User talk:Gadfium/archive84

Active discussions

January 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Zealand Police may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2005/annual-report/ Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2005 - New Zealand Police]</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=
  • The police and Ministry of Transport (see history above have used a wide range of different cars and motorbikes over the years.<ref>{{

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gadfium!Edit

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thanks.-gadfium 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Edwards syndromeEdit

The prognosis of children with this syndrome is outdated. I and many parents agree. We have many support groups that you are welcome to join if you wish so you can see for yourself. Our children with full T-18, not mosaic or partial, do live to their teens, 20's and some reach their 30's. They are learning to walk and communicate with proper therapy and medical care. The apnea that has been diagnosed with our children is typically related to seizure activity and resolved with medication. The survival rate has improved greatly with cardiac ASD and VSD closure. The main cause of death with our children is not apnea. It's infection related to the common cold resulting in pneumonia.

It would be nice if you could update the information so parents of newly diagnosed children can have a little better hope.

Thank you for your time. Robinat89 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You will need suitable references. The standards for these are set out at WP:MEDRS. We cannot use anecdotal information.-gadfium 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Gadfium, Thanks very much for that. I am on a slow connection and struggling to do new things on Wikipedia. NZgreygoose (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Garglesaver on David Bain pageEdit

Hi Gadfium, Can you take a look at the editing by Garglesaver on the DB page please and see if you feel he should be blocked. He has deleted the word 'wrongly' (before convicted) three times in the last 24 hours. Turtletop (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned about the multiple new accounts edit warring at this article, and have semi-protected it for the time being.-gadfium 07:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I have responded to this on the David Bain Talk page, under Contentious Edits. Thanks NZgreygoose (talk)

Air New Zealand Flight 901Edit

I had recently had several links removed on Air New Zealand Flight 901, the Erebus disaster, where I linked to copies of the Court of Appeal and Privy Council judgments, as well as a copy of the Mahon report. I would of thought having the link where the subject is mentioned in the article to be far more beneficial rather than putting the link at the bottom of the article. Is there anyway these links be reactivated?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talkcontribs) 9 January 2016

@Kiwisheriff: The links were removed because articles are not supposed to have external links embedded in the text. Either add the links to the "External links" section, or convert them into references.-gadfium 22:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing by Mr MaggooEdit

Hi Gadfium, I think you told Mr Maggoo to seek consensus before editing the David Bain page.

I changed his contribution about a 37 page booklet to 'four books'. I wrote this on the Talk page in response to a query from Mr Maggoo:

"Whether a book with 37 pages is a booklet or a book is irrelevant. What is relevant on wikipedia is whether you can provide a reliable source to a description of it as a book or a booklet. I have provided a reliable source (the National Library) which describes it as a book. If you can provide a reliable source (not Counterspin) that describes it as a booklet, then the description becomes contentious. Since there would then be separate sources describing it both as a book and as a booklet, at that point (if anyone really cared) consensus would be required among editors as to which to call it (on wikipedia). Until you understand and accept this absolutely basic rule about editing on wikipedia (providing a reliable source), nothing you add to the David Bain page (or any other page) is likely to remain on the page." Turtletop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

He has changed it back to a 37 page booklet without providing a source. He doesn't seem to understand the most basic wiki editing rules as a result of which his editing is very disruptive. Anything you can do? Turtletop (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Turtletop: My principal objective with my initial edits on Mr Maggoo's talk page was to persuade him to use the article talk page, which he is now doing. Whether this is a book or a booklet seems like a very minor matter to me, and I suggest you let it go. In particular, you referred to his edit as vandalism, but it is a difference of opinion between you, and I think you should apologise for that edit summary. You could apologise either by posting to his talk page, or make a very neutral (eg change a space) edit to the article with an edit summary containing an apology.-gadfium 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullo gadfium. I have been complaining on David Bain talk about a defamatory website that someone has linked to at the bottom of the front page. I believed it was Turtledove that cited it but Auckland Guy tells me it was greygoose. But regardless of who linked to it that website contains defamatory material and I firmly believe it should be removed . Do you agree? Also , you have advised me to get a consensus on the David Bain talk page before editing the main page. Easier said than done. But do I need to get a consensus if I am able to cite a reliable link, such as a newspaper article or a book [not my own , apparently? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mr Maggoo: The blog page linked to does not have the material you specified. If you believe the material on a different page of the blog is defamatory, I suggest you talk to a lawyer about it with a view to taking your own action against the blog owner. It is not Wikipedia's business while the blog page containing that specific text is not linked to by us.
I still advise you to get a consensus on the David Bain talk page before making controversial edits to the article, but since you have been using the talk page for the last week I think you should have the same right as other editors to edit the article, bearing in mind that edit warring by anyone is not acceptable.-gadfium 05:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Re that Nostalgia blog. That page might not have any defamatory comment, and I would suggest that it has, defamatory comment can easily be found by just bringing up some of those comments on the right hand side of that blog. And even the page linked to is a mine of misinformation. For example two bookshops did not remove it from sale based on advice that it was highly defamatory.

I have responded to that accusation both on the David Bain talk page and on Auckland Guy's talk page. In fact one of the people that supplied that advice did not refer to the book as being highly defamatory, he said I had I had breached a name suppression order. I contacted my lawyer who was able to confirm that no suppression order had been breached, and after some difficulty,we were able to track down that person, who was using a pseudonym, and my lawyer has sent him a letter asking him to reimburse me for any costs and inconvenience caused. What's more, once my lawyer advised that bookshop that my book had not breached a suppression order it was placed back on the shelves again.

Hullo again gadfium .

I was able to find out how to remove the reference to that blog, so that is all sorted. But now a new problem has arisen. I edited on the David Bain article citing reliable links and virtually all of them have either been removed or had the wording changed by Turtletop. He gives reasons but I do not believe they are valid. For examples he links to one academic saying he agreed with Binnie and refers to that academic as academics. I had linked to separately to two academics who agreed with Robert Fisher and he has removed both those links. Now I intend to cite those references again but I do not want to be accused of edit warring if I do so. I did accidentally remove a source yesterday which Turtletop has reinstated, I have no problem with that. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium, You suggested that I contact ANI about Mr Maggoo's editing. I have been holding off because I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hoped that the disruptive and occasionally hostile attitude he displayed on the talk page might not translate onto the David Bain page itself once he actually started editing. Unfortunately, it has. He has now added this material 3 times within 24 hours. I assume you will take whatever action is appropriate and I will then approach the ANI. Turtletop (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I repeat my advice that you take this to ANI, and get some neutral parties involved.-gadfium 04:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your advice has been taken. I have referred Mr Maggoo to the Wikipedia:Administrators'noticeboard. WP:ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtletop (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Gadfium, could you please do something about Mr Maggoo. Today he has added further material about the retrial without a citation. When I removed it, he responded by deleting almost the entire retrial section. The ANI achieved nothing. This disruptive editing has got to stop.Turtletop (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
He has now added two lengthy paragraphs without a single citation. He knows this is not acceptable. Turtletop (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mr Maggoo: was adding material which referenced a 2010 copy of the article on a mirror site of Wikipedia. This is certainly unacceptable, because Wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself, but his action is not an attempt to disrupt but a lack of understanding of the rules for referencing. It would be more useful to explain this to him on the article talk page (or perhaps on his own talk page) than to use edit summaries. It might be acceptable for him to use the references that were used in the 2010 article, but it is also possible that those references were inadequate.-gadfium 05:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Mr Maggoo continues to add material to the David Bain page without citations and delete material he disagrees with. I have brought this up on the Talk page and, per your suggestion, took it to ANI. Nothing has changed. Mr Maggoo continues to ignore all advice that is given to him and continues with his disruptive editing. As a result, the page is constantly changing as a number of editors remove material he adds, or restore material that he deletes because it doesn't fit with his POV that David Bain is guilty. Do you have any other suggestions to resolve this problem? Turtletop (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Hi Gadfium, could you please lend a hand with this? Some editor is really desperate to get blocked. Schwede66 05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked temporarily. @Courcelles: is welcome to change the block as he sees fit.-gadfium 05:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Sock drawer cleaned. Courcelles (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I'm posting this here for context. When I look at the interest of new editor Wiseguy Wayne (fascination with age of prime ministers) and the editing habits (change NZ spelling to US English), I can only conclude that the sock drawer has filled itself again. Schwede66 03:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And given another tidying. Courcelles (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello. It looks like ‎ is an old acquaintance of you, so I was wondering if you can deal with that IP once again. Khruner (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  Done-gadfium 20:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

London et alEdit

re peter ellis page

does this help? Richard Christie

That's a 34-page paper, and a search (for "Zelas") doesn't seem to work. Can you give me a page number, or is your point that it doesn't support the paragraph in which it is cited?-gadfium 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The London paper should be compared to Zelas's testimony

Karen Zelas Trial Testimony: "With regard to children of this particular age it is consistent with behaviour of sexually abused children of that age to initially deny any suggestion of abuse at the hands of any particular person. It is very common. Many children either deny or fail to disclose sexual abuse at the time of its occurring. In fact probably the majority do so."

I'll rewrite the reference and add the link to Zelas's testimony when I get a spare hour or two, unless you do so first - I'm not very good with adding the footnotes links etc to articles, I just try to copy the way others have done it. RichardJ Christie (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Alex Gilbert ArticleEdit

Hi Gadfium,

I have updated and have found new sources for Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please can we get this to the mainspace and see what happens. The following sources have been found and added. It has had coverage for 2 years now. The new sources cover mostly on his I'm Adopted organisation. The old deletion has nothing to do with the reason to why it was removed. This article has gained alot of sources that I keep on finding. Please with good faith and have a look otherwise I will just keep working on the article more and more with hope that I can get it into the Mainspace. Look at the history of the draft with the new sources that have been added.

Newstalk ZB Sources. I recommend you listen to these as these go into detail.

TVNZ New Sunday Story Source

Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edition in the page about the Colonization of Australia?Edit

Why you reverted my edition in the page about the Colonization of Australia?

Because, i putted trues about the life about Australian Aborigines, and they living on administration of the Australian Government, In the times before the colonization of Australia the territory which currently is Australia was undiscovery, unknow by people and the Australia and the Australian government there wasn't. Therefrom the aborigenes were undiscovered and without the needfull government administration.

And why say that the aborigines is property of the Australian government would be offensive? (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC).

Your written English is not very good and it can be difficult to understand you. Your edits to articles, while well-meaning, reduce the quality of those articles, and because I am unsure of your exact meaning, I cannot simply tidy the edits.
People in modern countries are not owned by anyone or by their governments. Most people would find that considering human beings as property is offensive. Perhaps you mean to use a different term rather than "property", such as "citizens".-gadfium 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But the aborigines need the administration de the gardianship of Australia government. The aborigines live on guardianship of government. - (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

Cornwall Park, AucklandEdit

Thanks for your additions to the refs. Can't say I like it though, makes things just a little too transparent and easy to dispute! Sometimes when the point seems very minor but needs reporting I may include it under another reference to a more important bit of info.

Having said all that I would be very pleased to have your constructive criticisms if not contributions. After a month or two I might have a go at finding better sources than Papers Past. Trouble is that with old papers only it is so easy to miss a significant event and get the story all wrong. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

SBC articleEdit

Hi again. I just looked at the SBC (Saint Bernard's College) article and it looks fascinating. Still, I waned to help expand the article if possible. Is a section about 'House winners' alright? Or what do you want me to put in there? I'll try my best. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:When expanding an existing article, it often pays to look at what information a featured article on a similar subject covers. You can see some featured articles on high schools and colleges listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Education (for example, Amador Valley High School). There are no featured articles on New Zealand schools, but Auckland Grammar School is rated B-class. These articles have much more dense referencing than the St. Bernard's College, Lower Hutt, so in terms of improvement adding references would be my suggested priority.
Many articles on New Zealand schools mention the house system, including colours and in some cases mascots or slogans. I notice neither of the articles I've linked to above do so, but I regard this as a reasonable topic for such an article to cover. The history of the house system at a school can be interesting with new houses formed and sometimes complete re-organisations. The names of houses often refer to historical people and if we have an article on these people, that should be linked to. All this should be referenced, but as it is not controversial the school website or a history published by the school is sufficient as reference.
We don't usually include which house wins in any given year as this is ephemeral information with little real-world consequence, and I remove any suggestion that "such-and-such house is the best" on sight as being POV.
I notice that although there are mentions in the cultural section of a change in school demographics in the 1970s, there is no history section in the SBC article, but history is dealt with in some detail in the articles I linked as examples above. If a book on the school's history has been published, that would be a good place to start. Failing that, combing newspaper archives (including Papers Past) may turn up information of interest.-gadfium 18:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bain family killings articleEdit

Hullo again. I am wanting to make a correction to part of that article. You will find the details at the bottom of the David Bain talk page. I am afraid I don't understand Auckland guys reasoning. He argues that even though my correction is valid the article does not need to be changed because my correction is of a trivial nature. Surely if the article is incorrect then it should be corrected no matter how trivial he considers the correction is. Personally I don't believe my correction is trivial. Laniet Bain was not home on the weekend of the 18/19 June 1994. She was only home on the Sunday night and then only at David's insistence according to the testimony of two witnesses. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stuart McIntyreEdit

I hope you are having a good holiday. When you are back, could you please look at Stuart McIntyre? Some thoughts:

  • A person of this name received an honorary doctorate from Massey University in 2000, so there is somebody of that name who is notable.
  • The article was twice deleted in 2008; could it be the honorary doctor? If so, it could be undeleted so that editors can work on it.
  • And if that wasn't him, I note that article creation is enabled for administrators only. I suggest that protection should be dropped back to autoconfirmed users or something like that.

Thanks a lot. And as I say, there's no hurry; enjoy your time away from WP. Schwede66 18:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The 2008 article was on an English football manager who didn't appear to be notable. I would be happy to change the protection (if @RHaworth:, who applied the protection, agrees) but this would only be necessary if you can identify the person who received the honorary doctorate and intend to work on an article on him in the near future. There is an article on Stuart Macintyre, who has some NZ connections. Could this be the same person?-gadfium 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding photosEdit

I am trying to add photos to some articles, but I don't know how to upload the photos to Wikipedia. Can you advise me how to start the process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talkcontribs)

For photos you have taken yourself and are willing to release under a free license, see Commons:Commons:Contributing your own work, then use Commons:Special:UploadWizard For photos taken by other people which they have given you permission to upload, you will also need to contact Commons:Commons:OTRS. For photos which are so old they are now in the public domain, see Commons:Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. Finally, if the photos are not available under a free licence, but you believe there is a case to be made for them to be included in Wikipedia anyway under a "fair use" claim, see Wikipedia:Non-free content and upload them to Wikipedia, not Commons, using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. If you need more help, I suggest you ask at WP:Help desk where they are more experienced than I am at stepping people through the procedures.-gadfium 18:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Cuba-like was my first choice for getting across the simple fact that visitors to NZ are very aware of all the old once-familiar cars. It needs to be said. Eddaido (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please include sources.-gadfium 21:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Gadfium/archive84".