for me to put France but it was an honest mistake so no need to be so insulting to me. Your comment could have been phrased in a much more friendly way! Adrian Pingstone 11:17, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I suppose a ballot form is not likely to be wrong. That means my dictionary of biography is wrong. But it's happened before. Deb 19:49, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sysop status approved
Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun!—Eloquence 22:14, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Apologies of Marshallharsh
Please see User talk:Marshallharsh/Official Apology

Dear Mintguy, You can watch over me starting now. If you see any more vandalism do whatever you want. and see above

Hi. Depite popular belief abroad, The Times isn't a London Newspaper. It is a national newspaper.

Yes, I know. And despite popular belief in Britain, the use of "The Times" as an identifier is insufficient without further qualification abroad. "The Times" is usually indexed and catalogued under "The Times" with the parenthetical identifier (of London) so some poor New Yorker doesn't get confused and think we're talking about HIS newspaper. It's not done out of ignorance, it's done because there's a need for disambiguation. -- Someone else 17:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Refute the facts that I presented and the opinions I stated in an intelligent manner rather than calling me a moron. I think that you only call me a moron because in your heart you know I'm right about needing to invade all those countries, but you don't want to admit it. JoeM

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely
 * 1) Do we actually want to have a new page?
 * 2) If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
 * 3) What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Patrol chess is pretty good fun once you get the hang of it, but yeah, it takes a bit of getting the hang of. Thanks for the fix on that page, btw. --Camembert

-- When you list a page on Votes for deletion you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Have you sorted out that Isle of Man Kings and Lords issue yet that you aske me about? O also are you intrested in the national preselections of the Eurovision Song Contest? -fonzy

The image was indeed based on the lul.gif, however I did retrace the lines and re-type all the station names, meaning his map was only used to acquire geographical data (which I assume cannot be coopyright) - and I imagine LU only have a copyright on the map (or segments of) meaning the use of their style (station dots, ticks and colours) is OK. Ed g2s 15:29, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mintguy, I have added football (soccer) clubs as a WikiProject. The project page is yet to be created. Feel free to do this if you want. It can then be decided from there what templates we need to set up. --Richard Corbin 22:16, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

I was just about to start typing the article on the League of Wales when I noticed I had a message from you! :) The League's 11 years old this year, but they didn't often get mentioned on the likes of Grandstand until lately. Keep an eye on the article over the next few days! Arwel 22:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

new Titles format
I've put a bit of an answer on my talk page, but I'll get back to you with more substantive comments, probably by tomorrow. -- Someone else 22:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are "lumpers" and "splitters", and I guess I'm basically a "splitter" where Wikipedia is concerned. I think if an article gets too long, the chance of someone actually reading down to the bits they'd find interesting decreases dramatically. I think I'd basically like to see each Peerage title done as [1] a list of the succession (the name of the holder, the date and method by which he obtained the title, and the date and method by which he lost it (usually death). This would also include any general comments about the title. Biographical details that do not touch on the succession would be reserved to [2] a biography of each Peer. Sometimes these biographies would do "double" or "triple" duty or more, when there is more than one allied title. All the titles would be listed in the biographical article, but only the single title would be mentioned in the succession article. Of course, for some Peers these might be rather stubby, and might annoy the "lumpers". Anyway, I've made a stab at the Castlehavens to give you a feel for it. Let me know what you think. I think it would be a monumental task no matter how it was tackled, but if you want to give it a go, whatever the format, I'd be happy to help, (though I don't want it to become my main occupation here). For a look, you can start at Earl of Castlehaven -- Someone else 19:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think probably the main difference between my "conception" and yours are that I was foreseeing a "succession" article for each title, and you were foreseeing one for the important titles, with lesser included titles that don't get separated from them too often included. My plan makes, I think, for a "simpler" page, while yours makes for fewer pages, both laudable goals and I think doable either way (though I would point out that the lesser allied titles will inevitably be obscured). I detect a certain lack of enthusiasm on your part for detailing "sons" "grandsons" and "nephews" but I think you could rely on others to provide this if you don't object to its inclusion...I think it really has to be there in some form, as the only reason some of these guys are of interest is that they transmitted a title, or failed to. I would have no objection to (at least in general) keeping succession information on the "succession" page and leaving it out of the biography page (though perhaps mentioning when it became extinct by someone's death). By all means get advice from the people you note, especially if you think they'd like to participate, but in terms of "Wikiprojects" I think these things tend to get very complex very quickly, which makes them very difficult to get done. -- Someone else 23:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How do you like this as a simplified version: Talk:Earl of Castlehaven? Less cluttered? -- Someone else 23:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the way you (that's you whose Talk page we are on, not you who made the above comment -- no offence) have dealt with titles. It makes the article into a true article, rather than just a list, whilst not losing sight of the need for disambiguation.  The Earl of Castlehaven does the job, but yours is the Rolls-Royce solution. Deb 16:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just deleted the YWHA redirect. Just to explain why I'm ignoring policy on this one and not listing it on VfD - it was listed on Recent Changes as one of the requested articles, so I felt it more important that it remain there rather than having to take it off just because it now redirected to something. It is still a requested article, but wouldn't show up as one if the redirect had been left in place. Angela 02:17, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yup. That was Yarwood alright. I was amused to find that I was writing an article on him too! I saw an article due for deletion because it was just a bit of vandalism and decided for the craic that I'd try my hand at writing a proper article. I chased up his agent's website on him, looked through old newspaper reviews and bits of information I remembered about him. It is the age-old wiki story; you pick a topic you think you know a little bit about but when you do the writing you suddenly find you know a helluva lot more than you thought you did about the topic. (Now I am working on an article on the 1918 general election. Jeez, quite a change, though the historian in me did love doing a history analysis of 1970s television, which I do remember all too well!) No wonder I am a wikipediholic! :-) FearÉIREANN 21:15, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I much prefer your new version. It humanises details of the peerage. As to a wikiproject, go for it. The great thing about wiki is that it spins off in all sorts of directions untouched by other professional projects. Sometimes wiki can be frustrating as hell, but then you go around the corner and witness something incredible about it. Simply remembering the farce that was royal and peer titles on wiki six months ago, and seeing how incredibly good it is now, and how brilliant your new format seems to me, reminds me of all the potential wiki has. At the rate of development, I genuinely believe that wiki will be the net source in a couple of years time. Indeed the better wiki becomes, the better it is likely to become, as top academics, writers, law experts, historians, etc seeing its success will then come on board even more than they do already (and from what I can hear among my colleagues, it has been noticed and is being watched with growing fascination. Within a year or two, I expect most of them won't just be watching its growth but participating and using it). So my advice is most definitively to go ahead. In years to come, when wiki is the biggest sourcebook on the net, dwarfing the likes of Brittanica, etc you'll be able to say 'I started that', the same way I feel over many of the Irish pages, or things like Papal Tiara, Mike Yarwood, Irish Houses of Parliament, etc. FearÉIREANN 21:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I have to say I'm not really sure on this titles question. I think a good case can be made either way. I do think that it's a good idea to try to have some basic discussion of the history of the title, and the most famous holders of it, on the main page. I also think it's a good idea to try to separate out separate creations of the same peerage title, rather than lumping it all together. On the other hand, I'm a bit leery of lumping together earlier peerage titles held by a family with the later titles they also held - for instance, having discussion of the Scottish Earls of Arran under the Duke of Hamilton article, or a list of Grosvenor Baronets on the Duke of Westminster page. This becomes particularly confusing when titles formerly united are separated out - for instance, for a long time, the Earls of Derby held the Barony of Strange, but when a junior branch of the Stanleys inherited the Earldom in the 18th century, the Barony passed to the heir-general. Or the French Dukedom of Chatellerault, which was, for a while, inherited by the Dukes of Hamilton, but which is generally thought to have passed to the Earls, and later, Dukes, of Abercorn, as heirs male of the 2nd Earl of Arran... and so forth. In that sense, Someone Else's version would make the most sense (that's also, essentially, the way that it is done in print in Cokayne's Complete Peerage, which is an invaluable resource - each title is listed separately, but with cross-references - for titles that were submerged, but later separated out, all holders are listed in the list for that title, but in shortened form, with references to the main article for those individuals who held the higher honor, if that makes any sense). As far as a WikiProject, I'd be up for that. I have a fair amount of info that I've been somewhat reluctant to do anything about, as I'm never really sure what format to put such an article in. So if we could all agree on something, that'd be great. john 04:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One possible solution is not to "choose" between formats, but to include them all. The hypothetical Duke of Farquahrson would be narrative, in your style, and include a link to List of Dukes of Farquaharson which would be terse, á la moi. -- Someone else 08:28, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Potato chips
See User talk:jtdirl for my comments on the flavor/flavour issue. --Dante Alighieri 09:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Misspellings are useful if end users are likely to type them in. They are useless if they won't. I can certainly see users typing in "satelite", but I can't imagine them typing in "natural satelite".

I don't know the specific reason, but I think it is the convention to capitalise "Flight". See, and American Airlines Flight 11. I'm reading this pamphlet in my rhetoric class and the authors capitalize flight throughout. --Jiang 19:45, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think a neo-fascist party winning a seat expectedly in an area dominated by Labour, in which Labour suffers a humiliating and unexpected third place, is newsworthy. lol FearÉIREANN 21:52, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Bloody brilliant. What a classic. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:21, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I had no intention of suggesting that you were a Tory on talk:Euroscepticism, simply that you give us a fairer shake than Deb does :-). -- Alan Peakall 16:22, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed the table on Baldwin and replaced with one at the top similar to the ones on the later Prime Ministers (Neville Chamberlain on). At the moment the Baldwin page has both tables. Your call, I guess...

Mackensen 20:24, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I took Sir Julius Caesar directly from the Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd ed., p.109. I hadn't remembered it at all, although now I recall being puzzled by it at the time. john 04:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi there -- I was having that problem after googling and occasionally at other times. I found that generally I'm on en2.wikipedia.org, but after using google get sent to www.wikipedia.org, and that one cookie wipes out the other -- so you can't be logged into both at the same time. Try changing the URL by hand back and forth and see if that's the problem. Bcorr 22:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that some time ago I contacted FIFA, the Football Association, the Football Association of Ireland and the Irish Football Association to ask what is correct technical name of the sport. All said Association Football. It was explained to me that though the name is not widely used anymore it is the correct name. Football and soccer are both colloquial names that have gained international acceptance but Association Football remains the official name, it existing to distinguish the sport from other football codes. (Parallels were drawn with the Lawn Tennis/Real Tennis distinction and other examples.) Association Football is the 100% correct name to be used, according to all the football bodies I emailed or contacted through their press offices. FearÉIREANN 18:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

np. lol FearÉIREANN 22:00, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your comment at Prime Miniser of the UK was rude and unwarranted. Lirath Q. Pynnor

 * Hey, wanted your opinion of my comment at Talk:The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK), as somebody who does British political articles. Why in the world do articles on British political parties (and, so far as I can tell, pretty much no other articles - maybe book titles?) contain a definite article at the beginning?  Is there some reason for this, or is it just some odd relic? john 22:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Peer review request
If time allows, please consider adding your views on what User:TakuyaMurata is writing about the origins and nature of the Windows API, class (computer science), inheritance (computer science) and the related VfDs on Oct 21 and Oct 25. JamesDay 11:24, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're not the only one. Those edit histories are a mess and I've been sorely tempted to revert everyting back to accuracy. I'm resisting the temptation.:) JamesDay 21:50, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just like to say that I changed the link to www.dur.ac.uk/thomas.willis/ to the site's new address of www.thepyramid.info. Although the old one will work, I will eventually remove it. Tom Willis webmaster:www.thepyramid.info (a.k.a pyramid.mirrorz.com)

I noticed that you commented on some controversial computing issues. There's now a new WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Computing/Controversial articles to help form consensus on computing topics. Please consider watching the talk pages there and using them to let others know of issues you believe merit peer review. JamesDay 15:41, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Broken redirects
Hi Mintguy, I was just fixing some broken redirects and I found User:Mintguy/test1. Maybe you still want it or maybe you forgot it was there. Anyway, thought I'd better not delete your page but maybe you could so it doesn't show up in future lists of broken pages. Angela 18:49, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

I created Gordon Bennett Cup in Auto Racing which you chaned to Gordon Bennett Cup. Unfortunately, as explained in my writing(s), there are three Gordon Bennet Cups in three different sports, one of which (see bio) still runs each yeat. Hence, where do I put the Gordon Bennett Cup in Yaching and the Gordon Bennett Cup in Balooning ? Thanks. NightCrawler 02:41, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mintguy/archive 3


text:
John Mason Good

John Mason Good (25 May 1764 – 2 January 1827), English writer on medical, religious and classical subjects, was born at Epping, Essex.

John Good's parents were the Nonconformist minister Revd Peter Good and Sarah Good, the daughter of another Nonconformist minister, Revd Henry Peyto of Great Coggeshall. John Mason Good was named after the Puritan clergyman and hymn writer John Mason (1645-1694), of whom his mother Sarah was a descendant.

Good attended a school at Romsey kept by his father. At about the age of 15 John Good was apprenticed to a surgeon-apothecary at Gosport. In 1783 he went to London to practice his medical studies. In the autumn of 1784, he began to practice as a surgeon at Sudbury in Suffolk. There he was an acquaintance of Nathan Drake, a fellow writer and student of Shakespeare.

In 1793 Good removed to London, where he entered into partnership with a surgeon and apothecary. But the partnership was soon dissolved, and to increase his income, he began to devote attention to literary pursuits. Besides contributing both in prose and verse to the Analytical and Critical Reviews and the British and Monthly Magazines, and other periodicals, he wrote a large number of works relating chiefly to medical and religious subjects.

In 1794 John Good became a member of the British Pharmaceutical Society, and in that connection, and especially by the publication of his work, A History of Medicine (1795), he did much to effect a greatly needed reform in the profession of the apothecary. In 1795 the London Medical Society awarded him their Fothergillian gold medal. In 1820, he took the diploma of M.D. at Marischal College, University of Aberdeen.

Good was not only well versed in classical literature, but was acquainted with the principal European languages, and also with Persian, Arabic and Hebrew. His prose works display wide erudition, but their style is dull and tedious. His poetry, such as his verse paraphrase of the Song of Songs, never rises above pleasant and well-versified commonplace. His translation of Lucretius, The Nature of Things (1805-1807), contains elaborate philological and explanatory notes, together with parallel passages and quotations from European and Asiatic authors.

Family
Good married firstly, Mary Godfrey at Coggeshall, Essex on 31 May 1785. Then secondly, Susanna Fenn at Sudbury, Suffolk on 12 June 1788. He died at Shepperton, Middlesex, on 2 January 1827 and was interred in the crypt of St Pancras New Church alongside his son John Mason (d.1803) and afterwards, his wife Susanna (c.1771 - 1834).

title: John Mason Good


text:
Erwin von Witzleben

Job Wilhelm Georg Erdmann Erwin von Witzleben (4 December 1881 – 8 August 1944) was a German Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) in the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. A leading conspirator in the 20 July plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, he was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in a post-Nazi regime had the plot succeeded.

Early years
Erwin von Witzleben was born in Breslau (now Wrocław, Poland) in the Prussian province of Silesia, the son of Georg von Witzleben (1838–1898), a Hauptmann (captain) in the Prussian Army, and his wife, Therese née Brandenburg. The Witzleben dynasty was an Uradel family of old nobility and many officers, descending from Witzleben in Thuringia.

He completed the Prussian Cadet Corps program at Liegnitz Ritter-Akademie, Prussian Silesia and in Lichterfelde near Berlin, and on 22 June 1901 joined the Grenadier Regiment König Wilhelm I No. 7 in Liegnitz, Silesia (now Legnica, Poland) as a Leutnant (lieutenant). In 1910, he was promoted to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant).

He was married to Else Kleeberg from Chemnitz, Saxony. The couple had a son and a daughter.

First World War
At the beginning of the First World War, Witzleben served as brigade adjutant in the 19th Reserve Infantry Brigade before being promoted to Hauptmann and company chief in the Reserve Infantry Regiment No.6 in October 1914. Later, in the same regiment, he became battalion commander. His unit fought in Verdun, the Champagne region and Flanders, among other places. He was seriously wounded and was awarded the Iron Cross, both first and second classes. Afterwards, he was sent to General Staff training and witnessed the war end as First General Staff Officer of the 121st Division.

Between the wars
In the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic, Witzleben was promoted to company commander. In 1923, he found himself on the Fourth Division staff in Dresden as a Major. In 1928, he became battalion commander in Infantry Regiment No. 6 and retained that position as Oberstleutnant (lieutenant colonel) the following year. After being promoted to full Oberst (colonel) in 1931, he took over as commanding officer of the (Prussian) Infantry Regiment No. 8 in Frankfurt on the Oder.

Early in 1933, shortly before Adolf Hitler seized autocratic control of the German state via a paramilitary backed revolution with the passage in the Reichstag of the Enabling Act of 1933, Witzleben was transferred to the post of Infantry Leader VI in Hanover. He was promoted to Generalmajor (major general) on 1 February 1934 and moved to Potsdam as the new commander of the 3rd Infantry Division. He succeeded General Werner von Fritsch as commander of Wehrkreis III (Berlin (HQ), Brandenburg, parts of Neumark). In this position, he was promoted to Generalleutnant (lieutenant general) and in the newly established Wehrmacht forces became commanding general of Army Corps III in Berlin in September 1935. In 1936, he was promoted to a General of the Infantry (General der Infanterie).

As early as 1934, Witzleben indicated opposition against the Nazi regime when he and Manstein, Leeb, and Rundstedt demanded an inquiry into Schleicher's and Bredow's deaths in the Night of the Long Knives. As a result of that and his criticism of Hitler's persecution of Fritsch in the Blomberg–Fritsch Affair, Witzleben was temporarily forced into early retirement. His "retirement" did not last, however, as Hitler soon needed him in the preparations for the Second World War.

By 1938, Witzleben was a member of the Oster Conspiracy, a group of plotters including Generaloberst (Colonel General) Ludwig Beck, Generals Erich Hoepner and Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, Admiral and Chief of the Abwehr Wilhelm Canaris and Abwehr Oberstleutnant (lieutenant colonel) Hans Oster. The men planned to overthrow Hitler in a military coup d'état and avert another European war, which seemed highly likely during the 1938 Sudeten Crisis, until the Munich Agreement both shocked and demoralized the plotters. Witzleben's unit, which including the key Berlin Defense District, was to have played a decisive role in the planned coup.

In November 1938, Witzleben had been installed as commander-in-chief of Army Group 2 in Frankfurt. He was also involved in Generaloberst Hammerstein-Equord's conspiracy plans of 1939. The latter planned to seize Hitler outright in a kind of frontal assault while the former would shut down the Nazi headquarters, but the plan also fell through.

Second World War
In September 1939, Witzleben, then a Generaloberst (Colonel General), took command of the 1st Army, stationed at the Western Front. When Germany attacked France on 10 May 1940, the First Army was part of Army Group C. On 14 June it broke through the Maginot line, and within three days had forced several French divisions to surrender. For this, Witzleben was decorated with the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross; and on 19 July, he was promoted to Generalfeldmarschall (General Field Marshal) during the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony.

On 1 May 1941 he was appointed Commander-in-Chief OB West, succeeding Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt, but only a year later, on 15 March 1942, he took leave from that position for health reasons. Some sources, however, claim that he was again forcibly retired at this time after he had criticized the regime for its invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 in Operation Barbarossa.

20 July 1944
In 1944, the conspirators around Stauffenberg saw Witzleben as the key man in their plans. Whereas Generaloberst (Colonel General) Beck was seen as a prospective provisional head of state, and Generaloberst Hoepner was in line to command the inner Ersatzheer ("Replacement Army") forces, Witzleben was to become commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht, becoming the ranking officer of the new regime.

However, on 20 July 1944, the day of Stauffenberg's attempt on Hitler's life at the Wolf's Lair in East Prussia, Witzleben did not arrive at the Bendlerblock in Berlin from the OKH-HQ (Oberkommando des Heeres Headquarters) at Zossen to assume command of the coup forces until 8 p.m., when it was already clear that the coup attempt had failed. He then protested angrily that it had been bungled and left after 45 minutes to return to Zossen, where he reported the situation to General of the Artillery (General der Artillerie) Eduard Wagner and then drove back to his country estate, 30 mi away, where he was arrested the next day by Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) Viktor Linnarz of the OKH personnel office.

He was then cast out of the Wehrmacht by the so-called Ehrenhof der Wehrmacht ("The Regular Army's Court of Honor"), a conclave of officers set up after the attempted assassination to remove officers from the Wehrmacht who had been involved in the plot, mainly so that they were no longer subject to German military law and could be arraigned to a show trial before the Nazi "People's Court" (Volksgerichtshof).

Trial and death
On 7 August 1944, Witzleben was in the first group of accused conspirators to be brought before the Volksgerichtshof. Ravaged by the conditions of his Gestapo arrest, he surprisingly approached the bench giving the Nazi salute, for which he was rebuked by the presiding judge Roland Freisler.

Witzleben was sentenced to death on the same day. Witzleben gave these closing words in court, addressed to Freisler: "You can turn us over to the executioner. In three months the outraged and tormented people will call you to account and drag you through the filth in the streets alive."

Much of the Volksgerichtshof, including scenes of Witzleben's show trial, was filmed for the German weekly newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau; however, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels decided against releasing the footage, firstly because Freisler's abusive ranting in the courtroom might draw sympathy for the accused, and secondly because the regime wanted to quell public discussion of the event. The material was classified as secret (Geheime Reichssache).

Witzleben was put to death the same day at Plötzensee Prison in Berlin. By Hitler's direct orders, he was hanged with a meat hook and a thin hemp rope, which people who were not from the prison staff called a piano wire, and the execution was filmed. The footage has since been lost.

Decorations

 * Iron Cross (1914)
 * 2nd Class
 * 1st Class
 * Wound Badge (1914)
 * in Black
 * Knight's Cross of the House Order of Hohenzollern
 * Knight of Justice of the Order of Saint John
 * Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918
 * Sudetenland Medal
 * West Wall Medal
 * Clasp to the Iron Cross (1939)
 * 2nd Class
 * 1st Class
 * Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on 24 June 1940 as Generaloberst and commander of 1. Armee
 * Military Merit Order, 4th class with Swords (Bavaria)
 * Hanseatic Cross of Hamburg
 * Cross of Honour 3rd Class with swords and crown (Reuss)
 * Wound Badge of 1918 in Black
 * Prussian Service Award Cross
 * Silesian Eagle, 2nd class
 * Knight of Honour of the Order of Saint John
 * Wehrmacht Long Service Award, 1st class with Oak Leaves
 * German Olympic Decoration, 1st class

Depiction in media

 * East German actor Otto Dierichs depicted Witzleben in the 1970 Eastern Bloc co-production Liberation.
 * Joachim Bißmeier portrays Witzleben in the 2004 TV film, Stauffenberg.
 * English actor David Schofield portrays Witzleben in the 2008 Bryan Singer film Valkyrie.

Notes about personal names

 * The terms Schenk and Graf in "Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg" began as titles but are now considered additional name elements; following the revolution of 1918, titles of nobility were abolished in Germany. However, members of the families of the former nobility got around the law by making the title a part of the person's legal name. Schenk was a role-title ("Butler" or "Cup bearer"); Graf was the title, meaning "Count".
 * Likewise, the term Freiherr in "Kurt Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord" is now also a name element, and not a title. Freiherr was roughly the equivalent of "Baron".

title: Erwin von Witzleben


text:
Matt Aitken

Matthew James Aitken (born 25 August 1956) is an English songwriter and record producer, brought up in Astley, Greater Manchester, best known as the creative force behind the 1980s/early-1990s songwriting/production trio Stock Aitken Waterman.

Biography
He began his musical career as a musician and was a member of many bands before joining Mike Stock to write and produce music for other artists. They both later teamed up with Pete Waterman, and went from small independent record labels to the major RCA Records, producing myriad hits. According to Waterman, Aitken was a noted perfectionist, particularly when it came to his guitar solos.

After the partnership split up in 1991, Aitken went into a period of retirement, raising his daughters, and pursuing hobbies such as auto racing. He later returned to the music industry in 1994 —partnering with Mike Stock once again and having success with acts such as Nicki French, Scooch, and Robson & Jerome—before seemingly retiring again in 2002.

title: Matt Aitken


text:
Talk:Affine

i added the link to mathworld.com because there wasn't anything as of 12dec2003 approx 16:00 gmt on the wikipedia db about "affine". feel free to remove the url as in the last 6 hours additional defs have been added. although the wolfram.mathworld.com site is incredibly good. lkcl.

Spelling ?
Is that word "Scheaf" right ? Some special mathematical terminology ? Or is this a misspelling of the English word "Sheaf" ?

Thanks Jake Moskowitz jm -at- optonline -dot- net

 * Thanks for spotting that; it was a typographical error (the word was embedded between a couple of "schemes" so the "c" just flew out of the fingers at the wrong time). Courtland 04:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Affine