text:
Skiptrace

Skiptracing is the process of locating a person's whereabouts. Skiptracing tactics may be employed by a skip tracer, contact tracer (in a public health context), debt collector, process server, bail bondsman or bail agency enforcer (bounty hunter), repossession agent, private investigator, lawyer, police detective, journalist, stalker or by any person attempting to locate a subject whose contact information is not immediately known. Similar techniques have also been used by investigators to locate witnesses in criminal trials.

Terminology
Other terms include to skip trace, or debtor and fugitive recovery. A skip tracer is someone who performs this task, which may be the person's primary occupation. The term "skip" (as a noun) refers to the person being searched for, and is derived from the idiomatic expression "to skip town", meaning to depart (perhaps in a rush or perhaps hoping to elude creditors or law enforcement). As such, the skip tracers need to track down ("trace") the "skip" to their new location. The term "skip" is "attested by the mid 14th century, meaning 'to run, go, rush, flee,' and also 'to make off, hasten away'."

Methods
Skiptracing is performed in stages. The first step is gather the basic information about the person, such as first, middle, and last name, variants (e.g. Robert may go by "Rob"), aliases, and nicknames. The person's date of birth, last known physical addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers are also important. The person's social media pages may yield clues about their whereabouts. The skip tracer also gathers historical information such as the names of schools the person attended, as this can generate leads about friends who might know their whereabouts. Skip tracers also gather information about the person's friends, family and business associates.

Then the skip tracer will start collecting as much information as possible about the subject using Internet searches, databases, public records, and their network of contacts. Often, the job becomes more than research since one must usually employ methods of social engineering, which involves calling or visiting former neighbors or other known contacts to ask about the person, sometimes under false or misleading pretenses.

Records or Information that skip tracers use may include phone number databases, credit reports (including information provided on a loan application, credit card application, and in other debt collector databases), job application information, criminal background checks, utility bills, Social Security, disability, and public tax information. While some of these records may be publicly available, some cannot be accessed without an appropriate search warrant, or a specific permissible purpose, which is generally only available to financial institutions, their contracted third-party vendors, law enforcement or licensed private investigators.

Even when no specific information is returned, public and private databases exist that cross-reference skiptracing information with others the "skip" may have lived with in the recent past. For instance, if previous records show a "skip" lived in the same house as a third party, the third party may also be skiptraced in an effort to locate the primary target.

The next step is to verify the information. The information is then analyzed and verified, eliminating some leads as outdated or associated with the wrong person. Sometimes the person's current whereabouts are in the data, but are obfuscated by the sheer amount of information or disinformation.

In the past, skiptracing included such things as dumpster diving and pretext calls to utility companies. Currently, skip tracing is largely conducted online using paid databases and phone calls to gather and verify information. Modern social media platforms such as Facebook have greatly simplified skiptracing work.

title: Skiptrace


text:
Meggers (crater)

Meggers is an impact crater that lies on the far side of the Moon. It was named after American physicist William F. Meggers.

The rim of Meggers is roughly circular in form, with slight outward bulges to the southeast and northeast. The crater merges with a comparably sized formation to the northwest, and the intervening rim is somewhat irregular in form. The interior floor of Meggers is slightly irregular.

Nearby craters of note include Olcott to the southwest, Innes, and Seyfert farther away to the northwest. To the east lies Vernadskiy. To the west is the crater Meggers S, a formation almost as large as Meggers itself. It has a rough interior and a tiny crater lies across the southern rim.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Meggers.

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

title: Meggers (crater)


text:
User talk:Rex071404

Hey!
Hi friend, I was hoping you could tell me how to incorporate an image (like you've done) into the signature. Please write on my talk page! Thanks. Gautam Discuss 06:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Clubjuggle T / C  05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Nqlies2a.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nqlies2a.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thinksay2a.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thinksay2a.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Nqlies.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nqlies.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Rex071404! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gil Clancy -

Proposed deletion of SF-180

The article SF-180 has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that this form is particularly notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Back to Wikipedia yet? 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rex071404


text:
Interstate 275

Interstate 275 (I-275) may refer to:
 * Interstate 275 (Florida), a loop through Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Bradenton in Florida
 * Interstate 275 (Michigan), a western bypass of Detroit, Michigan
 * Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky), a full beltway around Cincinnati, Ohio
 * Interstate 275 (Tennessee), a connection to downtown Knoxville, Tennessee, from the north

title: Interstate 275


text:
Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll/archive1

I'm not sure we should have two yes options (yes and yes but only for a trial period) I predict that most people will be cautious and vote for the trial period. We could just put it's a trial period in the intro straight off and keep the voting options simple. Also two months isn't very long. Disruptive editing can be complex - well more complex than straight vandalism anyway. I don't think two months is really long enough to evaluate how well the policy is working. I suggest doubling it to four months. Any thoughts? theresa knott 19:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think the right solution to this was to add yet another option. Option glut is bad - it makes it increasingly difficult to decide whether you have a real consensus for anything. If two months turns out to not be enough, we can extend it another two when the time comes. But let's not make this poll overwhelming. Snowspinner 23:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. My suggestion was to get rid of the "yes" and "yes but" options and merge them into a new "yes but we'll review in 4 months" That way there would have been two option yes and no, but now there are four. Oh well it's too late now.No one has voted for the four month option though. We could just remove it? theresa knott 00:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding options after the poll has started. This was one of the best run polls I've ever seen up until that point. The list of options has been available for ten days now, before the poll started was the time to modify them. Since no one has voted on the option and I don't see any objections I'm going to remove it. anthony (see warning) 01:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not complicated!
Come on people. I urge those who voted against to reconsider.

For the average user, this policy simply involves asking people nicely to stop doing whatever it is. Being able to speak softly while holding a big stick is going lower the temperature around here a lot. Most of the time we wont even get to step 1.

But, which bit exactly do people suggest we drop?
 * 1) see a problem user
 * 2) give the user a friendly warning
 * 3) if the problem doesn't stop ….
 * 4) give the user another warning and point them to the right policy
 * 5) put a notice on direction just like the ones already there
 * 6) gather a bit of evidence so you can explain to the community why this user may need to be blocked
 * 7) if the problem doesn’t stop
 * 8) give them a stern warning and tell them they’ll be blocked
 * 9) gather a bit more evidence so you can explain to the community why this user must be blocked
 * 10) if the problem doesn’t stop
 * 11) a couple of others will back you up
 * 12) block ‘em

If the user reoffends, don't cut them as much slack and block them for longer.

If there is controversy over the presented evidence then some voting will be needed.

best wishes Erich 20:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I wanted to simplify this I'd drop 2, 3.2, 4, the thresholds (other than that multiple warnings do not need to be made for the same behavior), the increasing block lengths, the section on reincarnations, the good behavior clause, and the voting, for starters. I'd simplify the definition to violating any policy. anthony (see warning) 21:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * so you'd say we only give people one warninging then we block them? (forgot to sign Erich 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))

 * I certainly don't see the point of giving ten warnings (or even two). If someone is knowingly breaking policy I don't see the harm in a 24-hour block.  If they weren't actually breaking policy, then this can be brought up through discussion, mediation, or arbitration, if another admin doesn't unblock them right away.  anthony (see warning) 23:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * ahh.... well I agree with 2 warnings being enough... It is important the first warning is friendly and non threatening... otherwise we're biting newbies and just being a bit unpleasant really. I think a second stirn warning should be enough (I started with 2 from memory and the requirement for others was added by an unamed arbitrator)... so I definetly concede we could do with less warnings.... Erich 20:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think admins should ever be warning people in a non-friendly or threatening way. anthony (see warning) 20:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it says on the page: "This is a relatively complex proposal for a difficult problem." Could the summary from the policy be added to the poll page?  Jrincayc 13:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * yeah it does its complicated doesn't it... I'm working all weeks (12 hour shifts) so no time to write a user guide... monday I've got a week off so will write a user guide then.

 * I am disapointed though :-(

 * its not a complicated policy to follow though. (warn-> gather evidence -> warn -> gather evidence -> warn -> gather evidence -> all agree -> block )

 * The devil is always in the detail so I put in a lot of detail to banish the devil. If the small points aren't covered people will have to argue them out later.

 * and its true that short policies are best... but where is the short policy that can put this issue to bed? there isn't one because its not possible... we can kid ourselves that it is and keep look but let me clue in ... it not possibe (compare this policy with the average piece of legislation ... it is very short in comparision). most of the detail in this policy is to prevent later arguement ... well another round of refinement may be in order... ;-) best wishes Erich 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * There's no short policy that will solve the problem. There's no long policy that will solve the problem.  There isn't even an agreement on what the problem is. anthony (see warning) 23:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * so we give up? Erich 20:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No, so we define the problem, get consensus that it's a problem, and then address it in the simplest way possible. We don't make the problem worse by adding layer upon layer of buerocracy. anthony (see warning) 20:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, we had over two weeks working on the definition of the problem. and the troll polls did conclude that we have a problem and "something" needed to be done. I've been wrestling we with peoples concerns about the complexity and this is where I've got to: This is a simple policy to operate. Making it simpler would make it actually more complex. There are plenty of examples of systems that get easier to use as they get more complex. eg
 * automatic versus manual gear boxes
 * windows based operating systems versus command line interpreters

What do most Wikipedians need to know about this policy? Not much:
 * If somebody is doing something disruptive or antisocial then ask them to stop. If they do not stop gather up the URLs to the diffs to the problem and provide the list to a friendly administrator, or add the list yourself to the direction page.

If you are an administrator:
 * If a user approaches you about a difficult user then ask them to show you some diffs. If the complaint is reasonable then ensure somebody has given the difficult user a friendly warning and pointed them to the policy. Consider listing the user and the diffs on the dirctection page.
 * Periodically have a look at the diffs on the directions page.
 * Vote to support a formal warning if a first time offender the user has made 8 disruptive edits. If they have made two or more disruptive or antisocial edits after the formal warning vote to support the block. (You made need to check the definition in the policy)
 * Repeat offenders and sock puppets get less leaway. Check the policy.
 * There will be enough people lurking who understand the policy to correct any misinterpretations as they arise, and of course the AC may always intervene.

I really think Wikipedia can and should make this work. It's fair and transparent and is really worth the effort. Leaving things to 'common sense' is a recipe for endless debates about whose sense is 'common'. I just do not believe that dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors can be made any simpler... well that's what I think. Erich 00:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

quick polls, response to Mike Snow
Have a look at [Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls]] yourself, but I am at a bit of loss to understand your comment Mike. The results of the review poll were:
 * 1) yes. continue using quickpolls (17)
 * 2) yes in limited circumstances (16) inc some double votes
 * 3) no (13)

I couldn’t see anybody complaining that quick polls were too complicated. I could see a lot of complaints that it just didn’t work. The problems as I read them were
 * 1) it was too slow - WP:DWDAE takes three warnings and three admnins
 * 2) it was a popularity contest (that's why the limit on who can vote)
 * 3) it brought up frivoulous complaints (this is tight in DWDAE)

so geez... am I missing something? Erich 12:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't mean to suggest that quickpolls failed purely because of their complexity, although I do believe complexity may have contributed to it. My point is that quickpolls were about as complex a process as the community can handle in dealing with disruptive editors, without delegating/assigning that responsibility to something like the Arbitration Committee.

 * In my observation, as the quickpolls proposal was implemented, most problems that cropped up with its practical application were dealt with by developing more procedures. Thus the process increased in complexity as it evolved, even if that's not the primary reason people became increasingly dissatisfied with the process.

 * I think it's fairly clear that this proposal is already more complicated than quickpolls ever were. Furthermore, it's only theoretical, and inevitably will have to deal with new concerns should it actually be implemented. The most likely response will be to add more regulations to the process, as this is a common reaction in community dynamics of this sort. So I see a process that is not only overly complex now, but that I expect to get progressively worse as time goes on. As a result, I don't think it should be adopted. --Michael Snow 18:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dunno Michael. I'm at a bit of a loss really.

This step wise approach is pretty standard practice for managing difficult people. Its well proven and works better than most people realise. The only bit that is really original is the sock-puppet provision (to address a specific Wikipedia issue).

I really think it would be false economy to try to simplify this any further. A simple solution that does not work is not actually a simple solution.

Although I'm becoming resigned to the current round of polling going down I'd still ask you to reconsider supporting a two month trial. best wishes Erich 02:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uninvited company wrote:
Erich, all,

The policy is far more mechanical and convoluted than other Wikipedia policies. While I applaud your effort and share your overall goal, the policy as written is way too complicated and hard to follow:
 * UC (I’ll interpolate my reply into your comments) Well I think this is why we need a trial. To make the policy work, it is not a requirement for people to understand the detail of the policy. For example, we drive our cars/ride our bikes on the roads every day with a tiny understanding of most of the 100's of pages of legislation that govern road use. Erich 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) In practice, as the policy reads now, giving warnings/awaiting consensus/giving warnings/etc requires far more effort on the part of the upstanding wikipedians than evasion of the same by the troublemaker.  It takes a lot of time and effort to come up with the minimum of nine (I think? it isn't clear whether a diff is required to document every actionable violation) diff links required to follow the whole process.  It would take over an hour for most admins to put together the diff links and the rationale for each one, because it is a manual cut-and-paste process requiring typically about 10 page loads per diff (to find the right ones).  And it is not fun (try it sometime).  An hour of boring work to justify a 24 hour block is just not worthwhile.
 * Well I’m starting to think 10 may be too many. Personally I’d be happy with 6 or 8. 4 would be very strict, but I wouldn’t oppose it. But I think it would be a bit misguided to go searching for the 10 diffs in the first place. The way I imagine this working is that if one user was having trouble with somebody they could present their list of 2 to 4 diffs to kick off the process. Often that would be the end of the matter. If the use kept having problems they could keep gathering the diffs. If they were feeling annoyed they could give the other users’ edit history a scan as well to find more. If other users were having a problem they would add some more diffs etc. The onus is not on the admin to go and find them all… unless they are in the mood of course. The two difficult users I’ve encountered (both subject to adverse AC rulings) would have racked up ten extremely quickly — months before the AC finally acted. Importantly this isn’t a race to get the user blocked. (In fact you could argue the less people that get blocked on the policy the more effective it has been).
 * For the recalictrants the bar gets lower and lower. So repeat offenders waste less and less time.

 * 1) There are too many outs for the problem users.  "But I was warned two months ago and rehabilitated myself" -- "hey, you gave me a  but my edit wasn't as bad as Louie's and you only gave him a --" -- "but the first warning was for something different than the second warning" -- "those two users are carrying out a witch hunt" -- "but I haven't used that userid for 120 days so now I get to start over" -- "but I made 50 minor edits" -- "but that wasn't a personal attack, it was fact."  Better to adopt a judgement-based policy and give examples to use for guideposts.
 * Now you’d know there is absolutely no need to reply to this sort of drivel. And who said admins should stop using judgement? Each admin reviews the diff for themselves. The ---‘s are just there as a guide – I think they’d be useful if the there were more than the required number of diffs but some were a bit borderline. You could just scan the ones with the most minuses first until you were happy the threshold was reached.
 * And who said admins should stop using judgement? What the policy says to admins is (a) users have to be warned a couple of times before they are blocked (b) you need to demonstrate why somebody should be blocked (c) you cannot block first-time offenders until they have made at least ten counter productive edits and (d) except in very limited circumstances, you need to have the support of your peers before you apply a block. Erich 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Initial policy should focus on the basics.  Lone ranger blocks?    Drop it.  Socks?  Deal with it under a sock policy.  Get the main part of this policy on the road first, and then add these sorts of tweaks later.
 * The policy was developed by a group editing process that involved both hawks and doves. I’m a bit reluctant to cull it untried because having thought about it a fair bit it is all reasonable.
 * Socks have to be dealt with. There is no way around it. We either deal with them up front… or wait till the socks appear and then scratch our heads!
 * The lone-ranger blocks I’m not a big fan of. But I can see the rationale.. and the doves and hawks beat out a good compromise between them. Erich 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Compare what you have done to successful policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:RFA. And consider marginally successful policies such as the deletion policy and WP:RFC. And as for quickpolls, I believe that it failed because the results weren't what the community expected and wanted. My view is that it was a) too easy to game, and b) gave troublemakers another soapbox. Your proposal, IMO, could potentially suffer these same failings if it were implemented.
 * I’ve tried to reply to the complexity issue in as many different ways as I can. Perhaps the best thing I can now say is: why not give it a go? If it doesn’t work then we’ll have a better idea of how to fix it or we can just ditch it. I actually think it would be very hard to game. The tension between stamping on socks and not biting the newbies is a real problem. But between us I think we came up with a pretty fair compromise. Any system that concludes with a block will face the same issues. All of Wikipedia is a potential soapbox I can’t see how this policy makes that worse?
 * I hope that one day Wikipedia may be taken seriously as a source of information. The question reviewers will ask is: "OK, you say this is the encyclopaedia that the Internet wrote, but you admit you excluded some people. How do you refute the claim that this is a biased view by an unrepresentative cabal?" If we can point to this procedure and show the grounds for blocks that were actually used, then this question is answered. I think this is a significant reason for not being satisfied with relying on "common sense" without being able to provide evidence.
 * Thanks once more for taking the time to spell out your concerns. I genuinely appreciate your effort. I hope these replies make some sense. Rather than deleting already written sections that seem reasonable, I'd still rather we gave it a go as is and then went from there... Erich 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The thing that concerns me most about Erich's statement here is that it suggests that this policy is responding to an allegation that our critics haven't made. Wikipedia certainly has it's critics, and certainly about the accuracy of its information. But "a biased view by an unrepresentative cabal"? Don't make me laugh.

 * "In practice, as the policy reads now, giving warnings/awaiting consensus/giving warnings/etc requires far more effort on the part of the upstanding wikipedians than evasion of the same by the troublemaker." I think this quote from above says it all. You may state now that 10 diffs is too much, but remember who pushed this to a vote ASAP. Anyway, this was a step in the right direction, but far, far, far too complex. Maybe next time we'll get it right. Ambi 06:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Gedday Ambiv, (have you changed your name? I quite liked your old one!) Please don't misunderstand me. I am not making the above accusation. I've seen more than enough so I agree it is utter rubbish. However, I've seen the accusation made more than once and it gets peoples backs up. So I just think it is important we can demonstrate that it is not true. Being able to demonostrate the grounds for excluding disruptive users is an excellent way of dismissing the concern.
 * I think justice is important in any endeavor and the ability to review the grounds for a decision is a key component of dishing out justice. If the grounds aren't presented then the decision cannot be reviewed. This policy doesn't just address editorial rules it excludes people from the process - admittedly not for very long... but it wouldn't really take very long for people to find themselves on the wrong end of rolling 4 day blocks.
 * I must say I don't really regret sticking to the original timeline. We gave everyone over two weeks, which was long enough for people interested in contributing to make a contribution. We needed to flush out the silent majority to see what they thought - and this poll did that. At this stage I'm thinking we let this vote run through then have another two weeks of editing based on the experience of the poll then back we come... there's no rush really.
 * Maybe at the next poll we will have a couple of options to consider? There is a strong push to simplify this drastically. I think I'm too attached to the current alegedly complex version to want to take part in a "simple justice" proposal so maybe the best course is for the proponents of the "simple justice" system should fork the proposal. We could bring back both versions for polling starting midday (UTC) August 22. just an idea... best wishes Erich 07:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but on a trial period does not equal yes
I don't think it's appropriate to add the yes and yes, buto n a trial period votes together. In fact, I think it's best to get rid of the on a trial period vote at all, because it always has been and always will be the case that any policy can be changed or removed (or created) if through the proper channels. You could easily rephrase the question "no, unless on a trial period", and then add it to the no votes. { MB | マイカル } 17:16, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Gedday Mbecker, You may have a point. Its a bit late now. We had the draft poll up for a week before it opened for taking comment and formualating the rules. Erich 01:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As no consensus has been reached, it's not too late to fix it next time. If this proposal isn't going to get scrapped, then there's going to need to be another vote anyway. But I think MB is missing the the point of combining the votes. Someone voting yes would almost surely also support yes as a trial period. So if there would have been consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then we should run a trial period. anthony (see warning) 17:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony - but I interpreted what was written that if there would have been a consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then there would have been a trial period. Which interpretation is correct? It would certainly have been grossly "unfair" if a vote derived from combining the two votes would have lead to running the system without a trial period. Elf-friend 17:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * that's right Elf-friend- a combined vote success of a+b would lead to a trial period. Erich 19:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * "I agree with Anthony - but I interpreted what was written that if there would have been a consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then there would have been a trial period." I'm not sure where I was unclear, but I interpreted it the same way. anthony (see warning) 18:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since there is no clear consensus, even if the yes-permanently and yes-trialperiod votes are considered together, this discussion is largely academic.

Bearing that in mind, I would suggest that since there is no precedent for "trial periods" for policy, one should not be implemented without a particularly clear mandate from the community.

UninvitedCompany 03:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually there is one precedent, which is that quickpolls were implemented with a trial period of 30 days, and when we reviewed them afterwards, the consensus in favor was not as clear, so the policy died (albeit with a few spasmodic jerks post-mortem). I think trial periods can be handy when attempting solutions to intractable problems, but keep in mind that they give the critics of any policy a second clear chance to kill it. --Michael Snow 00:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree on both counts... that is why you have a poll isn't it? ;-) Erich 04:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mending problem areas
I think we should go back to the drawing board and address the objections, such as the policy being too long and complicated (it is) and it's placing more power/status in the hands of sysops (it shouldn't). As I pointed out before, if this policy were implemented, it would provide my first and only reason for wanting to be a sysop. Lets find a way to remove that incentive, shall we? ;)

Sam [Spade] 03:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gedday Sam, In terms of simplifieying... I'd suggest culling:
 * 1) the lone-ranger blocks going (never been a fan)
 * 2) the need for the link to two friedly warnings in the step one warning
 * 3) maybe reducing the number of counterproductive edits from 10 to 8 or 6 for first offenders.
 * 4) maybe reducing the number of admins to block to 2 (not keen on that really)

I couldn't cope with much more simplification than that. I especially think the sock and multiple offender provisions need to stay. What do you think? Erich 04:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1 definitely needs to stay. If that goes, in any future amendment to this, I'll vote against it, regardless of anything else. 2, 3 and 4 are good ideas. However, while this slightly simplifies the procedure, the wording of the policy is still far, far too long, and I don't believe such small amendments will address the majority of no votes, although they would certainly be a step in the right direction. Ambi 07:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * that's not very helpful ambi. Consensus? Erich 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of a formal warning (this is not #2, I presume). One problem I've always had with admins is that they like to "warn" people for things that aren't really policies.  This at least clarifies the point that yes, this is really something the admins are going to act on and not just a rogue admin.  One thing I'd like specified is that warnings themselves may be appealed to the arb committee.  Presumably anything may be appealed to the arb committee, but I think explicitly saying it here will give that a bit more liklihood to be accepted.  anthony (see warning) 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I do think there needs to be two warnings - one friendly the next one a bit sternerr. I'm talking about deleting the current provision that the first warning that requires two informal warings before the first warning. As for spelling things out... well you say it yourself... anything can go to the AC and with people baying baying for brevity I think the less we have to spell out the better! Erich 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we're just arguing semantics. I agree the user should be pointed to the policy before getting a formal warning.  But I don't think that should be in the form of a warning.  It shouldn't be threatening, it shouldn't be made with authority, it should just be a simple "hey, there's this policy against what you're doing, check it out." anthony (see warning) 10:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree there should be a friendly reminder of the policy before a formal warning. I just don't think this needs to be spelled out in legalistic detail in the policy.  Just say that a user should have been made aware of the policy before a formal warning can be sent. anthony (see warning) 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Jimbo likes the voting scheme, and I suppose voting is better than just blocking. My biggest problem with voting is that it seems to remove responsibility from the admins.  They can feel free to vote for someone just because they disagree with them, and even if the arb committee smacks them down, there's nothing that can really be done, as they were merely voting.  I'm not sure how to solve this.  anthony (see warning) 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I agree with your earlier support for the AC. This policy should lighten the load on the AC not eliminatte it!! I think the best way will be deal with this is through gradual refinement of the policy and the related ones. Erich 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * But it seems all the AC can do is express its disapproval of a block. The block will have already been over by the time it hears the case, and the AC can't really censure and/or deadmin someone just for voting. anthony (see warning) 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I really hate the provisions for extending the blocks past 24 hours (multiple offender provisions). I don't see admin blocks as a tool to solve ongoing problems.  Maybe one way that it could be solved though is that a formal warning stays even beyond the first block (for some time period, maybe 90 days unless revoked by the arb committee).  Then admins wouldn't have to go through the whole process over again for "repeat offenders".

 * The sockpuppet parts are bad, IMO, and perhaps it would be best to leave them to a separate proposal. It may be a necessary provision eventually, but without them this policy still can take care of a large percentage of the cases which don't involve them (and I suspect sockpuppets will be blocked unilaterally anyway).
 * I dunno Anthony.. if we don't deal with socks then it does all seem like a waste of time to me. Socks have just gotta be dealt with a the current proposal was carefully crafted to avoid biting newbies while not giveing the socks equal rigthts - if they are complicated... well sorry mate - it is not a simple problem. Erich 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not a simple problem, and that's one of the reasons I don't think we should be spelling it out now. First of all, we should see what the details of the actual problem actually are before making policy on it.  It seems like we're just playing mind experiments about how this is going to go now.  Secondly, I think there needs to be a lot more input into any type of sockpuppet proposal.  Adding sockpuppets to this proposal is just too much.  Finally, I think the two can easily be separated.  This proposal can weed out the longstanding problem users and mainly all that's left is enforcing rules against new users who do virtually nothing but problematic edits. anthony (see warning) 10:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * As for the rest, I'm not sure we need it. I've said already that I think the definitions section can be reduced to a simple "violating policy".  The warning provision protects users in the case of that being overbroadly interpreted.  At worst a user just has to stop the behavior which is warned until appeal is made to the arb committee.  If I'm missing any other details, let me know.  Maybe the best idea would be to make an outline of the important points and then rewrite everything.  In fact, maybe we could have a quick poll on the outline, to solve the major issues first, and then worry about the details.

 * anthony (see warning) 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * So on what grounds would you support 24 hour blocks for violating policy, Anthony? I'm a little bit confused here. Ambi 10:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * oooh... good question! (I'd quite like to know that for all the people that voted against really) Erich 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi, I'll come up with a simplified proposal. I don't think it should only be admins voting, but I'll try to work with that. I've largely outlined it above.  A formal warning, agreed to by the number of admins needed to certify a block.  This warning should be explicitly reviewable by the AC, and should not expire upon someone being blocked.  It should expire after a certain period of time, not to exceed 90 days (though I might initially propose 30).  Non-admins should be encouraged to comment on the warning and vote in a separate section from the admins.  Their votes will not be counted, but they might be considered by the arbitration committee if there is a lot of opposition.  If the warning is not heeded, then admins can block upon agreement (2d+3).  anthony (see warning) 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * On the basis of that description, I think that would be an excellent solution, and one which would be fairly likely to pass. I also like your idea of encouraging non-admin participation, as far as comments go. The one problem with opening up the actual vote is that would effectively reinstate the failed quickpolls. The only place I disagree with you there is the 2d+3 basis for blocking, but that's another matter.

 * Also, there was one of your posts above that I forgot to respond to earlier - that of responsibility. I think sysops do need to be responsible here, particularly for a nomination, but also for a vote. If it's a particularly frivolous proposal, then they deserve to be dragged over the coals by the AC for that. Ambi 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/simplified draft. Note that many of the cut portions, which were probably meant to deal with hypothetical situations, can always be added later. As for the 2d+3, what would you like to see?  I personally would like to see a higher number, but this seems like the appropriate compromise.

 * Regarding responsibility, I don't think things will ever be as clear-cut as to call it frivolous. But as long as the warnings are reviewable an editor would only need to cease a particular behavior while waiting for the arbitration committee to review it, so not very much harm would be done (I've also limited the blocks to 24 hours at a time, which also limits the potential harm). anthony (see warning) 14:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

another way forward
Here are some ideas:

 * Let's focus on the sock puppet problem for a while instead. Nearly all disruptive users use sock puppets.  There are some suggestions for dealing with this at Wikipedia talk:sock puppet and also some related discussion at Draft privacy policy.  The most effective Wikipedia policies are those that use differential effort (make problem activities harder for troublemakers to enact than for others to undo).  Some technical and policy ideas for this regarding socks have been proposed.

 * I also believe that the increased focus on No personal attacks is valuable, and believe that there is room for some careful work there.

 * While there have been few concrete proposals, there has been discussion of admin "accountability." While I believe "accountability" misses the mark somewhat, I think that we can and should make more of an effort to limit ongoing adminship to people who respect project norms.  If we reform or dismiss any impulsive sysops we might have, and have a process in place for that, it becomes more palatable to give the remaining admins some discretion.  I think the recent "accountability" pseudo-vote has done a disservice to the community by polarizing and making light of a serious issue.

 * Once these areas are properly addressed, I believe the matter of "disruptive users" may be riper for consideration.

Respectfully

UninvitedCompany 18:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * UC, more power to your elbow with the above. I think we need to aim for progress on all fronts. Erich 06:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A couple thoughts. I would differentiate between people who create sockpuppets (Lir) and those who use serial accounts (EntmootsOfTrolls reincarnations). More actively discouraging sockpuppets will probably work better in dealing with the first type. Also, I would say that a number of disruptive users (Paul Vogel, the so-called Mr. Treason) are operating purely from IP addresses. So while I don't mind pursuing that angle, I'm less confident that it will be particularly effective.

With respect to admin accountability, my current emphasis is to seek out and nominate new candidates I think will have good judgment, to improve the quality of the overall admin pool. Dismissing current admins is virtually impossible, and at the very least, I don't see any model for how to pursue that until the arbitration committee actually decides to use that sanction in one of its rulings. As for reforming anyone, we can try and bring community pressure to bear, but some of the most impulsive are also among those most set in their ways.

We could begin with the idea of withdrawing adminship from those admins who are no longer active in the project. That might start a shift away from the culture in which admins have life tenure. --Michael Snow 00:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * dealing with 'disuptive admins' is a bit of a different topic. I personally do not see much point in withdrawing admin status from inactive users though. People get busy in their real lives... if they have proved themselves to be sensible people with sound judgement then why demote them just because they have other committments? I think admins need to be judged on the quality of their contributions rather than quanitity. It would be a reasonable expectation that returning admins review changes to policy though I guess... Personally I think the recipe of warning twice and then acting with escalation of penalties for repeat offences applies equaly well to admins. The only difference is I think the AC may be better placed to judge the appropriateness of admin behaviour Erich 06:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * To Michael Snow's point, the distinction between sockpupets and serial accounts may be germane, though both create problems, at least in the cases we're aware of. I suspect there is a great deal of behind-the-scenes sockpuppetry that goes unnoticed.

 * While Vogel and others who edit from IPs can be disruptive, they have a) less protection from the community, both in formal policy and tradition; b) are more readily IP-blocked, and c) we have a practical means of recourse through ISPs, at least in theory. The main thing that needs done in this area, IMO, is that some AOL-specific policies and technologies need to be in place.

 * With regard to adminship, I believe some sort of periodic review is called for, something minimally disruptive but that would provide some means for reviewing sysop-specific actions. Consider: (1) establish an annual review policy, (2) pick ten people to do reviews, (3) set clear guidelines (4) randomly assign two reviewers to sysops each week, (5) if reviewers agree that everything is OK status is renewed, (6) otherwise there's community discussion.  Lots of room for improvement, but the point is that we can purge the list of inactive administrators, have some sort of checking in place, and avoid a public spectacle.  Erich, "disruptive" is probably too strong a word, IMO, it's the admins who don't at least make an effort at No personal attacks, mainly, that I'm concerned about, and those few who have demonstrated a disregard for community norms through pursuit of really lame protection/deletion/block wars.

UninvitedCompany 03:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, where do we want to have the discussion of periodic reviews - Wikipedia talk:Administrators? Have we thought about whether we're ready to take on that challenge? My guess is that as more of the community becomes aware of the idea, there will certainly be some concerns to deal with. A segment of admins may be rather attached to their status, and be pretty vocal about it. On the other hand, there's a large non-admin population that might be inclined to support the idea, but we'd have to reach out to them before many would speak up.

Whatever the precise structure of any review system, I seriously doubt our ability to avoid public spectacles. There will always be considerable pressure for transparency in decision-making, and this will likely force much of the process to be held openly. And certain segments of the public will naturally gravitate to the resulting spectacle. --Michael Snow 04:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(snip)take out straw polls(/snip)

Are all these polls really necessary?
Frankly, I'd just like to see Anthony's proposal put to a vote, as I believe that it covers all the relevant points with much, much more simplicity and less rigamarole. If Anthony's had gone to a vote instead of the current one, I think it would have passed much more easily. Ambi 10:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Blue Tory

A Blue Tory in Canadian politics is a conservative who advocates for free-market or economically liberal policies. The term has been applied to members of the modern Conservative Party of Canada and provincial Progressive Conservative parties, as well as the historical Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Reform Party of Canada and Canadian Alliance. In contemporary language, Blue Tories are sometimes described as "true-blue Conservatives".

History
Prior to the 1960s, these conservatives were most identified with the Montreal and Toronto commercial elite who took positions of influence within the Progressive Conservative Party. Since the mid-1970s, they have been heavily influenced by the libertarian movement and the more individualist nature of American conservatism. Blue Tories tend to favour market-oriented economic policies such as devolution of federal power to the provincial governments, a reduced role for government in the economy, reduction of taxation and similar mainstream market liberal ideals. They also advocate self reliance, individual responsibility, personal freedom and liberty and therefore do not necessarily support social conservatism.

One example of a Blue Tory government in Canada was the "Common Sense Revolution" provincial Progressive Conservative government of Ontario Premier Mike Harris. The Harris Tories were widely viewed as radical by Canadian standards in their economic policies and style of governance. Harris' government embarked on a number of initiatives, including cuts to education, welfare and Medicare, privatization of government services and health care, the sale of provincial highways and the forced amalgamation of municipalities. Provincial income taxes were also cut by 30% and corporate tax rates were nearly cut in half during the Harris mandate.

Most Blue Tories are at least somewhat ideologically aligned close to the economically liberal positions of the former Canadian Alliance and as such supported the merger between the PCs and the Alliance to form the new federal Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).

Notable adherents
Notable Blue Tories include:

 * Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario (1995–2002)
 * Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada (2006–2015)
 * Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta (1992–2006)
 * Preston Manning, former leader of the Reform Party
 * Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada (1984–1993)

title: Blue Tory


text:
Commodore CBM-II

The Commodore CBM-II series is a short-lived range of 8-bit personal computers from Commodore Business Machines (CBM), released in 1982 and intended as a follow-on to the Commodore PET series.

Technical description
The CBM-II has two incarnations, the P series (P = personal, or, home use) and the B series (B = business use). The B series was available with a built-in monochrome monitor (hi-profile) with detached keyboard, and also as a single unit with built-in keyboard but no monitor (lo-profile). These machines are often referred to as the "Porsche PETs" due to incorrect rumors that the case was designed by Porsche. Though Commodore did initially consult Porsche for a case design, it proved too expensive to produce, so Commodore enlisted designer Ira Velinski to create one based on the original PET prototype.

The P-series uses the VIC-II 40-column color video chip like the Commodore 64 (C64). It also includes two standard Atari-style joystick ports. The 6509 CPU runs at 1 MHz in the P-series due to the use of the VIC-II chip.

Both B and P-series machines have a 6581 SID chip, although the B-series' 2 MHz clock speed makes it impossible to read any of the SID's registers.

The B-series uses a 6545 CRTC video chip to give an 80-column "green screen" monochrome output more suitable for word processing and other business use than the VIC-II's 40-column display. Most models have the Motorola 68B45 installed which is a pin-compatible variant rather than the MOS 6545A1 2 MHz part. On the B-series the 6509 CPU runs at 2 MHz. The joystick ports are not present on the B-series, but the connector is still on the motherboard.

CBM-IIs are the only Commodore 8-bit machines with an RS-232 port instead of the standard user port. The I/O registers for the user port are still present (as they're an internal function of the 6522 chips) but there is no connector for it on the motherboard.

A cartridge slot is also included on the machines; however, no known cartridge software was developed.

The B-series retained the IEEE-488 interface from the PET instead of the IEC serial interface on the VIC-20 and C64. The small amount of software Commodore developed for the B-series was distributed on 500k 8050 format disks rather than the 170k 4040/1541 format.

Features common to both the P and B-series included a MOS Technology 6509 CPU, an enhanced version of the venerable 6502, that was capable of addressing up to 1 megabyte of RAM via bank switching (however, no CBM-II model came with more than 256 kilobytes of RAM). The sound chip is the 6581 SID, the same one that was used in the popular C64 but with some limitations as it was over-clocked to 2 MHz. Additionally, the CBM-II has an industry-standard RS-232 serial interface and an IEEE-488 parallel bus (for use by disk drives and printers) just like the PET/CBM series. The CBM-II's built-in operating system uses an enhanced version of CBM BASIC version 4.0.

An optional Intel 8088-based coprocessor board allows the CBM-II series to run CP/M-86 1.1 and MS-DOS 1.25; however, the computers were not IBM PC compatible and very little, if any, software taking advantage of this capability ever appeared. The coprocessor board only runs on high-profile machines due to power supply and mechanical spacing requirements. A Z80 card was also announced if the user wished to run CP/M-80, as well as a Zilog Z8001 board, but none are known to exist. The 8088 board never reached production apparently because of difficulties getting it to work with the system.

The CBM-II line uses a complicated RAM banking scheme. Bank 0 contains the video RAM on P-series machines and is empty on B-series machines. Banks 1-4 contain the main system RAM, with Bank 15 containing the system ROMs, cartridge ROM, I/O registers, video RAM on B-series machines, and a small amount of RAM to store system variables. BASIC program text is stored in Bank 1. On 128 KB models, Bank 2 contains all BASIC variables, however on 256 KB models they're spread out among Banks 2–4. However, unlike the later released Commodore 128, the CBM-IIs do not have the system ROMs mapped into banks other than 15, which has very limited program RAM (1k free, plus a 4k expander board could be installed). This meant that software had to include its own OS routines to handle device I/O and interrupts, as it is not possible to "far call" code across different memory banks. In theory, if Banks 5–14 were filled, up to 1 MB of RAM could be installed, but in practice the computer is limited to 256 KB as the PLA chip does not have enough address lines for it. Passing data between different banks requires use of the register at $1 which selects the banks to be read from and written to via LDA (zero page),Y and STA (zero page),Y CPU opcodes. The register at $0 selects the bank where the CPU fetches instructions from, which will default to 15 ($F) on power up.

The BASIC included with the CBM-II series is known as BASIC 4.0+. It contains the enhanced BASIC 4.0 disk commands as well as a few other added features for structured programming and error trapping.

Commodore had plans for a wide variety of RAM configurations as well as slimline and "high profile" models. The slimline machines were all-in-one units while the high-profile models had a separate keyboard and attached swivel-mount monitor. Both slimline and high-profile models have a connector for internal floppy drives and coprocessor boards, although only the latter have physical room in the case and a sufficient power supply for them. No production machines had internal floppy drives, however these likely would have been a half-height variant of the 8050. Most of the planned CBM-II models never made it past the prototype stage. Originally, there would be four models in each series, with memory increasing in 64 KB increments. 64k and 192k models were dropped early in development and no such models were produced.

In the end, the only CBM-II models to enter production and be sold to end users were the B128/600, B256/700, CBM-128/710, and PAL model P500s. The B128 and P500 were slimline models with no internal disk drives or attached monitor while the CBM 128 and B256 were high-profile models. The B128 was the biggest selling of the three.

The production naming within the United States and Canada was the B128/B256 and CBM128-80/CBM 256-80 while in Europe they were known as the 600 and 700 series respectively (no "B" in front of the model number). The P machine was known worldwide as the 500 series. There are prototype models though such as the B500 (earlier B128 design) and B700 (earlier CBM 128-80/CBM 256-80 design) known to exist.

History
Due to the popularity of the C64, the P-series was cancelled in the United States before it could be officially released; however, a few dealers who received preproduction units sold them. As the P-series had not then been certified by the FCC, Commodore were threatened with legal action and were forced to recall them. It was rumored that all recalled P-series machines were destroyed, however a handful of them are known to exist in private collections. At least one model, the P500, was commercially released in Europe but only sold in small numbers.

The most common of the B-series was the low-profile B128 (called the CBM 610 in Europe), which had 128 kilobytes of RAM. The B128 did not sell well, and ultimately Commodore's inventory was liquidated by Protecto Enterprizes, a large Commodore mail order dealer based in Chicago, Illinois. The Protecto ads for the B128 bundle, including a dual disk drive, monitor and printer, appeared in various computer magazines for several years.

The CBM-II line sold poorly and ended up being extremely expensive to manufacture, as well as difficult to develop software for. Commodore did not release any sales figures or an official discontinuation date, however the B128/600 is the most common model in the lineup. Production ended at some point during 1984 and Commodore liquidated their remaining inventory in 1985. CBM-IIs were still being sold in Germany up to 1987. The exact number of CBM-IIs produced is unclear, however serial numbers indicate that at least 10,000 B128s were shipped along with a few dozen to a few thousand of the other models. It is believed that Commodore produced at least 5000–6000 of each machine.

After discontinuing the CBM-II range, Commodore handed its documentation, schematics, and all other information over to CBUG, the Chicago B128 Users Group.

Among these materials was a prototype motherboard using an Intel 8088 processor, which hints at the possibility the line could have been made IBM compatible if production had continued.

CBUG went on to develop a library of software for the computers. Its library, however, paled in comparison to the large software libraries enjoyed by the Commodore 64 and VIC-20.

The rounded case design of the high-profile CBM-II series would later be used in redesigned versions of the original PET/CBM computers, (such as the CBM8296) that the CBM-II line was designed to replace. In addition, the memory banking scheme of the CBM-II would be reused on the Commodore 128 with a few slight modifications.

title: Commodore CBM-II


text:
User talk:HenHei~enwiki

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
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * 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!

addLoadEvent
Hi, one of your user scripts uses the  function (see ). This function will be removed from MediaWiki:Common.js soon. Please modify your scripts to use  instead. —Ruud 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called HenHei. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name HenHei~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:HenHei~enwiki


text: Talk:Hippopotamus

title: Talk:Hippopotamus


text:
Occultism in Nazism

The association of Nazism with occultism occurs in a wide range of theories, speculation, and research into the origins of Nazism and into Nazism's possible relationship with various occult traditions. Such ideas have flourished as a part of popular culture since at least the early 1940s (during World War II), and gained renewed popularity starting in the 1960s. Historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke analyzed the topic in his 1985 book The Occult Roots of Nazism, in which he argued there were in fact links between some ideals of Ariosophy and Nazi ideology. He also analyzed the problems of the numerous popular occult historiography books written on the topic. Goodrick-Clarke sought to separate empiricism and sociology from the modern mythology of Nazi occultism that exists in many books which "have represented the Nazi phenomenon as the product of arcane and demonic influence". He evaluated most of the 1960 to 1975 books on Nazi occultism as "sensational and under-researched".

Ariosophy
Historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's 1985 book, The Occult Roots of Nazism, discusses the possibility of links between the ideas of the occult and those of Nazism. The book's main subject is the racist-occult movement of Ariosophy, a major strand of nationalist esotericism in Germany and Austria during the 19th and early 20th centuries. He introduces his work as "an underground history, concerned with the myths, symbols, and fantasies that bear on the development of reactionary, authoritarian, and Nazi styles of thinking," arguing that "fantasies can achieve a causal status once they have been institutionalized in beliefs, values, and social groups."

In Goodrick-Clarke's view, the Ariosophist movement built on the earlier ideas of the Völkisch movement, a traditionalist, pan-German response to industrialization and urbanization, but it associated the problems of modernism specifically with the supposed misdeeds of Freemasonry, Kabbalah, and Rosicrucianism in order to "prove the modern world was based on false and evil principles". The Ariosophist "ideas and symbols filtered through to several anti-semitic and Nationalist groups in late Wilhelmian Germany, from which the early Nazi Party emerged in Munich after the First World War." He demonstrated links between two Ariosophists and Heinrich Himmler.

Modern mythology
"There is a persistent idea, widely canvassed in a sensational genre of literature, that the Nazis were principally inspired and directed by occult agencies from 1920 to 1945."

Appendix E of Goodrick-Clarke's book is entitled The Modern Mythology of Nazi Occultism. In it, he gives a highly critical view of much of the popular literature on the topic. In his words, these books describe Hitler and the Nazis as being controlled by a "hidden power … characterized either as a discarnate entity (e.g., 'black forces', 'invisible hierarchies', 'unknown superiors') or as a magical elite in a remote age or distant location". He referred to the writers of this genre as "crypto-historians". The works of the genre, he wrote, "were typically sensational and under-researched. Complete ignorance of the primary sources was common to most authors and inaccuracies and wild claims were repeated by each newcomer to the genre until abundant literature existed, based on wholly spurious 'facts' concerning the powerful Thule Society, the Nazi links with the East, and Hitler's occult initiation."

In a new preface for the 2004 edition of The Occult Roots of Nazism, Goodrick-Clarke comments that in 1985, when his book first appeared, "Nazi black magic" was regarded as a topic for sensational authors in pursuit of strong sales."

In his 2002 work Black Sun, which was originally intended to trace the survival of occult Nazi themes in the postwar period, Goodrick-Clarke considered it necessary to readdress the topic. He devotes one chapter of the book to "the Nazi mysteries", as he terms the field of Nazi occultism there. Other reliable summaries of the development of the genre have been written by German historians. The German edition of The Occult Roots of Nazism includes an essay, "Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus" ("National Socialism and Occultism"), which traces the origins of the speculation about Nazi occultism back to publications from the late 1930s, and which was subsequently translated by Goodrick-Clarke into English. The German historian Michael Rißmann has also included a longer "excursus" about "Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus" in his acclaimed book on Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs.

According to Goodricke-Clarke, the speculation of Nazi occultism originated from "post-war fascination with Nazism". The "horrid fascination" of Nazism upon the Western mind emerges from the "uncanny interlude in modern history" that it presents to an observer a few decades later. The idolization of Hitler in Nazi Germany, its short-lived dominion on the European continent and Nazism's extreme antisemitism set it apart from other periods of modern history. "Outside a purely secular frame of reference, Nazism was felt to be the embodiment of evil in a modern twentieth-century regime, a monstrous pagan relapse in the Christian community of Europe."

By the early 1960s, "one could now clearly detect a mystique of Nazism." A sensationalistic and fanciful presentation of its figures and symbols, "shorn of all political and historical context", gained ground with thrillers, non-fiction books, and films and permeated "the milieu of popular culture."

Historiography concerning The Occult Roots of Nazism
The Occult Roots of Nazism is commended for specifically addressing the fanciful modern depictions of Nazi occultism, as well as carefully reflecting critical scholarly work that finds associations between Ariosophy and Nazi agency. As scholar Anna Bramwell writes, "One should not be deceived by the title into thinking that it belongs to the 'modern mythology of Nazi occultism', a world of salacious fantasy convincingly dismembered by the author in an Appendix," referring to the various written, depicted, and produced material that delves into Nazi occultism without providing any reliable or relevant evidence. Instead, it is through Goodrick-Clarke's work that several scholarly criticisms addressing occult relevance in conjunction with Ariosophist practices arise.

Historians like Martyn Housden and Jeremy Noakes commend Goodrick-Clarke for addressing the relationship between Ariosophic ideologies rooted in certain Germanic cultures and the actual agency of Nazi hierarchy; the problem, as Housden remarks, lies in the efficacy of these Ariosophic practices. As he remarks, "The true value of this study, therefore, lies in its painstaking elucidation of an intrinsically fascinating subculture which helped colour rather than cause aspects of Nazism. In this context, it also leaves us pondering a central issue: why on earth were Austrian and German occultists, just like the Nazi leadership, quite so susceptible to, indeed obsessed by, specifically aggressive racist beliefs anyway?" Noakes continues this general thought by concluding, "[Goodrick-Clarke] provides not only a definitive account of the influence of Ariosophy on Nazism, a subject which is prone to sensationalism, but also fascinating insights into the intellectual climate of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century." These reviews reflect the greatest dilemmas in Nazi occultist scholarship; the discernment between actual efficacy of possible occult practices by Nazi leaders, purpose of these practices, and modern notions and applications of occultism today largely impact the appropriate scholarship in general in making connections between plausible Nazi Ariosophic practices and blatant popular myth.

The linkages Goodrick-Clarke makes concerning Ariosophy and German society are further detailed in Peter Merkl's Political Violence under the Swastika, in which "pre-1933 Nazis", various NSDAP members, volunteered to write their memoirs and recollections about the rise of the Nazi Party in order to provide a coherent, statistical analysis of the motivations and ideals these early members hoped to pursue in German politics. From the findings, Merkl has found, through statistical evidence, that there were aspects of ideology within German society that favored intense German nationalism, ranging from what was considered to be a "German Romantic", one who was "beholden to the cultural and historical traditions of old Germany..." to someone classified as a part of an alleged "Nordic/Hitler Cult", one who followed Voelkisch (traditional, antisemitic) beliefs. To further prove the point, Merkl discovered that of those willing to submit their testimonies, "Protestants tended to be German Romantics, Catholics to be anti-Semites, superpatriots, and solidarists. Areas of religious homogeneity were particularly high in anti-Semitism or in the Nordic-German cult," of which members of both religious groups were prone to "Judenkoller", an alleged sudden and violent sickness that would manifest either in blatant hatred or hysteria at being within proximity of Jews. Coincidentally, Merkl mentions a relationship to this Nordic/German-agrarian cult in relation to the 19th century to a "crypto-Nazi tradition", despite being written ten years prior to The Occult Roots of Nazism.

Some of this modern mythology even touches Goodrick-Clarke's topic directly. The rumor that Adolf Hitler had encountered the Austrian monk and antisemitic publicist Lanz von Liebenfels, already at the age of 8, at Heilgenkreuz abbey, goes back to Les mystiques du soleil (1971) by Michel-Jean Angbert. "This episode is wholly imaginary."

Nevertheless, Michel-Jean Angbert and the other authors discussed by Goodrick-Clarke present their accounts as real, so that this modern mythology has led to several legends that resemble conspiracy theories, concerning, for example, the Vril Society or rumours about Karl Haushofer's connection to the occult. The most influential books were Trevor Ravenscroft's The Spear of Destiny and The Morning of the Magicians by Pauwels and Bergier.

Claims
One of the earliest claims of Nazi occultism can be found in Lewis Spence's book Occult Causes of the Present War (1940). According to Spence, Alfred Rosenberg and his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century were responsible for promoting pagan, occult and anti-Christian ideas that motivated the Nazi party.

Demonic possession of Hitler
For a demonic influence on Hitler, Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks is brought forward as a source. However, most modern scholars do not consider Rauschning reliable. (As Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke summarises, "recent scholarship has almost certainly proved that Rauschning's conversations were mostly invented".)

Similarly to Rauschning, August Kubizek, one of Hitler's closest friends since childhood, claims that Hitler—17 years old at the time—once spoke to him of "returning Germany to its former glory"; of this comment August said, "It was as if another being spoke out of his body, and moved him as much as it did me."

An article "Hitler's Forgotten Library" by Timothy Ryback, published in The Atlantic (May 2003), mentions a book from Hitler's private library authored by Ernst Schertel. Schertel, whose interests included flagellation, dance, occultism, nudism and BDSM, had been an activist for sexual liberation before 1933. He had been imprisoned in Nazi Germany for seven months and his doctoral degree was revoked. He is supposed to have sent a dedicated copy of his 1923 book Magic: History, Theory and Practice to Hitler some time in the mid-1920s. Hitler is said to have marked extensive passages, including one which reads "He who does not have the demonic seed within himself will never give birth to a magical world".

Theosophist Alice A. Bailey stated during World War II that Adolf Hitler was possessed by what she called the Dark Forces. Her follower Benjamin Creme has stated that through Hitler (and a group of equally evil men around him in Nazi Germany, together with a group of militarists in Japan and a further group around Mussolini in Italy ) was released the energies of the Antichrist, which, according to theosophical teachings is not an individual person but forces of destruction.

According to James Herbert Brennan in his book Occult Reich, Hitler's mentor, Dietrich Eckhart (to whom Hitler dedicates Mein Kampf), wrote to a friend of his in 1923: "Follow Hitler! He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune. We have given him the 'means of communication' with Them. Do not mourn for me; I shall have influenced history more than any other German."

New World Order
Conspiracy theorists "frequently identify German National Socialism among other things as a precursor of the New World Order". With regard to Hitler's later ambition of imposing the Nazi regime throughout Europe, Nazi propaganda used the term Neuordnung (often poorly translated as "the New Order", while actually referring to the "re-structurization" of state borders on the European map and the resulting post-war economic hegemony of Greater Germany), so one could probably say that the Nazis pursued a new world order in terms of politics. But the claim that Hitler and the Thule Society conspired to create a New World Order (a conspiracy theory, put forward on some webpages) is completely unfounded.

Aleister Crowley
There are also unverifiable rumours that the occultist Aleister Crowley sought to contact Hitler during World War II. Despite several allegations and speculations to the contrary, there is no evidence of such an encounter. In 1991, John Symonds, one of Crowley's literary executors, published a book: The Medusa's Head or Conversations Between Aleister Crowley and Adolf Hitler, which has definitively been shown to be literary fiction. That the edition of this book was limited to 350 also contributed to the mystery surrounding the topic. Mention of a contact between Crowley and Hitler—without any sources or evidence—is also made in a letter from René Guénon to Julius Evola dated October 29, 1949, which later reached a broader audience.

Erik Jan Hanussen
The documentary Hitler and the Occult describes how Hitler "seemed endowed with even greater authority and charisma" after he had resumed public speaking in March 1927. The narrator states that "this may have been due to the influence" of the clairvoyant performer and publicist Erik Jan Hanussen. "Hanussen helped Hitler perfect a series of exaggerated poses", useful for speaking before a huge audience. The documentary then interviews Dusty Sklar about the contact between Hitler and Hanussen, and the narrator makes the statement about "occult techniques of mind control and crowd domination."

Whether Hitler had met Hanussen at all is not certain. That he even encountered him before March 1927 is not confirmed by other sources about Hanussen. In the late 1920s to early 1930s Hanussen made political predictions in his own newspaper, Hanussens Bunte Wochenschau, that gradually started to favour Hitler, but until late 1932 these predictions varied. In 1929, Hanussen predicted, for example, that Wilhelm II would return to Germany in 1930 and that the problem of unemployment would be solved in 1931.

Nazi mysticism, occultism, and science fiction
Nazi mysticism in German culture is further expanded upon within Manfred Nagl's article "SF (Science Fiction), Occult Sciences, and Nazi Myths", published in the journal Science Fiction Studies. In it, Nagl writes that the racial narratives described in contemporary German Science Fiction stories, like The Last Queen of Atlantis, by Edmund Kiss, provide further notions of racial superiority under the auspices of Ariosophy, Aryanism, and alleged historic racial Mysticism, suggesting that writings associated with possible Occultism, Ariosophy, or Aryanism were products intended to influence and justify in a socio-political manner, rather than simply establish cultural heritage. The stories themselves dealt with "...heroes, charismatic leader types, (who) have been chosen by fate—with the resources of a sophisticated and extremely powerful technology". Nagl considers science fiction pieces like Atlantis further fueled the violent persuasiveness of Nazi leaders, such as Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, as further justification for a "Nazi elite (envisioning) for itself in occupied East European territories". This, in turn, allegedly propagated public support of Nazi ideology, summated by Nagl as "a tremendous turning back of culture, away from the age of reason and consciousness, toward the age of a 'sleepwalking certainty', the age of supra-rational magic". An example of this claim was demonstrated in World War II, when the Wehrmacht occupied Houska Castle until 1945. The Nazis were said to have conducted experiments into the occult. According to one source, there were "multiple myths about their supposed occult involvements there". Another source states locals believed that the Nazis had been using the "powers of Hell" for their experiments. As of early 2020, the castle was open to the public and had been since 1999. Tourists may visit the chapel with fading frescoes and murals "including pictures of demon-like figures and animal-like beings".

Crypto-historic books
In the essay that is included in the German edition of The Occult Roots..., H. T. Hakl, an Austrian publisher of esoteric works, traces the origins of the speculation about Nazism and Occultism back to several works from the early 1940s. His research was also published in a short book, Unknown sources: National Socialism and the Occult, translated by Goodrick-Clarke. Already in 1933 a pseudonymous Kurt van Emsen described Hitler as a "demonic personality", but his work was soon forgotten. The first allusions that Hitler was directed by occult forces which were taken up by the later authors came from French Christian esotericist René Kopp. In two articles published in the monthly esoteric journal Le Chariot from June 1934 and April 1939, he seeks to trace the source of Hitler's power to supernatural forces. The second article was titled: "L'Enigme du Hitler". In other French esoteric journals of the 1930s, Hakl could not find similar hints. In 1939 another French author, Edouard Saby, published a book: Hitler et les Forces Occultes. Saby already mentions Hanussen and Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln. Hakl even hints that Edouard Saby would have the copyright on the myth of Nazi occultism. However, another significant book from 1939 is better known: Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks. There it is said (in the chapter "Black and White Magic"), that "Hitler surrendered himself to forces that carried him away. … He turned himself over to a spell, which can, with good reason and not simply in a figurative analogy, be described as demonic magic." The chapter "Hitler in private" is even more dramatic, and was left out in the German edition from 1940.

Goodrick-Clarke examines several pseudo-historic "books written about Nazi occultism between 1960 and 1975", that "were typically sensational and under-researched". He terms this genre "crypto-history", as its defining element and "final point of explanatory reference is an agent which has remained concealed to previous historians of National Socialism". Characteristic tendencies of this literature include: (1) "a complete ignorance of primary sources" and (2) the repetition of "inaccuracies and wild claims", without the attempt being made to confirm even "wholly spurious 'facts'". Books debunked in Appendix E of The Occult Roots of Nazism are:
 * Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier, 1960, The Morning of the Magicians
 * Dietrich Bronder, 1964, Bevor Hitler kam
 * Trevor Ravenscroft, 1972, The Spear of Destiny
 * Michel-Jean Angbert, 1971, Les mystiques du soleil
 * J. H. Brennan, 1974, The Occult Reich
 * Otto Rahn, 1937, Luzifers Hofgesind, eine Reise zu den guten Geistern Europas (Lucifer's Court: A Heretic's Journey in Search of the Light Bringers).

These books are only mentioned in the Appendix. Otherwise the whole book by Goodrick-Clarke does without any reference to this kind of literature; it uses other sources. This literature is not reliable; however, books published after the emergence of The Occult Roots of Nazism continue to repeat claims that have been proven false:
 * Wulf Schwarzwaller, 1988, The Unknown Hitler
 * Alan Baker, 2000, Invisible Eagle. The History of Nazi Occultism

Documentaries
More than 60 years after the end of the Third Reich, Nazism and Adolf Hitler have become a recurring subject in history documentaries. Among these documentaries, there are several that focus especially on the potential relations between Nazism and occultism, such as the History Channel's documentary Hitler and the Occult. As evidence of Hitler's "occult power" this documentary offers, for example, the infamous statement by Joachim von Ribbentrop of his continued subservience to Hitler at the Nuremberg Trials. After the author Dusty Sklar has pointed out that Hitler's suicide happened at the night of April 30/May 1, which is Walpurgis Night, the narrator continues: "With Hitler gone, it was as if a spell had been broken." A much more plausible reason for Hitler's suicide (that does not involve the paranormal) is that the Red Army had already closed to within several hundred meters of Hitler's bunker and he did not want to be captured alive.

From the perspective of academic history, these documentaries on Nazism, if ever commented, are seen as problematic because they do not contribute to an actual understanding of the problems that arise in the study of Nazism and Neo-Nazism. Without referring to a specific documentary Mattias Gardell, a historian who studies contemporary separatist groups, writes:

"In documentaries portraying the Third Reich, Hitler is cast as a master magician; these documentaries typically include scenes in which Hitler is speaking at huge mass meetings. [...] Cuts mix Hitler screaming with regiments marching under the sign of the swastika. Instead of providing a translation of his verbal crescendos, the sequence is overlaid with a speaker talking about something different. All this combines to demonize Hitler as an evil wizard spellbinding an unwitting German people to become his zombified servants until they are liberated from the spell by the Allied victory after which, suddenly, there were no German Nazis left among the populace. How convenient it would be if this image were correct. National socialism could be defeated with garlic. Watchdog groups could be replaced with a few vampire killers, and resources being directed into anti-racist community programs could be directed at something else. [...]

The truth, however, is that millions of ordinary German workers, farmers and businessmen supported the national socialist program. [...] They were people who probably considered themselves good citizens, which is far more frightening than had they merely been demons."

Hitler and the Occult includes a scene in which Hitler is seen as speaking at a huge mass meeting. While Hitler's speech is not translated, the narrator talks about the German occultist and stage mentalist Erik Jan Hanussen: "Occultists believe, Hanussen may also have imparted occult techniques of mind control and crowd domination on Hitler" (see below). Historians have dismissed myths such as those about Erik Jan Hanussen.

Ernst Schäfer's expedition to Tibet
At least one documentary, Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail, includes footage from the 1939 German expedition to Tibet. The documentary describes it as "the most ambitious expedition" of the SS. This original video material was made accessible again by Marco Dolcetta in his series Il Nazismo Esoterico in 1994. An interview that Dolcetta conducted with Schäfer does not support the theories of Nazi occultism, neither does Reinhard Greve's 1995 article Tibetforschung im SS Ahnenerbe (Tibet Research Within the SS Ahnenerbe), although the latter does mention the occult thesis. Hakl comments that Greve should have emphasized more strongly the unreliability of authors like Bergier and Pauwels or Angbert. Ernst Schäfer's expedition report explicitly remarks on the "worthless goings-on"  by "a whole army of quacksalvers" concerning Asia and especially Tibet.

German

 * Hans-Jürgen Syberberg's Hitler – Ein Film aus Deutschland (Hitler, A Film From Germany) (1977). Originally presented on German television, this is a seven-hour work in four parts: The Grail; A German Dream; The End Of Winter's Tale; We, Children Of Hell. The director uses documentary clips, photographic backgrounds, puppets, theatrical stages, and other elements from almost all the visual arts, with the "actors" addressing directly the audience/camera, in order to approach and expand on this most taboo subject of European history of the 20th century.
 * Schwarze Sonne (1998) documentary by Rüdiger Sünner. Sünner also produced a book to accompany this documentary.

English

 * The Occult History of the Third Reich (1991), narrated by Patrick Allen, directed by Dave Flitton.
 * Adolf Hitler
 * The SS: Blood and Soil
 * The Enigma of the Swastika
 * Himmler the Mystic
 * Unsolved Mysteries of World War II (1992): Occult & Secrets, also known as Volume 3 in the series. (Different releases contain different episodes.)
 * Hitler's Secret Weapons
 * The Riddle of Rudolph Hess
 * Himmler's Castle: Wewelsburg
 * The Last Days of Hitler
 * Decision At Dunkirk
 * Stalin's Secret Armies
 * In 1994, Channel 4 aired a Michael Wood documentary entitled Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail, as part of its "Secret History" series.
 * Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy (1998), directed by Tracy Atkinson and Joan Baran, narrated by Malcolm McDowell.
 * Decoding the Past episode: The Nazi Prophecies (2005) by The History Channel.

Other references

 * Bruno Frei. 1980. Der Hellseher: Leben und Sterben des Erik Jan Hanussen. Antonia Gruneberg, ed. Cologne: Prometh.
 * Mattias Gardell. 2003. Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0822330714.

title: Occultism in Nazism


text: User talk:213.42.2.29

title: User talk:213.42.2.29


text:
Talk:Zdravko Čolić

Short description template
I think that the text inside short description template and the description in the list at Čolić should match up. I checked Čolić: Revision history and the description for Zdravko Čolić has stayed the same since it was written on 27 March 2013. That description reads "singer from Bosnia and Herzegovina". It does not mention his nationality. Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is right now like that. --Obsuser (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Belgrade concert in 2005
His concert in Belgrade from October 15, 2005 is suspicious because technical worker (TEHNIČKI DIREKTOR) is supposedly named "Čedomir N. Stanković" and human cannot have threepartite name but only name and surname. Visit *web.archive.org or second before of same content at same archive website *(after Miniclip removes /en/ from its 8 ball pool game) to check that and exclude the concert from this i.e. sr.wikipedia.org article (sr:Здравко Чолић). --5.43.78.53 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC) [e]

The first sentence
I changed the first sentence from "singer from Bosnia and Herzegovina" to "Bosnian-Serbian singer". As per wp:ETHNICITY, the oppening sentence should describe nationality, not ethnicity, not the place of birth. He was previously the resident (and citizen) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but is not the resident (and citizen) of Serbia. So, this is the only description that is in accordance with wp:ETHNICITY.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zdravko Čolić


text:
User:HenHei~enwiki

I'm mainly a contributor to the German Wikipedia: de:Benutzer:HenHei.

title: User:HenHei~enwiki


text:
User:Prisonblues/Colleges/Clare Hall, Cambridge

Clare Hall, Cambridge


text:
South Street barrow

The South Street barrow is a Neolithic long barrow in the English county of Wiltshire, near Beckhampton. It lies around 70 metres southeast of the cove of The Longstones and may therefore be connected with the Neolithic ritual landscape centred on Avebury.

The mound was about 43 metres long and 17m wide, but cultivation has spread the material and reduced the mound's height.

It was excavated between 1964 and 1966 by Paul Ashbee who found no evidence of burials beneath the barrow and conjectured that it was a kind of cenotaph. He found that it had been built around a number of wicker partitions using alternate layers of white chalk and darker earth. This material was probably excavated from flanking ditches surrounding the site, which survive as infilled features.

title: South Street barrow


text:
United Party for National Development

The United Party for National Development (UPND) is a liberal political party in Zambia, led by Hakainde Hichilema, the current president of the country. The party is an observer member of the Africa Liberal Network.

History
The UPND was established in December 1998 and was initially led by Anderson Mazoka, who had left the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) shortly beforehand. Mazoka was the party's presidential candidate for the 2001 general elections, finishing second with 27% of the vote, less than 2% behind the winner Levy Mwanawasa of the MMD. In the National Assembly elections the UPND won 49 seats, becoming the second largest party after the MMD.

In March 2006, the party joined the United Democratic Alliance, formed by the three largest opposition parties to contest that year's general elections. After the death of Mazoka in May 2006, Hakainde Hichilema became party leader, and was the alliance's presidential candidate. However, he finished third behind Mwanawasa and Michael Sata with 25% of the vote. The UDA won only 26 seats in the National Assembly, down from the 74 the three parties had won in 2001.

Hichilema was the UPND candidate for the 2008 presidential by-election, finishing third with 20% of the vote. He finished third again in the 2011 general elections with 18% of the vote, whilst the UPND won 28 seats in the National Assembly, becoming the third-largest party.

Hichilema was selected as the party's candidate for the 2015 presidential by-election. Hichilema become the main opponent to the Patriotic Front (PF) candidate Edgar Lungu after receiving the backing of several MMD MPs. Although Hichilema received 47% of the vote, Lungu was elected with 48%.

In the 2021 general election, after almost 23 years in opposition, the UPND became the largest party in the National Assembly, adding 24 more seats and making a total 82 seats, forming 46.64% of parliament. This is whilst PF lost 21 seats bringing their total to 59, forming 35.30% of parliament and subsequently becoming Zambia's largest opposition party.

On the executive level, the UPND President Hakainde Hichilema was re-elected to the party presidency at the elective General Conference on 14 February 2021 and Mutale Nalumango was appointed as his running-mate on the 23rd February 2021. Also leading to the 2021 general election on 12 August the UPND formed an alliance in March dubbed the 'UPND Alliance' with several smaller political parties including former PF members and allies such as former finance minister Felix Mutati, lawyer Kelvin Fube Bwalya and Charles Milupi among others. After three months of official campaigns that were briefly suspended first voluntarily upon the death of Zambia's first President Kenneth Kaunda in June, and then on instruction from the electoral authority due to incidents of political violence in the Lusaka, Mpulungu, Nakonde and Namwala districts, Hichilema and Nalumango were elected President-Elect and Vice President-Elect with 59.02% of the vote. Therefore, with 2,852,348 votes and a 20.31% margin from the runner-up candidates (Edgar Lungu and Nkandu Luo), it is the largest vote share any presidential election has seen since the 1996 general election where Zambia's second president Fredrick Chiluba won with 72.59% of the vote leaving a 59.84% margin from his closest opponent.

Youth representation
The UPND has a youth league, the UPND Youth League. This youth League was formed to mobilise youth concerns. It represents young people from across Zambia. The party has signed a social contract with the youths making it the first political party in Africa to have a youthful agenda.

title: United Party for National Development