User talk:Hayden5650

Towns in Otago
Please check where links go, particularly with New Zealand placenames. Many of the links you added for towns in the article Otago go to disambiguation pages. Please fix them.- gadfium 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.- gadfium 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem --Hayden5650 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Himarë
Thanks for your support on Himarë. You might want to continue to watch what's going on there.... --Macrakis 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Lynch
Oh? - A l is o n  ☺ 08:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gerry Lynch openly admitted to homosexuality which immediately sets off alarm bells due to the Homosexual agenda. More specifically, looking at Gerry's editing patterns from May thru June 2006 he edited immensely every day, except on June 3rd 2006, where he only made one edit which coincides with the day of Runcorn's first edit. From then on over the next couple of months, Runcorn seems to focus entirely on adding stubs and cats and all that sort of crap to articles, no doubt for the sole purpose of bringing up contribution numbers, which is naturally followed by credibility. I'm sure if you could cross reference 2 graphs with edits numbers per day running up the 'y' axis and time along the 'x' axis, you would soon very clearly see that low editing periods for one user are matched by high editing periods for the other, and vice versa. --Hayden5650 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. I'm not sure if I get the 'homosexual agenda' comment, unless it shows some familiar editing pattern. But yes, I see your point about contribs - A l is o n  ☺ 09:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Homosexual agenda? Perhaps you would feel more at home on Conservapedia? --Jonathan Drain 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The timing 'evidence' is circumstantial only and could well be coincidence; the suggestion that anyone who 'admits' to homosexuality must a priori have ulterior motivations is merely bizarre. All of User:Runcorn's other sockpuppets have made edits on things like 'list of jewish athletes'; User:Gerry Lynch has not.  The evidence for Runcorn's sockpuppetry does not name Gerry Lynch, and Gerry Lynch's page doesn't contain a link to that evidence as the other sockpuppets' pages do.  I strongly support rescinding the ban. --Zeborah 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Runcorn's first edit was on December 22, 2005. See here. By  June 3, 2006, Runcorn had made several thousand edits.   Nothing  you  have  said  above is evidence that  Gerry Lynch   is a sock-puppet. Cardamon 05:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, well spotted. --Jonathan Drain 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Reginmund 23:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hayden has just committed a personal attack. The page states one type of personal attack is:
 * Are we still talking about Gerry?? cripes lets move on, it's a beautiful day here in New Zealand, warm nor-wester, suns out, smelling like spring again, sweet scent of Marlboro Red caressing the air. I no longer care about Gerry Lynch, the community has spoken --Hayden5650 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its also a reminder to you that discrediting a user's responsibility in editing articles because of their views or affiliations is a personal attack so that you would be discouraged not to do it again. Reginmund 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean I would be encouraged not to do it again. Grammar, grammar. --Hayden5650 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the ticket, although I'm not the only one here that makes grammar mistakes. Reginmund 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust content dispute
I've created a sandbox page to discuss the content dispute on The Holocaust. Your comments are welcome! – Dreadstar †  07:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page. – Dreadstar  †  01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out this evening, had a brief look and it looks great! --Hayden5650 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Per RfA/Mongo
"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action." That's what I'm doing; nothing to do with the Mossad at all. I'd do the same for you, or any other contributor to Wikipedia. Stop by my talk page if you've any further questions (or would just like to chat.)Proabivouac 11:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding nature.:) When it comes to off-wiki attack threads, a short-term cover-up (as bad as that term rightly sounds) is the only way to deal with it that came to mind: if there is an off-wiki attack thread, saying hey, should we be linking to or suppressing discussion of http.this thread over here doesn't really work, for obvious reasons. Feel free to solicit other opinions; I'm open to the idea that I made the wrong call. There will be others who can overturn that. However, if I made the right call, there was no one else around to make it.Proabivouac 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikistalking
You are mistaken. With the signifacant disruption that you have caused to controversial articles. It is not unecessary to make sure that you do not fall out of line again. Wikistalking:

''This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam.''

When I see you pushing POV, I won't hesitate to correct it. Reginmund 01:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

White race
Why do you keep changing Eurasia to "Europe" on the White race article? Many people in Armenia and Siberia happen to be white and Asian (i.e. from Asia). Reginmund 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the Bulk of white people come from Europe, while only some come from Eurasia. --Hayden5650 02:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that there aren't white people that have their native origin in Asia. Since there are, that is something that should be acknowledged. Reginmund 03:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is being found out by DNA reserch that most Europeans originated in the eastern Ukraine and south western Soviet Central Asia. The Tadjiks are still there! The Finns are also whites, but come from a diferent race that has it's DNA source in central Siberia. The Basques are still uncatagorized, but are concidered to be of yet anothere white race that was local to northern Spain. Long term European settelment in North Africa has also efectivly turned costal Algerians and most Urban Tunisians in to whites by cross-breading over the centurys. This is how the White race is now seen. on many DNA projects that are found on Google.--86.29.243.88 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

White People
You've reverted 3 times on adding the gallery. Please consider the 3RR rules before proceeding this evening--Kevin Murray 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to the consensus, your POV pushing is helping no-one. And I have reverted twice --Hayden5650 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please revert your last change immediately. Otherwise you will be blocked for a 3RR violation.  adding anything more than 3 times breaks the rule.  Do you want to be a test case or read the rule? --Kevin Murray 06:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been around here long enough to recognize a POV pusher like you, and I did not revert. I edited from scratch, as per the consensus on the talkpage. And your telling me to revert? Tricking me to get myself blocked? --Hayden5650 06:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self reversion of an error is not a reversion to be punished. I sugges that at this point since other edits have followed, you should either remove the gallery or restore the alternate gallery.  I don't want to report you on this; so let's fix it and work together. --Kevin Murray 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, remove my gallery which gained consensus, and replace with yours that suits your POV? Leave it as is and keep this discussion to the talkpage --Hayden5650 06:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I edited, and didn't revert, I did not affect other edits --Hayden5650 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you should read the 3RR rules. Let's take a pass on this issue tonight.  My blood got up, but I think that you and I are splitting hairs from the same side of the issues and shouldn't get into pissing matches over details.  Good work here and keep up your efforts on a good track.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 06:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to agree there, have barely had time for a cigarette with all this editing which hasn't helped! Cheers --Hayden5650 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Objective
Hayden, my objective is to have more than just a collage of white faces at the gallery, but also try to show the variety that comes from regions. That's why I see Kennedy as reprentative of a region since he is 100% Irish, where Clinton is (like me) a mix of various European bcakgrounds. I also would like to see the major ethnic groups represented, which is why I have pushed for some of the photos. I'm not that concerned over who we use as long as the diversity is represented. Have a good night; I''m sure there will be many other opinions. --Kevin Murray 12:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

image galleries
per cleanup-gallery, I recommend that you move your galleries to commons:, where they will be perfectly adequate. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dolph Lundgren poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dolph Lundgren poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Prince William Gunshouldered.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Prince William Gunshouldered.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Woman in Dirndl.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Woman in Dirndl.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL
Your account is getting hammered!! Check out the sockpuppetry board LOL!!! --Commander Phralson 11:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Romany girl from th Czech Rep.
Please, see my answer concerning the Romany girl here [] ... sorry for my answer being rather late. --Anglos 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Police Force (band)
A tag has been placed on Police Force (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of History of South Africa in the apartheid era
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. uKER (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)