text:
Muswell Hillbillies

Muswell Hillbillies is the tenth studio album by the English rock group the Kinks. Released in November 1971, it was the band's first album for RCA Records. The album is named after the Muswell Hill area of North London, where band leader Ray Davies and guitarist Dave Davies grew up and the band formed in the early 1960s.

The album introduces a number of working class figures and the stresses with which they must contend. It did not sell well but received critical acclaim and lasting fan appreciation.

Recording
Muswell Hillbillies was the band's first album for RCA Records, their prior recordings having been released on Pye Records (Reprise Records in the United States). Their contract with Pye/Reprise expired the same year. The album was recorded between August and October 1971 at Morgan Studios, London, using a new brass section, the Mike Cotton Sound, which included Mike Cotton on trumpet, John Beecham on trombone and tuba, and Alan Holmes on clarinet.

Reception
The album was not a commercial success (it failed to chart in the United Kingdom and peaked at #100 in the U.S. ), and its sales were a disappointment following the success of Lola the previous year. Stereo Review magazine called the poor-selling record "album of the year" in 1972 (even though it was released on 24 November 1971). In the 1984 Rolling Stone Album Guide, Rolling Stone editors gave the album five stars out of five and called it Davies' "signature statement" as a songwriter. In a retrospective review for AllMusic, Stephen Thomas Erlewine called the album a wide-ranging collection of Ray Davies compositions which focus on the tensions and frustrations of modern life.

Re-releases
A remastered deluxe edition of Muswell Hillbillies was released in the UK on 7 October 2013, with several bonus tracks, alternate takes, and BBC recordings all remastered by Andrew Sandoval and Dan Hersch. On 10 November 2014, a Legacy Edition was released for the United States, with disc 1 containing the remastered stereo album, and many of the UK Deluxe Edition bonus tracks remastered by Vic Anesini, while the second disc is a DVD with promotional TV performances (previously released in the UK on The Kinks at the BBC box set) from the era.

Artwork
The front cover picture was taken by Rod Shone in the Archway Tavern, a pub in Archway (more than two miles away from Muswell Hill). The back inset picture, showing the band below a signpost giving directions to Muswell Hill, was taken on the small traffic island at the intersection of Castle Yard and Southwood Lane in Highgate.

Track listing
The 2014 SA-CD release has the same tracks listing as the 1998 CD re-issue version.

Personnel
Track numbering refers to CD and digital releases of the album.

The Kinks
 * Ray Davies – lead vocals, acoustic guitar, resonator guitar
 * Dave Davies – lead guitar, slide guitar, banjo, backing vocals
 * John Dalton – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Mick Avory – drums, percussion
 * John Gosling – piano (acoustic and electric), Hammond organ, accordion

Additional personnel
 * Mike Cotton – trumpet
 * John Beecham – trombone, tuba
 * Alan Holmes – saxophone, clarinet
 * Vicki Brown – backing vocals on tracks 4 and 9
 * Ken Jones – harmonica on track 7
 * Mike Bobak – engineer
 * Richard Edwards – engineer

title: Muswell Hillbillies


text:
Prince Philippe, Duke of Orléans

Prince Philippe, Duke of Orléans (Louis Philippe Robert; 6 February 1869 – 28 March 1926) was the Orléanist pretender to the throne of France from 1894 to 1926 as Philippe VIII.

Early life
Philippe was born at York House, Twickenham, near London, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the son of Philippe, Count of Paris, by his wife (and first cousin), Princess Isabelle of Orléans. He was baptised with the names Louis-Philippe-Robert, and was called Philippe. His family lived in the United Kingdom from the abdication and banishment of his great-grandfather Louis Philippe, King of the French, in 1848, and returned to France in 1871 following the fall of the Second French Empire. However, they again took refuge in England in 1886, when the French Republic exiled them following the wedding in Paris of Philippe's sister Amélie of Orléans to Crown Prince Carlos of Portugal.

Returning therefore to France in 1871 with his parents, Philippe was educated at home at the Château d'Eu and at the Collège Stanislas de Paris. His tutor from the end of 1882 to 1887 was Théodore Froment, previously a professor of Latin literature at Bordeaux. In 1880 Philippe's father granted him the title Duc d'Orléans. On 16 June 1881, he received the sacrament of confirmation at Eu. Growing up to be tall and blond, he later grew a beard. He was a better athlete than scholar and learned to love mountain-climbing from Captain Morhain, a former soldier from Saint-Cyr who had become his father's accountant.

Military career
Philippe began his military education at the École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr. In June 1886 he was on the point of becoming an officer in the French army when his family was once again exiled by France's republican government. At first he was placed under the tutelage of a Colonel de Parseval, under whose supervision he would later attend a military academy in Lausanne. In Great Britain and Ireland he entered the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, on the nomination of Queen Victoria in February 1887, completing his training there and developing an abiding interest in geography, topography, and the natural sciences.

He was attached for service to the King's Royal Rifle Corps, which was then serving in the British Raj, but never held an actual commission in the British Army, in order to respect a French law forbidding Frenchmen from holding commissions in foreign armies without the permission of the French head of state. Nevertheless, he was ranked as a sub-lieutenant and served in India from January 1888 to March 1889, where he was a staff-officer to Lord Roberts, then Commander-in-Chief in India.

In October 1889, Philippe went to Switzerland to complete a course in military theory. While there he fathered a son, Philippe Debien, by Nina, an actress working in the casino at Lausanne. On his 21st birthday in February 1890 he left Switzerland by train with his friend Honoré d'Albert, 10th duc de Luynes, and entered Paris in violation of the law of exile of 1886. There, he offered to perform his military service, as required by law. Instead he was arrested and confined in the Conciergerie. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Clairvaux, but was released after a few months and expelled back to Switzerland.

Drawn to explore the "unknown", Philippe asked Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, to send him to a military post in the Himalayas. While in the East, he undertook a hunting and exploratory expedition in Nepal with his cousin Prince Henri of Orléans, went mountain-climbing in Tibet, and visited Afghanistan, Ceylon, and the Persian Gulf, before being posted back to Britain.

Prior to his imprisonment in France, Philippe had been unofficially engaged to his first cousin Princess Marguerite of Orléans, but the engagement was cancelled when Philippe's involvement with the Australian opera singer Nellie Melba was revealed. Melba was still married to Charles Nesbitt Armstrong, although they had lived apart for some years. Armstrong filed for divorce from Melba on the grounds of adultery, naming Philippe as co-respondent; the case was eventually dropped.

In September 1890, Philippe accompanied his father on a two-month trip to the United States and Canada. They visited the battlefields of the American Civil War, in which his father had fought, as well as Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Virginia; Manhattan, New York, New York County, New York; and Quebec, Canada.

On 12 November 1890, while in Philadelphia, Philippe joined the Pennsylvania Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) - a military society composed of officers who had served the Union in the American Civil War and their descendants - by right of his father's service in the Union Army. He joined as a companion of the 2nd class - a membership category for the eldest sons of companions of the 1st class who were veteran officers and was assigned MOLLUS insignia number 8262. Upon his father's death on 8 September 1894, he became a hereditary companion of the 1st class.

In December 1890, Philippe applied unsuccessfully to serve in the Russian Army. In March 1893, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society.

In March 1894, Philippe went to Egypt and Palestine with his sister Hélène, Duchess of Aosta. Then he went lion shooting in Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia). In May 1894, he was attached to the Royal Buckinghamshire Hussars, a yeomanry regiment.

Claimant to the defunct throne
Upon the death of his father on 8 September 1894, Philippe became the Orléanist claimant to the defunct French throne. He was known to monarchists as Philippe VIII. He was an active claimant, regularly issuing manifestos. In October 1895, Philippe was named as co-respondent in the divorce case of Woolston v. Woolston.

Unlike his great grandfather, Louis Philippe I, Philippe claimed grand mastership of the Order of the Holy Spirit as intrinsic to his dynastic claim to the throne, and sometimes wore the breast star of the order.

On 5 November 1896, in Vienna, then Austria above the Enns, Cisleithania, Austria-Hungary, Philippe married Archduchess Maria Dorothea of Austria (1867–1932), a daughter of Archduke Joseph Karl of Austria, Palatine of Hungary, and granddaughter of Princess Clémentine of Orléans, as well as a niece of Marie Henriette of Austria, Queen Consort of the Belgians. There were no children from this marriage. The couple were poorly matched and after several years they lived apart.

While travelling in Geneva in 1898, Philippe narrowly missed being assassinated by an anarchist, who vowed to kill the next member of a royal family that he saw. The victim would turn out to be the Empress Elisabeth of Austria, stabbed to death on the quayside.

He was an active yachtsman and made four Arctic voyages. In 1904 he sailed to Svalbard, Norway, Sweden-Norway. He explored parts of the northeastern coast of Greenland, Denmark, in 1905 during his Duke of Orléans Arctic Expedition on ship Belgica. In 1907 he sailed in the Kara Sea north of Siberia, Russia, and in 1909 went even further north into the Arctic Ocean.

He made a short film, Jaripeo y fiestas en Jalapa ("Jaripeo and Festivals in Jalapa"), during a trip to Mexico in 1910.

Philippe continued to reside in the United Kingdom until 1912, when he moved his primary residence to Belgium. In 1914, Philippe and his wife Maria Dorothea were legally separated. She subsequently lived in Hungary.

At the outbreak of the First World War, Philippe again tried unsuccessfully to join the French army. He was also refused permission to serve in the Belgian army and instead returned to the United Kingdom. A plan to join the Italian army was prevented by a serious accident in which he was knocked down by a bus.

In 1926, Philippe died of pneumonia at the Palais d'Orléans in Palermo, Sicily, Italy. Having no legitimate issue, he was succeeded as pretender to the defunct throne of France by his cousin and brother in law, Jean, Duke of Guise.

Publications
Philippe wrote a number of works based on his many travels:
 * Une expédition de chasse au Népal ("A hunting trip to Nepal"), Paris: C. Lévy, 1892.
 * Une croisière au Spitzberg, yacht Maroussia, 1904, Paris: Imprimerie de Chaix, 1904
 * Croisière océanographique: accomplie à bord de la Belgica dans la Mer du Grönland, 1905, Brussels: C. Bulens, 1907
 * La revanche de la banquise: un été de dérive dans la mer de Kara, juin-septembre 1907, Paris: Plon-Nourrit, 1909
 * Campagne Arctique de 1907, Brussels: C. Bulens, 1910–1912
 * Hunters and Hunting in the Arctic, London: David Nutt, 1911 (published in French as Chasses et chasseurs arctiques, Paris: Librairie Plon, 1929)

He also published a collection of the papers of his father and of the Henri, comte de Chambord:
 * La monarchie française: lettres et documents politiques (1844–1907), Paris: Librairie nationale, 1907

Honours
• French Royal Family:
 * Duke of Orleans Land in NE Greenland was named after him.

• * Grand Master and Knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit

• * Grand Master and Knight of the Order of St. Michael

• * Grand Master and Grand Cross of the Military Order of St. Louis

•  Austria-Hungary: Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece, 1896

•  Principality of Bulgaria:

• * Grand Cross of the Order of St. Alexander, 21 February 1907

• * Knight of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius, 1912/13

•  Kingdom of Portugal:

• * Grand Cross of the Sash of the Two Orders

• * Grand Cross of the Order of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa, 22 May 1886

•  Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion

• 🇪🇸 Spain:

• * Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic

• * Knight of the Royal Cavalry Armory of Seville, 1910

•  undefined: Commemorative Medal for the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria

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

title: Prince Philippe, Duke of Orléans


text:
USS Stewart (DD-13)

The first USS Stewart was a Bainbridge-class destroyer in the United States Navy. She was named for Rear Admiral Charles Stewart.

Construction
Stewart was laid down on 24 January 1900, at Morris Heights, New York, by the Gas Engine and Power Company; launched on 10 May 1902; sponsored by Mrs. Paul Lee Cocke, granddaughter of Rear Admiral Stewart; and commissioned on 1 December 1902.

Pre-World War I
After commissioning, Stewart served for a short time at the Naval Academy and then joined the Coast Squadron of the North Atlantic Fleet. In 1906, she was placed in reserve at Norfolk, Virginia but was recommissioned in 1907 in the Atlantic Fleet and transferred in 1908 to the Pacific Fleet. As one of the first group of destroyers built in the United States, Stewart quickly became obsolete; and, on 24 February 1916, the Navy Department decided that destroyers numbered 1 through 16 were "no longer serviceable for duty with the fleet." These ships were henceforth classed as "coast torpedo vessels", but this did not prevent Stewart from having an active career in World War I.

World War I
After the United States declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917, Stewart patrolled first off the Atlantic entrance to the Panama Canal and along the Colombian coast; and then, after 11 May, off the Pacific entrance to the canal. On 5 July, she returned to the Atlantic, and was fitted out at the Philadelphia Navy Yard from 22 July-11 August for distant service.

On 13 August, she sailed for the British Imperial fortress colony of Bermuda with a destroyer flotilla; but, on arrival on 16 August, she grounded in the harbor and required repairs at the Royal Naval Dockyard there and at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which lasted through 10 October. On 11 October, Stewart began dispatch and escort duty from a base in the York River. Except for one interruption for training, this duty continued until 31 December 1917, when she entered the Philadelphia yard to fit out again for distant service.

Departing the yard on 15 January 1918, Stewart sailed the next day for Europe in company with USS Worden (DD-16), USS Hopkins (DD-6), USS Macdonough (DD-9), and USS Paul Jones (DD-10). Stopping in the Azores from 29 January-4 February, Stewart and Worden arrived at Brest, France, on the 9th and began convoy escort duty off that port on the 17th.

On 17 April, as Stewart entered Quiberon Bay, an American steamer, Florence H, with a cargo of powder and steel, exploded in the anchorage. Stewart saved nine survivors, and her crew was cited by the Secretary of the Navy for gallantry during the rescue. On 23 April, Stewart sighted two seaplanes dropping bombs, apparently on a submarine; and she raced to the spot. One aircraft flew over the destroyer, and the observer pointed to the location of the sub. Stewart saw first the sub's wake, then its periscope, and finally the dark form of her hull underwater. She was forced to turn away at the last moment due to the effort of a French escort to ram the sub, but dropped two depth charges which brought up large amounts of oil. The action was evaluated at the time as a kill; but the submarine, U-108, survived to be damaged by USS Porter (DD-59) several days later and finally to surrender at Harwich at the end of the war.

During a dense fog three days later, Stewart was damaged when she collided with an unidentified merchantman, and she remained under repair until 28 May. On 4 August, the destroyer made another attack on an apparent submarine wake, but obtained no evidence of success.

Inter-war period
After the armistice ending World War I was signed on 11 November, Stewart ceased convoy duty; and she entered drydock at Brest on 26 November for repairs. On 9 December, she departed Brest with four other destroyers; and, after passing the convoy carrying President Woodrow Wilson to Europe two days later and subsequently making stops at the Azores and Bermuda, the destroyers arrived at Philadelphia on 3 January 1919. Decommissioned on 9 July, Stewart was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 15 September, and sold on 3 January 1920 to Henry A. Hitner's Sons Company, Philadelphia, for scrap.

Noteworthy commanding officer

 * Lieutenant Julius Frederick Hellweg (11 May 1907 – 28 May 1908) (Later Rear Admiral)

title: USS Stewart (DD-13)


text:
User talk:Barte

If you leave a message for me here...
 * I'll reply here and you.

Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday
Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Editing news 2023 #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

 * 1) The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
 * 2) They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Public Art in Public Places (K. M. Williamson reply to "Netherzone"
Barte: Since you were a key W editor on this issue, I've taken the liberty of sharing below my response to "Netherzone's" most recent email complaint to us. We are doubting that "Netherzone"'s bias will make any corrections or retractions. Apologies if this is not the best contact method - not familiar with W options. - sincerely,

K. M. Williamson, Ph.D.

<< Allow me to introduce myself. I am K. M. Williamson, Ph.D., Director of Public Art in Public Places. My staff directed me to your recent email, which prompted our review of the various errors and misleading comments your “Netherzone” persona has posted about Public Art in Public Places on Wikipedia.

I respectfully object to your claim that “the director”, myself, has made any contributions to Wikipedia. Neither I nor my staff have ever made any such contributions to Wikipedia regarding Public Art in Public Places or its data archive:  it is against our policy. A number of years ago we objected to erroneous claims and uninformed assumptions being made by some Wikipedia editors in response to a Wikipedia listing on our organization proposed by another Wikipedia editor, and we therefore made a formal request to have the Wikipedia listing on Public Art in Public Places removed, to safeguard our organization’s reputation. We noted at that time that “Netherzone” was an active promoter of much of this misinformation.

After reviewing “Netherzone’s” subsequent Wikipedia comments, we take issue with “Netherzone’s” ongoing bias, lately the pejorative claim that Public Art in Public Places is “only a blog”, and the oddly biased claim that the Google Arts & Culture online platform is “dubious.”

Since “Netherzone” persists in remaining unfamiliar with our organization and the Google Cultural Institute, I direct “Netherzone” and other Wikipedia editors exposed to such comments to the following:

Public Art in Public Places is a not-for-profit, non-commercial, arts data organization establishing and managing an extensive open and public online public art data archive for the Sothern California and Hawai’i regions, in partnership with the Google Cultural Institute, its Google Arts & Culture program, and Google Maps. As of 2023, the Public Art in Public Places archive contains data on more than 5,000 public artworks in more than 250 cities.

We hope and expect that “Netherzone” will correct the errors it has posted on Wikipedia regarding myself as Director and regarding the Public Art in Public Places organization, and that “Netherzone” will also assist in notifying other Wikipedia editors who have been misled by what we view as misinformation that is damaging to our ethical and public-spirited mission and reputation.

K. M. Williamson, Ph.D.   Director, Public Art in Public Places

>> 40.137.251.37 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello, Mx. Williamson, I see that you are copying and pasting this to numerous places on Wikipedia. It's best to keep the discussion in one place, perhaps your own Talk Page which is located here: User talk:M_Na_zdravi.
 * Could you please explain this:, this:, and these contributions:Special:Contributions/M Na zdravi where you repeatedly self-cited your organization?
 * For additional history on the matter there is this: Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places.
 * Also see this, as it seems the conflict of interest editing and linkspam goes back to 2014. Netherzone (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's consolidate this discussion at User talk:M_Na_zdravi, which was formerly called "K._M._Williamson". As that former name matches yours, that account and its history of PAPP-related contributions would appear to be yours. Looking forward to your response to 's points. Barte (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Barte


text: File:Slainegn.jpg

title: File:Slainegn.jpg


text:
User talk:Nyxxxx

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nyxxxx


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

27 November 2004 onwards: Koans

 * jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For the discussion on "koans" on the Jesus talk page see the talk page from this point onwards.

 * jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For evidence of the revert war see the history page of the Jesus article from 27 November onwards, noting the large number of different editors disagreeing with CheeseDreams. An illustrative example of what the argument is about is here:.

5 December 2004: RfC evidence

 * jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Information from RfC's raised by CheeseDreams has been retained contrary to explicit instructions, and contrary to promises given to RfC complainants. The promise is that: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted.

The proof that this has been retained is in Cool Hand Luke's citation at 2.2 of the main RfAr page. I suggest the RfC evidence is disregarded by the Arbcom.

<24 November>

 * User: CheeseDreams reverted Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible nine times within a 24 hour peroid

12 December

 * 14:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * [User:CheeseDreams] is apparently operating a sock-puppet: [User:Cheesedreams] (Though to her credit, she is not hiding the fact... Note that the page redirects to the CheeseDreams user page). This account is certainly editing: I suspect that this is to get around blocking, but it may be just an anti-typo account. As such, I don't know that this is really evidence, but thought that people should be aware of it.

Evidence presented by Slrubenstein
Evidence pertains to three complaints: first, that CheeseDreams is generally obstructionist; second, that she refuses to verify her work; third, that practically speaking she wishes to block me from the article Cultural and historical background of Jesus. She accomplishes this in two ways: first, by refusing to accept anything I write on the talk page, and second, by reverting my work.

7 January
Here is a good example of Cheese Dreams trolling:. Talk pages are for discussion aimed at improving the article. Here, however, Cheese Dreams is simply making up things that indicate her interest not in improving the article, but in wasting the time of editors.

Here is a good example of CD trying to ban me unilaterally from the article. Context: FT2 made some changes to the article. Some were good, some were not. I explained which one's I thought were not good, and made changes to the article. I consider this to be model behavior for an editor: I accepted some of what another editor did, and I explained carefully my objections to other things he did.

Cheesedreams here threatens to revert any change I make to the article.

If Cheesedreams reverts any change to the article, that is tantamount to blocking me from the article. See

1-8 December
These provide evidence of general obstructionism.
 * 00:05, 8 Dec 2004
 * 00:07, 7 Dec 2004
 * 07:15, 6 Dec 2004
 * 19:30, 5 Dec 2004
 * 19:27, 5 Dec 2004
 * 12:41, 5 Dec 2004
 * 22:57, 4 Dec 2004
 * 21:46, 3 Dec 2004
 * 21:42, 3 Dec 2004
 * 21:13, 3 Dec 2004
 * 20:36, 3 Dec 2004
 * 19:42, 3 Dec 2004
 * 19:14, 3 Dec 2004
 * 21:50, 2 Dec 2004
 * 00:37, 2 Dec 2004
 * 18:55, 1 Dec 2004
 * 01:12, 1 Dec 2004
 * In each of the above instances, she repeatedly put large summary into article. The particular summary in questioned had been archived because the article was over 130 kb. CheeseDreams reverted the archiving of the summary.  This went on and on.                   ... there are more, I am just getting tired of looking for each example.  Surely, you get the idea!
 * There was discussion about the summaries ; everyone except CheeseDreams felt that the summaries at best wasted space, and at worst disrupted the process of improving the article. There are three problems with the summaries.
 * First the "summary" is a way for CheeseDreams to put my words, and the words of others in dispute with CheeseDreams, into different words. This allows CheeseDreams to control the representation of the discussion and the participants of this discussion.  She often uses this control to editorialize about the discussion, to misrepresent people she disagrees with, and or slander other editors.

 * Example: Part of the discussion involved how best to translate words and names. FT2 mistakenly claimed that "John" is English for the Hebrew name Yonatan.  I objected to this error, and explained that "Yohanan" is the Hebrew version of the name "John."  FT2 wrote, "I like this:  "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). Does anyone else spot the illogic?" I tried to explain again what FT2's error was (and it really is a big error in that it reveals tremendous ignorance about the Bible and Jewish culture, i.e. the general topic of the article).  When FT2 wrote "Remember Davids friend "Jonathan"? David and Jonathan? Universally called "Jonathan" not John? Yohannan? Check it out. "John" is not hebrew......" (21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)), I lost patience at his combination of ignorance and sarcasm.

 * My response to FT2, as I wrote it (04:23, 23 Nov 2004; see ):
 * What on earth are you saying? There are two Hebrew names: Jonatan and Yohana.  Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan.  Yohanan is represented in English as John.  Are you making fun of me?  Ar eyou yanking my chain?  Waht does "Jonathan" have to do with "Yohanan?  John the Baptist was not names Jonathan -- Jon is not John.  Jesus, are you seriously trying to argue this?  Do you know anything?  I am seriously starting to question your competence here and I really am serious, not trying to be rude, because I know you have made some reasonable edits to other articles.  But what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut, you must be making fun of me somehow ... Slrubenstein

 * CheeseDream's "summary" (see ):
 * Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John" (4). Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein (5).
 * I find the remark about masturbating offensive; I said so (see for example ) and deleted it. Another editor explained to CheeseDreams that it is an erroneous paraphrase (see ).  That CheeseDreams persists in restoring or creating new summaries to repeat it (see ) is a sign of willful spite.  CheeseDreams often editorializes in her summaries; this summary was really just a vehicle for her insulting me.

 * Second, the main way that CheesDreams summarizes is by cutting any explanation, reasoning, or evidence -- in other words, material that could constructively go into the article. What is left in these "summaries" is only the worst part of any discussion -- a list of editors who have taken opposing positions, and a record of conflict.  The best part of the discussion -- a process by which people come to clarify their understanding of the topic, or in the course of dicsussion bring to light more facts or explanations -- is gone.  This is certainly unhelpful.  The second sentence of the summary is a good example -- it makes no sense and is a useless summary.
 * Third, the summaries themselves waste too much space (note in the example above, the summary is almost as long as what is summarized!) Each summary is itself over 30 kb. long -- long enough to be archived -- and should be archived.

I want to be clear that my objection is not merely to the many times that CheeseDreams has inserted the summary into the talk page -- a series of acts that wastes space on the page and the time of oother editors. The summary is symptomatic of more general and profound problems with CheeseDreams -- it reveals her intent on hijacking a page; her complete disregard for the views of other editors and their reasoning; her bias in reporting what others have said; her malice, as she seeks every opportunity to slander other editors through editorializing (e.g. when she explains, in the text itself, or in the edit summary, that the reason she is summarizing is that other contributors are verbose and obscure) or misrepresenting others (e.g. claiming that I have questioned whether FT2 is masturbating me). It is this general pattern of destructive behavior that is the real issue, not the fact that she reverted the archiving of the summary x number of times.

3 December
My second main complaint against CheeseDreams is that she refuses to verify her work. I have done considerable research on the topic and believe her claims to be false. When I offer her an opportunity to verify her claims, she mires me in a miasma of meaningless dialogue. This exchange provides a good example:.

28 November
Another example where CheeseDreams refuses to verify claims, this time from the Koan discussion on the Jesus page:. I admit the header reflects my irritation; be that as it may, there was an endless discussion about whether Jesus used Koans (CheeseDreams being the only advocate of this view) and I pointed out simply that if some scholar has made this claim we should include it -- if not, we needn't argue it. CheeseDreams has continued to revert any deletion of this material from the article, and her only contribution to the talk page continues to be defensive or offensive -- but she still hasn't provided any verification at all to support this highly contested claim.

22 November
My third main complaint is that she rejects all of my work. By late November there were two versions of the article -- one that I had crafted, and one that FT2 had crafted. See my complaint for the general context and sources. I had explained in the talk pages that there were many mistakes in fact in FT2's version, and that it was poorly organized, and explained that my version was better organized and fully verifiable. Here is a more recent example (I put it here because it makes the same point as the Nov. 22 example):
 * 15:43, 22 Nov 2004
 * Reverted my work; explanation was that I am arrogant and POV.
 * 21:07, 17 Dec 2004
 * Provides an explanation of why she prefers FT2's version over mine. Her explanation reveals that she has not read my version at all, or if she has she read it in a careless fashion and that she is ignorant of the topic.  From this example I conclude that she reflexively argues against anything I say even if it means she has to misconstrue what I wrote, or make up facts without any evidence.  (Note: in many cases in this excerpt, I simply identify claims she makes as ignorant or wrong.  If any arbitrator likes, I would be happy to explain in detail what is ignorant and why she is wrong, and provide verification.)

It is true that I have rejected most of CheeseDreams' work. But every time, I have provided substantive reasons. In most cases I believe that CheeseDreams' additions are either not based on any research at all, or based on a distorted understanding of the scholarship. I have always made my objections clear and have asked CheeseDreams to provide verification.

20 November

 * 00:19, 20 Nov 2004
 * 00:00, 20 Nov 2004
 * repeated reverts

19 November

 * 20:04, 19 Nov 2004
 * reverted work

6-7 November
These exchanges provide good examples of my difficulty discussing changes constructively with CheeseDreams. Whenever I raise a verifiable problem of fact or interpretation, CheeseDreams effectively dismissed any contribution I could make:

1-3 November
There is only one discussion I recall in which CheeseDreams claimed to verify her position. It was on the Jesus talk page:. Here we perhaps get to the root of my conflict with CheeseDreams. In this example she does provide sources -- but in a way that makes me even more skeptical of her research. I say this because none of the people she cited were important contemporary scholars; because several of the people she cited were not scholars on Jesus, critical Bible studies, or history of 1st century Judea; and because in at least one case she was entirely wrong (she provides Albert Schweitzer as an example of a scholar who claims that Jesus never existed, when in fact Schweitzer most definitely believed Jesus existed). Moreover, I provided sources to verify my claim, that scholars (meaning, critical scholars -- PhD.s who have academic appointments and publish in academic journals) believe that Jesus did exist (Crossan, Vermes, Bartman, Fredriksen, Sanders, Meier). CheeseDreams not only utterly disregarded my claim and evidence -- she seemed utterly unaware of these scholars. It is very hard to believe that anyone could do anything close to serious research on 1st Century Jewish history, early Christian history, or critical Bible studies, and not be familiar with at least a few of these names. The problem is, you have to know something about these issues to be sure that I am right and she is wrong. All one has to do is go to a few websites to see that A. Schweitzer really did believe in Jesus. A little work on the web would provide you with the c.v.s of most of the people I cited, or reviews of their books. One problem with earlier attempts to resolve my conflict with CheeseDreams is that others, like FT2 and Amgine, didn't know and didn't do much research on this period. What concerns me even more is that when CheeseDreams and I came into conflict on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article, they did not insist that CheeseDreams provide sources for her claims. Indeed, Amgine felt that my demanding verification was a sign of bad faith on my part.

To be blunt, I think many people have been fooled by CheeseDreams. She makes her points so firmly, and sticks to them, and in some cases provides the names of authorities, and others assume she is correct. These people are acting "in good faith" and were I ignorant of critical Bible research and 1st century history, I too would have assumed CheeseDreams was acting "in good faith." But I have done considerable research on these matters and all of my research gives me reason only to question CheeseDreams' research.

Final Note: the Nature of my Complaint
I have requested arbitration not because CheeseDreams has violated specific wikipedia policies -- she may have, but my complaint is more complex. She has accused me of pretty much everything I have accused her of. Moreover, much of the evidence can be interpreted either way. For example, below Amgine provides evidence of my abusing CheeseDreams. In fact, I am proud of almost every example Amgine provides -- I believe that they show a pattern in which I contribute well-researched, verifiable material to an article; in which I provide explanations for my changes; and in which I demand that CheeseDreams do the same. This is not merely a situation where the process has broken down. If it were, then perhaps RfC and mediation would have worked. This is a case where two different people have different notions of what "NPOV" and "verifiable" mean. CheeseDreams (and Amgine) and I fundamentally differ on matters of content, and in many cases I believe the conflict between us can be understood only by looking at the content and the reasons we give, respectively, for the changes we make. Slrubenstein

Evidence of harrassment, abuse in Cultural and historical background of Jesus
CheeseDreams was targeted for abuse and harrassment, at times appearing to be consciously goading the user to lash back.

Uncivil and rude comments:

 * 1) 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 - Ordered not to change "facts" - Slrubenstein
 * 2) 22:35, 2 Nov 2004 - "... not based on critical historical scholarship" - Slrubenstein
 * 3) 23:06, 2 Nov 2004 - "This is a superior -- more precise, more accurate -- version." - summary on revert - Slrubenstein
 * 4) 23:09, 2 Nov 2004
 * 5) * "which part of "see talk" don't you understand?" - summary on revert - Slrubenstein
 * 6) 23:12, 2 Nov 2004 - "perhaps he has something to contribute, but it should not be done by reverting what I added. - Slrubenstein (Note: Slrubenstein had deleted/reverted CheeseDreams in his first and subsequent edits to this article 3 hours earlier)
 * 7) 02:17, 3 Nov 2004 - a chastisement by Jayjg against "forcing" edits on a "stable" article (ignoring CheeseDreams previous amicable discussions and negotiations with other contributors on the Talk page, and that the article was far from stable.)
 * 8) 17:37, 3 Nov 2004 - "You must live in a dark wolrd[sic] indeed..." - Slrubenstein
 * 9) 23:02, 3 Nov 2004 - "you really, really miss the point" - Slrubenstein
 * 10) 22:12, 4 Nov 2004 - "lousy scholarship" - Slrubenstein
 * 11) 22:28, 4 Nov 2004 - "one of the stupidest things I have ever heard" "they are both moronic" - Slrubenstein
 * 12) 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 - A barrage of polite insults, responding to the polite insults which were return fire for the above - Slrubenstein
 * 13) 22:02, 5 Nov 2004 - "Thoughts on article - no, CheeseDream" - Slrubenstein
 * 14) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3ACultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=7137660&oldid=7137615 22:06, 5 Nov 2004[ - "Don't hijack it." - Slrubenstein
 * 15) 00:58, 25 Nov 2004 - "Stop screaming." "Give up the delusion" - Slrubenstein
 * 16) 01:37, 25 Nov 2004 "mistaken and ignorant" - Slrubenstein
 * 17) 01:48, 25 Nov 2004 - "incapable of intelligent contributions or discussion." - Slrubenstein
 * 18) 19:17, 25 Nov 2004 - "actually need[s] mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia" - Slrubenstein
 * 19) 17:46, 26 Nov 2004 - "another cheesedoodle" - Slrubenstein
 * 20) 17:49, 26 Nov 2004 - "more cheesedoodles" - Slrubenstein
 * 1) 17:49, 26 Nov 2004 - "more cheesedoodles" - Slrubenstein

Evidence of silencing in Cultural and historical background of Jesus
Evidence of revert/delete of CheeseDreams' edits as harrassment in Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

 * 1) 19:25, 1 Nov 2004
 * 2) * Refactor and delete CD edits - Slrubenstein
 * 3) 20:42, 2 Nov 2004
 * 4) * Delete paragraph about Messiah - Slrubenstein
 * 5) 21:42, 2 Nov 2004
 * 6) * Substituted/removed opening, paragraph about Messiah - Slrubenstein
 * 7) 22:28, 2 Nov 2004
 * 8) * "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Slrubenstein" - Slrubenstein
 * This revert began a war of 5 reverts by each party within a 4 hour period: (note additional text/edits),,  (note additional text/edits), , , , ,  (After this revert Slrubenstein posted to Jayjg and Jwrosenzweig requesting intervention), . The last edit summary by CheeseDreams "Which part of NPOV do you not understand. See talk. N.b. you (and now I) have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours which is heavily frowned upon." The next edits to the page are Jayjg's revert to Slrubenstein and protecting it. (Mirv later reverted it to before the revert war.)

14 December

 * 13:19
 * CheeseDreams reverts Historicity of Jesus four times within two hours., , ,.
 * 15:32
 * I (Rhobite) blocked CheeseDreams for this three revert rule violation and notified her on her talk page:

Personal attacks

 * 23:59, 11 Dec 2004
 * Made the comment on a known Christian's page that "God isn't pleased at your heresy". IMO this was done to deliberately provoke the user, after this harsh words were spoken on CheeseDreams page and they got blocked. Seems unfair that CheeseDreams didn't get blocked for the same reason!
 * RFC against Theresa Knott
 * Adds a RFC against Theresa Knott for protecting a page. See Requests for comment/Theresa knott. Many users find this to be harrassment.
 * RFC against Slrubenstein
 * Adds an RFC against Slrubenstein for protecting a page. See Requests for comment/Slrubenstein. Then she listed this on VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein.
 * RFC against Jwrosenzweig
 * Adds an RFC against Jwrosenzweig for protecting a page. See Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig. Then she listed this on VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig.
 * RFC against John Kenney
 * Adds an RFC against John Kenney for protecting a page and for making personal attacks (in the edit history apparently she was called a "troll". See Requests for comment/John Kenney. Then she listed this on VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney.
 * 07:18, 21 Dec 2004
 * Personal attack on my user page :
 * If you want to know more, have a dig around Kuro5hin. You may also want to know me as TBSDY as it's easier to type...

Article fork

 * 05:58, 1 Dec 2004
 * When CheeseDreams didn't get her own way on Cultural and historical background of Jesus she created Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be. It's a direct copy and paste of that article, however you'll notice the title is POV and speculation!
 * Just to note, this article was originally Jesus in a cultural and historical background. It was moved to this latter title after Slrubenstein's protection was removed. john k 05:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 06:08, 1 Dec 2004
 * Redirect to Cultural and historical background of Jesus by John Kenney.
 * 07:40, 1 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts, calls the redirection "vandalism".
 * 10:36, 1 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams adds an extremely misleading comment to the article "I did not write this page. It was written by Slrubenstein. The circumstances surrounding its seperation from Cultural and historical background of Jesus are discussed there", edit history is the same. This is not born out by the edit history.
 * 18:56, 1 Dec 2004'
 * CheeseDreams reverts, calls previous edit "vandalism"
 * 04:51, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts, calls previous edit "vandalism"
 * 10:01, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts, calls it "vandalism"
 * 10:36, 1 Dec 2004
 * A2Kafir reverts to the redirect . Edit summary is "Return to redirect. Why should Wikipedia have two articles on one topic?"
 * 10:20, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts again, calls the previous edit "vandalism". Edit summary is "r.v. vandalism. See explanation on talk page. This is 2 articles on 2 different topics. The other article has a completely different version in the frozen edit war,which more accurately reflects title"
 * 10:26, 2 Dec 2004
 * John Kenney reverts
 * 10:31, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts previous edit, calls that edit "vandalism"
 * 18:08, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDream reverts previous edit, calls that edit "vandalism"
 * 05:26, 3 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDream reverts previous edit, calls that edit "POV vandalism"
 * 05:54, 3 Dec 2004
 * Slrubenstein reverts to the redirect. This is the third user to do this. Something tells me there's a reason for this.
 * 07:38, 5 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDream reverts. This time the edit summary is "If you want rid of this page put a VfD on it rather than a redirect". So much for it being a temporary editing page (which incidently should have been made a subpage, not a new page... but anyway)
 * 09:04, 5 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams reverts, edit summary is "r.v. POV deletionist vandalism"
 * Note: this edit war finally was resolved when Slrubenstein protected it. The whole situation is absurd, and the page should never have been created in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Causing problems in Historicity of Jesus

 * 22:55, 30 Oct 2004
 * A few things from
 * "It is inconceivable that no-one in the state of Palestine, located very close to the geographic centre of these religions, had ever come into contact with one of these." original research
 * "Other features which supporters of the Jesus as myth argument point to include:" weasel word (which supporters of the Jesus as myth is she referring to?)
 * 14:32, 6 Nov 2004
 * Basically, made a major change then left it. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished, but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tomorrow"
 * 05:40, 8 Nov 2004
 * Added an entire section that is not directly related to the article. POV pushing.
 * 0:40, 8 Nov 2004'
 * Edit summary says "SAM, do not remove the "I haven't finished making a major change to this article but will do so by next week", it is distorting. AND until you put why on the talk page, I am removing the dispute notice" CheeseDreams expected us to not do any editing and to have an article in a total mess for over a week. This shows unilateral editing, and a reluctance to allow others to come to consensus on the direction of the article.

User page statements

 * 07:09, 19 Nov 2004
 * Cheesedreams added the following: "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them." It appears that she enjoys just being controversial. I put to you that she is deliberately POV pushing. Controversial articles don't need to become more controversial, they need to become more NPOV!
 * 07:09, 19 Nov 2004
 * To a section called "Public service announcements" she added the following: "I have a more detailed list if you would like it." I put to you that she is unnecessarily willing to cause problems by directly categorising people and making them feel attacked.

Vandalism of Ta bu shi da yu user page

 * 07:18, 21 Dec 2004
 * added tag and multiple  tags to my main user page.  and goes against proposed policy Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Vandalism. Also it is well known that user pages are not disputable.

Nov 23

 * 22:06, 23 Nov 2004
 * Cheese Dreams starts first RfC against User:Theresa knott over allegedly protecting the wrong version of an article, see Requests for comment/Theresa_knott. Theresa had not been involved in that dispute, and appears to have acted properly. CheeseDreams never even attempted to contact her beforehand . This could be understood as a beginners mistake, and comentators on the RfC advised that two parties must certify failure to resolve disputes on RfCs. .RfC was deleted 07:10, 26 Nov 2004 (since restored).

Nov 28

 * 01:29, 28 Nov 2004
 * CheeseDreams starts another RfC against User:Eequor, see Requests for comment/Eequor. As with Theresa, CheeseDreams did not inform user of the dispute, which pertained to a batch of one-time edits Eequor made. I believe Eequor was actually totally unaware of the RfC—it was never on her talk page. I opined that RfCs must only be filed after a failure to resolve dispute by two users, and that no attempt to even contact Eequor had been made . I know CheeseDreams saw this comment, because she replied to it . This RfC was deleted 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (since restored).

Dec 2

 * 21:33, 2 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams launched RfC against User:Slrubenstein for protecting a page he was involved in an edit war with, see Requests for comment/Slrubenstein. Although this claim had a bit more merit, it was also uncertified with no evidence that CheeseDreams tried to resolve the conflict beforehand. Theresa Knott threatened to delete it as such . Theresa also request evidence on CheeseDreams' talk page . Ironically, CheeseDreams wanted the page retained for at least 48 hours.

Dec 3

 * 00:38, 3 Dec 2004
 * RFC against User:Jwrosenzweig for a supposed Ad Hominem attack he made just minutes prior to CheeseDreams' creation of the RfC . I agian expressed doubt CheeseDreams had tried to resolve the matter, and 16 editors signed Jwrosenzweig's statement indicating the RfC was frivolous see Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig. Theresa also threatened to delete this uncertified RfC , but Sam Spade convinced her they all ought to be kept as evidence. Netoholic applied a notice closing the RfC 07:51, 5 Dec 2004 as per discussion on its talk page . This notice is now on all five of CheeseDream's RfCs. See section below for more about this RfC.

 * 01:58, 3 Dec 2004
 * Less than two hours later, CheeseDreams' RfC against User:John Kenney, uncertified like the rest. See Requests for comment/John Kenney.

Dec 3

 * 00:03, 3 Dec 2004
 * User felt that Jwrosenzweig made an Ad hominem attack in this dif (this is from the RfC against Slrubenstein above). I see no attack there, but Cheese Dreams' responses to it seem somewhat discourteous. "I do not expect this pathetic behaviour from an Admin and especially not from a member of the arbitration committee. I consider Ad Hominem attacks by a member of the arbitration committee a resigning matter."  "Either retract it (by striking through/deleting the comment), or I will make an RfC for Ad Hominem by an arbitration committee member." (CheeseDreams followed through on this threat, again revealing an apparent abuse of RfC—see above.)  A second demand for retraction RfC against Jwrosenzweig occured five minutes later. CheeseDreams apparently believed Jwrosenzweig correcting her misunderstanding of the 3RR was a personal attack—irrelevent to the issue even though she was making the accusation that Slrubenstein violated the rule. She also claimed that the policy must have been changed by a POV warrior because she rememberes it refering to versions. In fact, she claimed this when she was informed on her talk page three days earlier that she was mistaken about how the 3RR works.  I asked her when this change occured,  but I've never found it.

Dec 18

 * 00:56, 18 Dec 2004
 * CheeseDreams created Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality, which was deleted by User:Mackensen at 01:58, 18 Dec 2004 as an "Ad hominem attack on Fred Bauder". CheeseDreams advertized this poll several places, notably WP:AN, and spammed nine talk pages including: , , , , We can surmise that the poll was a reference to User:Fred Bauder by the truncated title "FrBa" and more clearly by the description of one of the talk page spam messages . Curiously, none of these spam messages were signed.  Contents of the deleted page were:
 * If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.
 * Resigning matter
 * 1. Arbitrators must be whiter than white. CheeseDreams 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Acceptable practice

 * See also CheeseDreams' accusations on RfAr

AGAINST Rhobite's evidence
The following occurred
 * Ta bu shi da yu unlocked Historicity of Jesus
 * Ta bu shi da yu immediately reverted the article
 * Ta bu shi da yu reverted Historicity of Jesus a further 2 Times
 * In order to bypass 3RR, this user then left a message at User talk:Viriditas to get Viriditas to continue the revert campaign
 * After I had been fighting viriditas, Rhobite (another accuser of mine at the RfC organised against me) blocked me

I consider tag-team reversion wars to be wholly unfair and inappropriate I do not consider application of 3RR against me valid, The tag-team had made 5 reverts before I had even made 4.

Also, please see WP:AN on the validity of the non-reverted version

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pedant's suggestion to arbitrators
CheeseDreams behavior can be fairly quickly understood by looking through the user's contributions list, which I offer as evidence. A substantial portion of the user's edits were spent in obstructive, or uncivil comments on talk pages and that the user provides very little in terms of adding lasting content to articles but rather behaves in an aggresive, petulant, mocking and bullying manner towards the user's colleagues. This has not only been a chronic problem from the beginning, it got much worse, and the community was forced to respond. Pedant 00:32, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I don't understand. You think the community was "forced" to bite a newbie, call him/her a troll and a vandal, revert his/her edits without discussion, tell him/her his/her scholarship is "inferior", round up a gang of previously uninvolved parties and harass him/her? Could you expand on how CheeseDreams forced them?Dr Zen 02:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In defense of the community, the first "bites" on the newbie occured long after her modus operandi was established. I don't have time at the moment to dig back that far in the histories, since Wikipedia is kind of sluggish at the moment, but as I recall, CheeseDreams and The Rev of Bru showed up very close to the same moment, starting with the same sort of edits. However, at that point I was able to work with them both. Something happened between then and now, and I don't know who is to blame, that but CheeseDreams on her crusade. The "bites" occured after the revert warring that started after this. Mpolo 15:12, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion CheeseDreams may very well actually be a troll. What I mean by the community being forced to respond is not that CheeseDreams forced the community, but that there was no way for the community to respond in any 'assume good faith' way to CheeseDreams and that it was necessary to alert the community to the problem that CheeseDreams has made of itself.  To speak purely for myself, my first interaction with CheeseDreams was when the user asked me to look at the situation at Cultural and historical background of Jesus, when CheeseDreams and SLRubenstein had a disagreement which was being polled for opinions, my opinion was that both of the two were somewhat right and in some ways wrong.  At that point I suggested that CheeseDreams and SLRubenstein team up together and collaborate on the article, as I had the impression they were very near agreement and were devoted to creating a good article.  At that point the article was neutral and factual for the most part, and was gently being massaged into final form with minor edits -- each of which was discussed on the talk page, and the talk page was quite manageable in size and easy to read.  CheeseDreams, in my opinion, did everything possible to create a permanent controversy on any article related to Christianity, Jesus, and the history surrounding the story of Jesus... and then refactored talk, summarised/archived with blithe disregard for accuracy, and with an apprently deliberate intent to obscure the history of the argument.  To see what REALLY happened, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of CheeseDreams contributions list and start reading there, I don't need to go back and read that, however, I have read almost everything CheeseDreams has written up until edit no. 1000, while it was happening.  I formed the opinion that this user is an actual troll a long time before anyone was calling CheeseDreams a troll..  Nobody called CheeseDreams a troll before CheeseDreams behaved as a troll.  People held on to courteous behaviour toward CheeseDreams until CheeseDreams' behaviour became quite impossible to tolerate with any civility.  People reverted CheeseDreams without discussion after it became obvious that CheeseDreams lacked good faith.  I never reverted CheeseDreams, my policy with trolls is to stop feeding their need for attention.  As for CheeseDreams "scholarship being inferior", I would not characterise it as scholarship, but research, and I would not call it inferior, but rather "well-chosen, with the intent to further fuel dispute".  As for rounding up a gang of previously uninvolved parties, as I point out, I myself was 'rounded up' by CheeseDreams... I'm not sure who you mean by uninvolved parties, or what you mean by uninvolved or what they were allegedly not involved in.  At any rate, I think that CheeseDreams is guilty of harassment before anyone else.  "Don't bite the newbie" only goes so far and as far as I'm concerned, once you are well-acquainted enough with the customs and processes of the Wikipedia community to abuse those processes and drastically flout those customs, your 'newbie credentials' are no longer valid.  A user with over 2000 edits in their first month, most of them on talk pages, most of those inflammatory is in no way a newbie.  I could greatly expand on the CheeseDreams problem, but that is exactly what trolls want: to expand the discussion about the discussion, and to stop the community dead in its tracks.  It would be quite sufficient for anyone who wants to know, for them to read CheeseDreams contributions list.  Plenty enough of the evidence is right there. However, for evidence of aggressive refactoring and inappropriate summarization, see:

 * Archive 5 -- CheeseDreams 21:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * which CheeseDreams characterises as

 * "increasingly verbose discussion of outstanding issues"

 * but which contains the bulk of SLRubenstein's comments on the article, but by summarising them as 'increasingly verbose' it discourages the reader. It appears to me as if the discussion was too deep for CheeseDreams to wade into at this point and so CheeseDreams swept it under the rug.

 * I am frankly surprised that a horde of other trolls has not also shown up to increase the muddle, usually at this time in a troll attack, that is what typically happens. This is for me the strongest evidence that CheeseDreams is not a methodical and committed troll, may not in fact be a troll at all regardless of evidence, and that this situation might be resolvable.  CheeseDreams may very well become a good contributer, and valued member of the community, if that is the choice CheeseDreams wants to make, and if CheeseDreams abandons her other account(s) and sticks to contributing value, from one account, rather than obstructing progress, in furtherance of CheeseDreams own religious beliefs. Pedant 16:30, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

 * I probably should add that, though I have been very open with CheeseDreams about what I consider to be bad behavior on her part, CheeseDreams has been for the most part civil to me. Pedant

 * You know, when I read "X is a troll", I stop having any respect for the finger-pointer. It just muddies the water. I do not agree that people were particularly courteous to CheeseDreams. I think they pretty much set about him/her from the outset. I find that often POV pushers will hide behind the policies of Wikipedia, posting curt commands: "don't make personal attacks", etc. To a newcomer, this does not come across as courtesy or civility but as aggression practised by someone who knows the game. So, our views of how it went differ.Dr Zen 06:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Dr Zen, as you yourself commented to CheeseDreams on her user page "If either of you was the least bit interested in "mediation" that particular dispute would have been settled a long time ago. " The point is that CheeseDreams is NOT interested in resolving this at all.  I direct you to this friendly and courteous thread, very early in CheeseDreams 'careen': this is from CheeseDreams talk page archive of November

 * Explain this edit in a way that makes it possible to assume good faith:

 * this was a wholesale rewrite of an entire article, yet the edit history states that it was an added link

 * since you are making comments in my comment section, and regardless of your statement that you have no repect for me, perhaps you would care to point me to any specific instance where I made any comments that were discourteous to CheeseDreams... or to any other user? Otherwise I would appreciate you not making irrelevant comments in this section, and please confine your comments to some other place unless they are a response to some comment I made.  (I never said "people were particularly courteous to CheeseDreams" so you disagreeing with me in that way makes it seem as if that was my statement.  Since I did not make that statement, it is not relevant in this section.) In this section my main point is that to understand CheeseDreams behaviour it is only necessary to read her contributions list. This was originally a one paragraph suggestion, to which you added an irrelevant comment.  I never intended to add this much text to this section, as this creates more work for the arbitrators... not my intent. Pedant 19:08, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dante Alighieri
I also brought to CD's attention that adding all those tags sans explanation could easily be considered a provocative or vandalizing act. I was able to come to a very amicable conclusion as far as I'm concerned. Cheese Dreams acted rationally and respectfully to me. I think the key here may be that I did not assume that CD was being intentionally provocative as some of the other parties did. This is offered as evidence of someone who tried to resolve the dispute and SUCCEEDED. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * And yet, the tags remained. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, as CD explained in edit summaries and talk pages what the motivation was. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FT2
Having presented what I believe to be a fair overview RFAr/CheeseDreams#Comment by FT2, I had no evidence to present, nor a wish to present any. This just changed. I should like to present evidence in resepct of either unpleasantness or provocation (depending how you classify it), and the observation this is not entirely an isolated incident, in mitigation of the things CheeseDreams may have done. Also the observation that whatever else may be the case, this post at least tends to support the view of those who say CheeseDreams was, in part at least and at times, responding to provocation.

 * Dr Zen: And you wonder why CheeseDreams describes you as a cabal of "fundamentalists"? You slap each other on the backs, all agreeing that your POV is the best thing to use in the article, and that to put any other in would set up "a straw man argument".
 * SIRubenstein: Forget her bias, forget her illogic, forget her inability to take criticism or to learn from others -- forget all these things and one truth remains: she is ignorant of this subject and has nothing to offer here. Slrubenstein 18:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen: I look forward to the day this unpleasant editor receives his due punishment for this pisspoor attitude. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(To clarify, my objection is not to the statements as to CheeseDream's knowledge. It is to the final words, that she is ignorant "and has nothing to offer here". The latter seems inappropriately dismissive and symptomatic of the whole debate. CheeseDreams has ofered at times quite valid input. She is clearly not an academic scholar and sometimes makes statements which SIrubenstein finds flawed or mistaken. But SIrubenstein has felt at times that is true of others whose input is dismissed for this reason.

Wikipedia needs and benefits from other kinds of people than academic scholars, both to review material, highlight issues, and form consensus, and because it shows how readers may view it. Sometimes an editor who lacks full information but points out concerns and other matters, or opens up questions for consideration, is just as important as those who have informational answers. It would be good if they would listen and be listened to. Both of these are necessary to avoid conflict, not just one)
 * I've placed my response on the talk page, Slrubenstein

 * Well, it doesn't explain why she's been attacking me. I've been quite forthright in my criticism of her input but don't think she should stop. I merely want her to write from a neutral point of view. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams creates TWO new anti-Bible templates violating injunction!
See: Templates for deletion

 Unfortunately, CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has exhibited a strong antipathy and hostile POV attitude when dealing with topics relating to Christianity and Judaism, see the INJUNCTION against him at Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision : "Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus." He may face a total ban, but in the meantime he is causing trouble with this new nonsense template.IZAK 15:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User:CheeseDreams (who has an injunction against him, see below) has adapted his name to User:Cheese dreams and under that guise without any comment or notice to any editors concerned with these highly sensitive religious subjects created TWO an anti-Hebrew Bible templates and  on January 6, 2005 see Revision as of 00:18 and  00:23, 6 Jan 2005:  and   that place highly controversial "introduction/s" to articles with clear POV statement/s that read: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is alleged that this article currently assumes the accuracy of, or concentrates only on the account according to, the Bible. A more critical interpretation, or alternate account, may exist and should be incorporated if it does." and more. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BPOV  and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BPOVbecause  He has spammed his templates over many pages in a short while, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Cheese_dreams
 * To Christianity, the Hebrew Bible and its contents are considered to be the Old Testament of Christianity, therefore by interfering and editing articles relating to the Old Testament, User CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has VIOLATED the injunction against him that states:"Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity..." He should be fully penalized for his devious actions. Thank you. IZAK 15:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AllyUnion
On the interest of aiding a fellow Wikipedian on IRC, a complaint came to my attention about this users' lack of research and enforcing a specific view on Jesus (disambiguation) article where this user was attempting to claim that Jesus ben Nun was the same as Joshua ben Nun. No evidence was presented supporting this claim, and several users were making edits and reverting due the fact that the claims had no factual background.

I took the liberty of trying an intervention, showing evidence of my research on this user's talk page here: And invited CheeseDreams to present me the evidence that support the supposed claim.

This user's reply on my talk page makes no attempt on such: I was not convinced of any evidence at all (backing the claims that this person was making), and User:CheeseDreams held that his/her facts were correct even though no evidence was presented.

The Committee might be interested to view the talk page where this user was attempting to dispute the matter: Talk:Jesus (disambiguation). Clear evidence regarding aggressive behavior and not following Wikiquette can also be found on that talk page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Blakeyrat

A self-described friend of yours put this on your user page; i moved it here since that page is for you to describe yourself as you please. They said:
 * Blakeyrat has always been a friend to the community.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and drop me a note if you'd like help finding your way around the place. --Jerzy(t) 01:36, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

He totally said it was cool! Superking 05:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blakeyrat


title: File:LastAmerican3.jpg


text:
Category:Seismic faults

Seismic faults are seismically active geologic faults. This is a category of all geologic faults which may be seismically active and cause earthquakes or be long inactive.

title: Category:Seismic faults


text:
A New Way to Pay Old Debts

A New Way to Pay Old Debts (c. 1625, printed 1633) is an English Renaissance drama, the most popular play by Philip Massinger. Its central character, Sir Giles Over-reach, became one of the more popular villains on English and American stages through the 19th century.

Performance
Massinger probably wrote the play in 1625, though its debut on stage was delayed a year as the theatres were closed due to bubonic plague. In its own era it was staged by Queen Henrietta's Men at the Cockpit Theatre in Drury Lane. It was continuously in the repertory there and at the Red Bull Theatre, under the managements of Christopher Beeston, William Beeston, and Sir William Davenant, down to the closing of the theatres at the start of the English Civil War in 1642.

Though Massinger's play shows obvious debts to Thomas Middleton's A Trick to Catch the Old One (c. 1605), it transcends mere imitation to achieve a powerful dramatic effectiveness – verified by the fact that, apart from the Shakespearean canon, it was almost the only pre-Restoration play that was continuously in the dramatic repertory through much of the modern era. After David Garrick's 1748 revival, the play remained popular throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. (It was praised by Thomas Jefferson.) Edmund Kean's version of Sir Giles, which debuted in 1816, was in particular a tremendous popular success, and drove the play's reputation through the remainder of the century.

The play remains in the active theatrical repertory; modern stagings are usually amateur or student productions, though the Royal Shakespeare Company performed the play in 1983, directed by Adrian Noble and with Emrys James as Sir Giles.

Publication
The play was first published in 1633 in quarto by stationer Henry Seyle (his shop was "in S. Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Tygers head"). The 1633 quarto carries a dedication of "this trifle" to Robert Dormer, 1st Earl of Carnarvon, Master Falconer of England (he'd succeeded to his hereditary title, Chief Avenor and Keeper of the King's Hawks and Falcons, at the age of six). In this dedication, Massinger states that he "born a devoted servant to the thrice noble family of your incomparable Lady," that lady being Anna Sophia Herbert, daughter of Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke, then serving as Lord Chamberlain. Massinger's connection to the Herbert family, derived from his father, is well known; whether Carnarvon responded in any positive way to the dedication is obscure.

The 1633 quarto was the only edition of the play in the seventeenth century. Its later popularity onstage guaranteed frequent reprints, with 52 editions between 1748 and 1964 (not counting collections); others have followed since.

Genre
Dramaturgically, A New Way to Pay Old Debts contains elements of melodrama, comedy of manners, realism, and social satire, in a distinctive combination.

The villain
The play also falls into the category of the "villain play", a drama in which the dominant figure is not a traditional protagonist or hero but his antagonist, a figure of evil. In the context of English Renaissance drama, the villain play grew out of the "ranting Herod" of the Medieval morality play. In the Elizabethan era, Christopher Marlowe was the great innovator in the villain play, with Tamburlaine, Doctor Faustus, and The Jew of Malta; Shakespeare's Richard III is another obvious example in the subgenre.

In A New Way to Pay Old Debts, Massinger took the villain play in a new direction of social realism: his villain is not a king or a conqueror but a credible figure from contemporary life. The play's dominating character, Sir Giles Over-reach, is based on the real-life Sir Giles Mompesson. (Sir Giles' assistant in villainy, Justice Greedy, was suggested by Mompesson's associate Sir Francis Michell.) The power of the role of Sir Giles may lie in Massinger's success in depicting a blatant villain who has a quality of everyday believability. Sir Giles is down-to-earth in his cold malice:

"I'll therefore buy some cottage near his manor, Which done, I'll make my men break ope his fences, Ride o'er his standing corn, and in the night Set fire on his barns, or break his cattle's legs. These trespasses draw on suits, and suits expenses, Which I can spare, but will soon beggar him."

The audience is presented with a character they might meet in their own lives, to their own cost.

Class conflict
The play illustrates the hardening of class distinctions that characterised the early Stuart era, leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War. In Elizabethan plays like The Shoemaker's Holiday (1599), it was acceptable and even admirable that a young nobleman marry a commoner's daughter; other plays of the era, like Fair Em (c. 1590) and The Merry Wives of Windsor (c. 1597–9), share this liberal attitude toward social mobility through marriage. In A New Way to Pay Old Debts, in contrast, Lord Lovell would rather see his family line go extinct than marry Over-reach's daughter Margaret, even though she is young, beautiful, and virtuous. In Act IV, scene i, Lovell specifies that his attitude is not solely dependent on his loathing of the father's personal vices, but is rooted in class distinction. Lovell rejects the idea of his descendants being "one part scarlet" (aristocratic) and "the other London blue" (common).

The drama's class conflict can seem obscure to the modern reader, since Sir Giles Over-reach appears as an upper-class, not a lower-class figure: he is a knight and a rich man with large country estates, who lives the lavish lifestyle of the landed gentry. There is even a family connection between hero and villain: Frank Welborn is the nephew of Sir Giles' late wife. Yet Sir Giles himself expresses the conflict by noting that he is a "city" man—he comes from the financial milieu of the City of London with its worldly and materialistic values, the domain of nascent capitalism in contrast to the older social order rooted in feudalism. He observes that there is "More than a feud, a strange antipathy / Between us", the men of money, "and true gentry".

For a conservative moralist like Massinger, the upper classes, the "true gentry", have a right to run society insofar as they fulfil the moral and ethical obligations of their traditional roles. It is Over-reach's rejection of those tradition moral and ethical standards, his embrace of ruthless competition, that makes him a villain.

Synopsis
Set in rural Nottinghamshire, the play opens with its protagonist, Frank Welborn, being ejected from an alehouse by Tapwell and Froth, the tavernkeeper and his wife. Welborn has been refused further service ("No booze? nor no tobacco?"); he quarrels with the couple and beats them, but is interrupted by Tom Allworth. The conversations in the scene supply the play's backstory, indicating that Welborn and Allworth are both members of the local gentry who have fallen victim to the financial manipulations of Sir Giles Over-reach. Welborn has lost his estates and been reduced to penury, while young Allworth has been forced to become the page of a local nobleman, Lord Lovell. Allworth offers Welborn a small sum, "eight pieces", to relieve his immediate wants, but Welborn indignantly rejects the offer from a junior contemporary; he says that as his own vices have led to his fall, he will rely on his own wits for his recovery.

Tom Allworth's widowed mother, Lady Allworth, retains her country house; she is visited there by neighbours and prospective suitors, including Sir Giles. While she has her servants greet these guests with appropriate hospitality, she remains "cloister'd up" in the seclusion of her mourning. When Sir Giles visits, he is accompanied by his two prime henchmen, the lawyer Jack Marall and Justice Greedy, the local justice of the peace. Together, Greedy and the Lady's servants provide most of the play's comic relief. Greedy is a lean man with an enormous appetite; a gourmand and a glutton, he is obsessed with food.

Lady Allworth instructs her son to avoid the dissolute Welborn; but Welborn forces his way into her presence, and reminds her of his relationship with her late husband. When the late Allworth had been down on his luck, Welborn had supported him, even seconding him in all his duels. The recollection makes Lady Allworth repent her harsh attitude toward the reprobate Welborn, and she offers him financial help; he rejects this, but requests a favour of her instead. The request is made in a whisper; the audience discovers its nature as the plot progresses.

Over-reach is shown with Marall, discussing his plan to marry his daughter Margaret to Lord Lovell. He also gives a first glimpse into the ruthless way he conducts his business affairs. Welborn seeks out Over-reach, but Sir Giles refuses to speak with him; Marall mocks his poverty. Yet Marall has to change his tune when he sees Lady Allworth come out of mourning to meet Welborn. When she kisses Welborn, Marall is convinced that the two will marry. When Marall informs Over-reach of what he's seen, however, Over-reach refuses to believe him, and even beats him. Eventually, though, Over-reach himself sees Welborn and Lady Allworth together, and accepts the "truth" of their connection. Sir Giles favours their marriage, since he is sure that once Welborn possesses the Lady's remaining property he can cheat the dissolute man of this property too.

Margaret Over-reach has no interest in marrying Lord Lovell, since she is in love with Tom Allworth, as he is with her. Lord Lovell knows of his page's affections, and is willing to act as a go-between for the two. Young Allworth is nervous at this, suspecting that his patron will not be able to resist Margaret's charms; but Lovell is an honourable man, and sincerely promotes their match. Over-reach thinks that Allworth is carrying messages between the Lord and his daughter, though the young page is actually pursuing his own romance. Together, the young couple manages to fool Sir Giles into thinking that Lovell wants a reluctant Margaret to elope with him; Over-reach pressures his daughter to conform, and even sends hurried written instructions to a compliant clergyman at the village of Gotham, to marry his daughter to "this man." Of course he means Lovell, though the ambiguity favours the young lovers.

To facilitate the marriage of Welborn and Lady Allworth, Sir Giles advances Welborn a thousand pounds. He also discusses his plans with Lovell, revealing more of his intentions and his dark character, so that Lovell breaks into a "cold sweat" listening to him. (With each of his appearances in the play, Over-reach's expressions of his villainy become more flagrant and overwrought, leading up to the denouement of the final scene.) Marall sees Welborn's apparent ascension in fortune, and, chafing at Over-reach's insulting and brutal treatment of him, decides to switch allegiances; his command of Over-reach's legal papers gives Marall a key advantage in seeking his own revenge.

When Over-reach believes that Lovell and Margaret are married, he enters a state of near rapture: "My ends! my ends are compass'd! . . . I can scarce contain myself, / I am so full of joy; nay, joy all over!" The play's final scene shows his sudden reversal, when he realises that he has been fooled and that Margaret has married Allworth. Enraged, he demands that Welborn provide security for the loan of £1000 from the Lady's estates; Welborn rejects this, and demands that Over-reach return possession of his lands. Sir Giles dismisses this as folly—but discovers that the text of his deed to Welborn's lands has mysteriously faded away (thanks to the trickery of Marall). Over-reach is ready to work his revenge with his sword, but Welborn, Lovell, and the Lady's servants altogether are too formidable for him. He storms out, but returns in a distracted state of mind. The stresses of his reversal of fortune have caused him to lose his sanity, and he is taken into protective custody.

Welborn decides to demonstrate his reformation by taking a military commission in the regiment Lovell commands. Lovell and Lady Allworth have agreed to marry. Allworth and Margaret state that they will turn control of Over-reach's estates to Lord Lovell, to make reparations for all to the people Sir Giles has cheated and oppressed.

Critical responses
The play's prominence in theatrical history has won it the attention of scholars and critics. Some of the criticism has been favourable; one editor judged it "a highly finished, integrated piece of work, with everything handsomely symmetrical about it." Yet critics have not been shy about finding faults; one called Sir Giles Over-reach "the character whom his author could not control." Massinger's blending of lighter dramatic materials, like comedy of intrigue, with the play's more serious aspects, has also been faulted.

title: A New Way to Pay Old Debts


text: Talk:Music of Mass Destruction

title: Talk:Music of Mass Destruction