User talk:Mr Maggoo

Recent edit to David Bain
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, David Bain, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Four versus three
Hello. In the David Bain article, you have several times changed the number of books written by Joe Karam from four to three. What is your reasoning? The four books are David and Goliath, Bain and Beyond, Innocent!: Seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain, and Trial By Ambush - the Prosecutions of David Bain. These are all listed on the Joe Karam page and are readily googleable. What is your reasoning for insisting on three books? Akld guy (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Auckland Guy. Innocent would be more correctly described as a booklet, in that it is thin [37 pages] and paper covered. To be 100% correct I guess one could say Karam has written three books and a booklet.

Regards Mr Maggoo.


 * I notice that you have described it in the David Bain article as a pamphlet. It is described online as being 40 pages, not 37, and even if it were 37 it's definitely NOT a pamphlet. Akld guy (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hullo Auckland guy. I won't argue re the word booklet although according to my dictionary a pamphlet is a booklet. While it may be described online as being 40 pages, that is incorrect. It is definitely 37 pages, so I have changed your 40 pages to 37 pages. The last page is by David Bain headed Through my Eyes. The second to last page only has 27 words on it, headed up The Final Word, David Bain's own feelings. Btw, don't know if your interested by I am the author of The Bain Killings Whodunnit?

Regards Mr Maggoo

Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. It seems that you speak as a serious researcher of the case and on that basis I presume you own a copy of the booklet. Therefore I accept at face value that it has 37 pages. There was one other place where I inserted 40: the "Support of Joe Karam" section. I have changed that to 37. On the basis of what you've said and the fact that I don't own a copy, I will not take this 37 versus 40 disagreement any further. For the record, I have no connection with the case whatsoever and do not even have an opinion about the identity of the murderer(s). I wish I knew!! Akld guy (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hullo Auckland guy. Yes, I do have a copy of that booklet, plus copies of two of Karam's books and McNeish's book as well. Plus I also have copies of both the trial and retrial transcripts, Privy Council report, PCA Report, Court of Appeal hearings, etc., etc. I think I know who dunnit, but not 100% sure, only David Bain knows. But if Robin did it then you would have to accept that he put on David's gloves when there was no need for him to wear gloves, that he went out and got the paper even though he was about to commit suicide, that he shot himself in the left temple, even though he was right-handed, that he left the silencer on the rifle even though it would have been much easier for him to shoot himself by taking it off, that he had one foot on a chair, that he managed to leave no fingerprints on the rifle even though there was a pristine set of David's on it, that before he shot himself he removed the 10 shot magazine and placed it upright on the floor when he could have just dropped it, that he managed to leave no fingerprints on that magazine, or the magazine he replaced it with, that before he committed suicide he typed a message on the computer when a written message would have confirmed he was the perpetrator, that he was able to type a message at all seeing as he always wore glasses when using the school computer and his glasses were in the caravan, that he found the trigger lock key when he may not have even been aware there was a spare key [David said he never told anyone there was a spare key ] that he put his bloody clothes in the wash basket when there was no need for him to change clothes and that the message he typed said David was the only one who deserved to stay when he carried a photo of Arawa on his person and showed it to everyone at the drop of a hat. Now I don't know about you but I find it hard to believe that is what happened, specially when there was plenty of evidence that pointed to David Bain as being the killer. So far as I am concerned the fact that the frame of the glasses that David had been wearing was found in a damaged condition in his room and the fact that a lens from those glasses was found in Stephen's room are as near to a slam dunk as you are ever going to get.

Regards Maggoo.

Disruptive editing
Your edits are in conflict with those of several others, and you are not contributing to the discussion at Talk:David Bain. You are Edit warring and your editing is becoming disruptive. If you continue in this matter, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit the article again without gaining a consensus on the talk page.- gadfium 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

gadfium. I have now found and am using the David Bain talk page and I am discussing one particular edit. I take it I do not need to discuss anything where I can edit by linking to a source? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using the talk page. I suggest you not edit the article, at least on issues which are clearly contentious (eg where other editors have reverted you) without a consensus on the talk page. Linking to a source is almost always useful, but doesn't override the need for discussion.- gadfium 04:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

gadflum. Ok, I am starting to discuss some issues. What I would like to know is how you can allow Turtletop to an article that was linked to simply on the basis that turtletop is suggesting that the person who wrote that article is a gossip columnist? It seems to me that Turtletop does not want those figures to be published and yet the amount paid to Robert Fisher's girlfiend has been published. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to press the point at the article talk page about payments to Karam and other parties. It looks like the issue is that Anderson's column is an opinion piece, not news. A possible compromise might be to say "Anderson said that Karam was paid ..." rather than "Karam was paid...", but you should work out this compromise on the talk page. Reliable sources Noticeboard might be useful if you cannot reach agreement. Unpublished figures supplied by the Legal Services Agency probably cannot be used.- gadfium 22:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Well I have found this on Joe Karam's Wikepedia page. Can I use that as a link ? I see the figure quoted is slightly different from mine. Karam was paid $424,480 by Legal Services for his legal work in support of David Bain. Commissioner Nigel Fyfe approved the payment describing Karam's "unique circumstances" and said his legal assistance to Bain's defence was "exceptional" and the "equivalent to a non-qualified legal executive..."[12]

Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC) And here is another link, although the amount paid only relates to the retrial and does not include the legal aid he received for work done relating to the appeal to the Privy Council. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2486812/Karam-gets-330-000-in-legal-aid Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The link at Joe Karam is the same opinion piece. Talk to the other editors at Talk:David Bain about what compromise wording might be acceptable for using it. The second link looks fine to me, but I am not the person who decides what goes in the article. A consensus of interested editors decides. My role in this was to get you talking to the other editors.- gadfium 01:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

gadfium That link on Karam Wikipedia is not the same opinion piece as the link that was referring to that article by Jock Henderson and nor was that an opinion piece so far as the amounts are concerned. If that article on Karam Wikipedia can't be linked to then why is it linked to on Karam Wikipedia? I am talking to other editors but only one has replied and he is posting misinformation. The article that he linked to only relates to the legal aid paid to Karam for work done at the retrial, not the total legal aid as he is implying. The Karam Wikipedia link shows the correct amount $424480. From what you appear to be saying I have to get his permission to change that figure, which doesn't make any sense to me, seeing he is the one who has entered the incorrect details. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC) My apologies, I see that article on Karam Wikipedia is the same article that was linked to previously but Turtletop is implying it was the total legal aid paid to Joe Karam when it was not. And as I have already pointed out to you those figures are not an opinion, they are the correct figures. It would appear to me that you are allowing yourself to be sucked in by Turtledove. Getting back to the use of the word "wrongfully " as in wrongfully convicted which you have complained about me deleting. It would appear to me there are more comenters on David Bain talk that believe it should not be there than there are that believe it should be there. So can I take it that I can now delete that word again? Perhaps you should be complaining to Turtledove about his editing being disruptive. Mr Maggoo (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) gadfiun, looking further into that edit by turtledove re Karam's legal aid I see he is using the Nigel Fyfe source and I see the amount quoted is $424480, not $300000 as he has entered. You have got to keep you eye on Turtledove. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, the figure Turtledove has entered is $330000, not $300000. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologise, the two Henderson articles are different. There are more than two editors on this article, and you need to try to engage all of them.- gadfium 04:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your linking to your book removed
I have removed the link you posted to Michael Bain. It is to a book you wrote and published yourself. See COI. Moriori (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Why was this action taken. Surely if Karam can link his books which promote a view not wholly supported, then books with an opposing view not wholly supported can also be linked. This action smacks of bias. Farmer56 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain Talk Page
Mr Maggoo, I have a favour to ask of you about the Talk page. It is divided into different topics. One is about Laniet's alleged pregnancy. Please confine your comments on this section to comments which are specifically about that. If you want to bring in another issue (as you have done), please start a new section with a new heading. Otherwise it becomes difficult for other editors to follow a particular conversation. Turtletop (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI
You have been mentioned in a discussions on the Wikipedia:Administrators'noticeboard. WP:ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtletop (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain talk page
Hi Mr Maggoo, please don't delete content from the talk page - see WP:TPO and the rest of that page for the guidelines. The discussion will be archived in due course. Melcous (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, the other sections from the talk page have not been deleted - they have been archived, and it was not done by me or any other editor but by a bot. This is done periodically so the page doesn't get too long but they are still available to be searched. Did you read the guidelines I linked to above? Individual editors should not be deleting things from talk pages except under VERY specific circumstances and in very particular ways. You can't just wholesale delete sections even if you don't like what they say. The section will eventually be archived by the bot - but I can't tell you when because I don't know what algorithms or timeframes it is working on. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Some editing advice
Three items of advice, not criticisms. When making a post on a Talk page and you start a new paragraph by pressing the Enter key twice, start the first line with the same indent as the paragraph you just did. You do that by entering the same number of colon characters ::::: If you don't do that, the paragraph has no indent at all. It appears at far left and it all looks awful.

Secondly, when adding a reference to the article, type the hard on the heels of the last character of the sentence, even if it's a full stop. There should be no space. Otherwise it results in, surprise!, an empty gap.

Thirdly, when editing the article, please enter an edit summary. It's not hard to do and helps others keep track of what's being done. The very best of editors ALWAYS leave an edit summary. Akld guy (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, when you cite a reference, leave no gap. There should be no space after the last character of the sentence and the <_ref_>. Please fix your latest edit to the Bain article. Akld guy (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Bain case
You made a recent change to the Lead which might be controversial, in that you deleted Joe Karam's belief in Bain's innocence. As per Melcous (Talk page), please stop editing and discuss what you intend to do. Akld guy (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch!
Good catch at the Bain family murders article. The wording initially used by the NZ Herald was "not innocent beyond reasonable doubt" and was quoted that way in the article. A few hours later, the Herald changed the phrase to "not innocent on the balance of probabilities", which was what Judge Callinan actually said. I corrected the misquote in the Judge Callinan report section, but overlooked the lede. Good work!. Akld guy (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.