User talk:Djapa84/Archive 1

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.   Wikipelli Talk   13:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits at Creativity (religion)
I do apologise; looking back at the edit I've no idea why I reverted it. May have been a misclick; I was using Igloo and might have been trying to undo something else. I've removed the warning note I posted above, sorry for that. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cactoblastis cactorum
Hey, you fixed a couple of things I missed when copyediting the article. Thanks for that - don't bother with anything below "Ecological interactions and mechanisms" section, as I haven't got to it yet. BTW, I changed one of your corrections - take a look in the history - because the verb tense needs to be consistent. Maybe you want to fix the subjective time frame issue I raised on the talk page? Also, maybe you'd like to join the wp:Guild of copyeditors? ʝungle jill  09:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hidden revision on Didgeridoo
Hi Djapa, I had hidden a vandalism edit through revision deletion that accused a particular schoolteacher (of being a paedophile. The vandalism was swiftly reverted by ClueBot NG, but it remained visible to the public in the page history. I'm usually strongly against hiding edits on Wikipedia, so the fact that *I* deleted the edit is an indication of its seriousness. Graham 87 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Alan Jones shame controversy a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring
I was recently taken to AN/I for being rude to Pete/Skyring. The outcome was that I am supposed to avoid communicating with him. That means that I really can't comment on what he has been posting at Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster).

You are under no such restrictions. I support all you have said there. Please don't take my silence as any sort of support for the bigot.

What I can't understand is why he is still allowed to spout his ignorant garbage on Wikipedia, but I'm not allowed to say that publicly.

Keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You made some fairly serious allegations about User:Skyring here: . Could you please either provide diffs of the behaviour you are describing, or retract the allegations? --Surturz (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Names and acronyms
It is standard practice to spell out terms in full, followed by the abbreviation or acronym in parentheses in the first instance of use in an article or manual; in subsequent instances the abbreviation or acronym can be used alone. In the alternative, one would provide a glossary where acronyms and abbreviations are defined, which for most Wikipedia articles is superfluous. Accordingly, I've reverted the change you made to my edit in the Robinson R66 article. Bear in mind that Wikipedia article text shows up in many places on the Web, on mirror sites and elsewhere, and sometimes the inline hyperlinks are stripped out. The text is far more useful if it is self-contained and self-explanatory to a non-expert by avoiding use of unexplained acronyms and abbreviations. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 07:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

wiki meetups
Sorry - I'm new to this, so I don't really know enough to answer your question(s). You could start here: Meetup. (It was a bit easier for me; I knew that Meetup/Adelaide existed.) Best Wishes. If you want help, I'm sure I can eventually point you in the right direction - just drop me a line on by talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: My comments on Didgeridoo
Oops, I should have been a bit more clear ... yes, my comment was talking about the IP, not about you at all! See my message at User talk:223.204.87.139. Graham 87 14:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Zastava Koral
Very elegant edit on the intro to the Zastava Koral. Your change makes it clear that while the opinions on the vehicle have reached a consensus, they are still subjective opinions. Well done!Boomshadow talk contribs 17:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Grocon
I have updated the Grocon page according to what I could verify. If you can provide a 7:30 Report reference, please amend the page accordingly.--Soulparadox (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9
In regard to User:Timeshift9, if you disagree with the user page being deleted (as I do), please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination), but don't remove the MfD notice from his userpage until the MfD has closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at
--evrik (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Desert oak
Lets just abide by WP:LEADCLUTTER. WP:BEGIN. The lede is supposed to provide a summary of the article, not be a clutter of references and doubtful trivia about other uses of common names.

I agree, the number of Google hits doesn't prove the most common usage, but it certainly does disprove your claim that "on-line search produced no authoritative reference calling A coriacea desert oak". You first claimed that you performed a Google search for "desert oak" combined with or "Acacia coriacea" and it did not bring up any hits at all, and that this proved it was not a common name. Now you claim that when you do it, it brings up many hits, and this still does not prove anything either.

You are now claiming to have found only one reference to support the claim that this species is called desert oak, when a search using any engine returns references from the FAO, ANBG, CSIRO, Royal Botanic Gardens, SGAP, ABRS and several of the "bibles", including Leigh's "Plants of Western NSW", Anderson's "Plants of Central Queensland" and Moore's " Plants of Inland Australia". If botanists like Anderson, Moore, Leigh and Latz are not authoritative on this issue, I'm not sure who is.

I'm trying to maintain good faith here, so I can only suggest that you scan your computer for search engine hijackers which may be preventing you from finding the most common returns of these search terms, only to be later able to find an abundance.

You are encouraged to add trivia about other applications of common names in later sections of the article, but it doesn't belong on the lede, as per WP. However we still need evidence for the claim that the name is usually applied to the A. decaisneana. It certainly is applied to that plant, and several others including Hakea and Quercus species, but the highly restricted distribution of A. decaisneana compared to the almost continent-wide distribution of A. coriacea makes it highly suspect that the former is the plant to which it is usually applied. I certainly can't find where Jessop and Toelken make such a claim, so perhaps you could quote the statement and the page number so I can check at the work library.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boat arrivals GIF
If you want to delete the image, then WP:IfD is the correct venue. If you want a different version of the graph, please upload your preferred version for discussion. POV-tagging and RfC discussion is pointless otherwise. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
I have started the above thread at ANI which concerns your recent behaviour. --Surturz (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
That is a strange one User:Lukeno94. All I can say is that someone is trolling the ANI page and sock puppeting to cause trouble, and all I know about it is that it is not me. There is no reason for me to cause trouble. All I was trying to do in the first place was to encourage a healthy discussion of the graphic in question and that is going on quite well on the Julia Gillard talk page. I am confident that the community will come up with a good agreement on that matter whether I am involved or not, and frankly I do not care whether I am blocked for a week - all I am interested in is clearing my name of this accusation.   Djapa Owen (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain then - which is from yet another account after your block.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the word that sunk you - for a week, anyway - is "quack". I had no doubt in my mind when I filed the sock-puppet request. At your urging, let it be said.

However, can I observe that in the scheme of things, allegiance to political parties is not a prominent factor in human behaviour? By edit-warring over the POV tag with two different editors, inserting the same tag six times in a day, you demonstrated that you felt the tag was important to you personally. You felt it was the way things should be. Fair enough. We all feel strongly about certain things, and in my case it is Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia. If Heaven is a place, that is what is on the menu and the dead are grateful. That transcends politics or any other consideration. I would find it hard to remain calm if there were one scoop remaining and the dear old lady in the queue ahead indicated she wanted it. Sorry, Nana, you had it coming. Rest in Peace.

For some it is love, for others family, for others it is religion. We all have something we care deeply about, and we stand in protection of that thing when an emergency threatens. That is human behaviour, readily observable throughout history, and it goes deeper than politics. By establishing a pattern of strongly defensive behaviour in edit-warring, you set yourself up for the sound of the duck.

As you hinted, I've been in that position, and I know that the subject is unimportant when edit-warring or socking. The reverts are obvious, no admin bothers to read the article, the edit-warrior is blocked. Often the other participants are sanctioned as well. It takes two to tango. What matters is the pattern of behaviour and it cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise Wikipedia would quickly degrade.

The guidelines for sockpuppet detection are available, easily understood, and followed by those Wikipedians who delight in trampling socks. They have experience, they have a fine nose for socks, they are confident. One look at the account continuing the edit war after you had been reported for 3RR was enough. There was very little subtlety in the sock. And the follow-up, which I wasn't aware of.

If it were me, I wouldn't bother. I could use a proxy IP, I could burn a sleeper, I could phone a friend. Whatever clever tricks I used to conceal my identity, the basic fact of the continuation of the edit war that demonstrated my firm attachment to the tag would be enough to set the duck quacking.

In this case, the sock is merely the icing on the duck. You stuck your wing in the air when you edit-warred over a trivial point. The canvassing, the muted threat of legal action, the other stuff all underlined the simple fact that this was something you cared deeply about. And for what? The thing was under discussion, points were being made for different views, minds were being engaged. We will work it out and move on to the next thing. In the end, that is what we must all do. One day we will not be able to defend our deepestly-held beliefs on Wikipedia. We (or possibly Wikipedia) will be somewhere else. Possibly musing on our Cherry Garcia as we walk along the sandy shore of Nirvana.

Pause, take a few deep breaths, clear your mind and relax. That's what I do.

Because if I don't, some interfering admin will come along and do it for me!

Perhaps the discussion can be continued in a week's time? Without rancour or personal attacks. As if nothing had happened. Your view is welcome in Wikipedia, but I am sure others will stand up to make the same points if they have any merit. You and I are not the sole repositories of human wisdom. There are others like us, they were there before we arrived and others will follow after we are gone. And they are here in this present world. Billions of them. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pete.

Firstly I must point out that I never intended to imply a threat if legal action, only raising a complaint through Wikipedia and only over your assertion that I have 'form' with sock puppetry which is not true as form means previous convictions. I was and remain offended by that allegation. What I do have is one previous allegation which produced only the most tenuous evidence against me in that my edit patterns are similar to a number of other editors. Anyway, lets move on from that.

The reason I reverted the removal of the tag was that I was upset by the violation of the policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags which states that "If the person placing the tag has explained his or her concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building." There was no attempt at consensus building going on and tag removal was happening in minutes, not "a few days". I continue to beleive that this was not appropriate editing, and Surturz has said as much at the ANI. Unfortunately I got emotionally involved and violated 3RR which brought about the ANI and started all this.

I suspect the discussion about the graphic will not need to be continued in a week as it seems to be progressing quite well without you or I taking much part. I raised the question and a number of editors have joined in raising a range of interesting arguments and working towards some kind of consensus, and that is what I wanted to start. Surturz has said that he may add Gillard's return to offshore processing, and that may all that is needed to bring back balance in the graph. I am not sure, but it would be a good step anyway. As later figures are added it would at least illustrate that on this occasion offshore processing has not done what they intended (I think we can all agree on that?).

I will state once more, I have never been convicted of sock puppetry before, and I am not guilty this time. I know the world is full of people protesting their innocence, but in this case it is true. I have never created a sock account because I have always believed that the system of Wikipedia works - if you make a sensible argument and back it up with good references then you will succeed in improving the article you are editing. You and I have had some doozies of disputes before, and not always the calmest, but we have still managed to reach consensus by using the appropriate procedures. There are times you have educated me about Wikipedia policies, and times we have not been quite so calm about matters, but the system has still worked.

As Lukeno94 has pointed out above there is still sock puppetry going on, and I am at a loss to explain that or the sock puppetry of which you accused me. However, there is clearly someone causing trouble, but it is not me I assure you. The user name "Hard Men are Good to Find" has made me wonder, do you remember Welshboyau11/ Enidblyton11? He is into sock puppetry, likes to create trouble and has hung around auspol articles before. I suspect it is him or someone like him causing these problems.

I will keep trying to clear my name of this because I never have been and never will be a sock puppeteer.

Djapa Owen (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the behaviour that rings bells. When we wake up in the morning, we do not suddenly find our consciousness a surprise. We do not evaluate the world from first principles. We anchor ourselves through our memories and patterns of behaviour. Instead of being a soul adrift in an unfamiliar universe, we draw on what has gone before. It is this aspect of us that makes us identifiable to others as much as to ourselves. I don't need a DNA test to identify the voice on the phone as the same person I rang up yesterday. Likewise, when I see certain behaviour, I smell the same duck I smelt last time. If things are as you state, then there must be several different editors all sharing behaviour that is extremely uncommon. There is no one detail, no one IP address, no one peculiarity. It is the indefinable something that distinguishes a red-headed blue-eyed Melburnian from their identical twin. --Pete (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with WP:DUCK Pete, but I ask you, what is this "behaviour that is extremely uncommon"? Disagreeing with you? I can name a few who have a history of doing that but you do not suggest that Hilo, Timeshift and I are all the same person do you? I thought we were building a little common ground here? Mending a few fences?   Djapa Owen (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't put my finger on it, but I know it when it goes "Quack". But we are all capable of change. When it comes to mending fences, our first target should be ourselves. Change comes from within. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to King of Hearts for unblocking me.

Pete, I asked you to proceed with a formal accusation because I was confident that I would be seen to be innocent of the charge, and I thank you for doing what I asked. Simply making accusations on talk pages is not the right way to do things, but as you say we are all capable of change. Now back to the editing that matters, see you at the barricades comrade!   Djapa Owen (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Call it a sixth sense if you will, but I suspected something was up. It was as clear a WP:DUCK as any, but something just didn't feel quite right. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I must apologize, Djapa84, for my involvement in this - although at least the SPI case I filed shows that you are indeed innocent! Djapa, when two accounts make an identical edit to yours (especially one of that nature), alarms bells do start to ring. Obviously, in this case, it was one of the abusive troll sockmasters, and you were innocent, but I hope you understand why you were accused :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lukeno94, I was quite indignant at the accusation because it was not me, but I said from the start that I appreciated that it sounded like a duck. That is why I said I wanted it to go to a proper investigation to clear my name and I thank you for helping with that process.    Djapa Owen (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and thank you for remaining as civil as it was possible to be in such a situation :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor
Hey Djapa84 :). Looks like your edit to Enbridge caused some problems with linking (specifically, nowiki tags). Did you try typing out the square brackets? If so, that's the source of the problem, for which I apologise. Links can be made using the link icon in the toolbar, in future. We're working on better ways to handle people putting wikimarkup in the new editor :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

redback spider
Hey sorry to revert, we weren't happy with the sources provided as they didn't qualify as reliable sources in the absence of any others - if you have a book that supports the sentence then, please add as it would be good to reinsert the info. The reason we're being strict on references is that the article is being assessed for Featured Articles status - see Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates/Redback_spider/archive1. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How do we get a series of COI edits removed from an article?
The Enbridge article has a large number of edits done by 161.141.1.1 which is a clear conflict of interest as that IP is registered to the Enbridge company and all those edits have been pushing a pro-Enbridge agenda. I have raised a COIN on the issue. Is there any other action I should be taking about removing those biassed edits? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reporting. Since the editor is an IP, we can request protection at WP:RPP, which I recently did. Other than that, admin can notify and optionally block the user if the issue persists. I hope this helps. Cheers,  Alex discussion ★ 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. And also in these cases consider reading WP:Discussion.  Alex discussion ★ 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Aleksa. I have attempted to raise this issue on the IP's talk page and the article's talk page, but the IP has not responded despite continuing to edit so I can only assume they are either unaware of my communication or they are choosing to ignore it.&#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War Coalition victory
There is the invasion period that is a military victory. But also the issue the state of Iraq during the withdrawal rather then afterwards. That the current state of Iraq should be reflected on the current Iraqi government for the past two years rather then the efforts of the coalition. Articseahorse (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly could be argued that the Ba'athist regime was defeated, but I do think some discussion of whether we should call it an outright victory because the hostilities continue and the coalition has officially withdrawn (while most participants are maintaining forces there still).&#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wicked Campers
Djapa, using the words 'primitive' and 'crude' in the first paragraph is making a judgement and potentially original material rather than research.

Referencing a Daily Telegraph article rather than primary material from government reports is not good research.

The entire article should not become a diatribe against Wicked Campers either. Let's get some objectivity here. Thank you. --Emily Bronte (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You could argue that primitive is a biassed term in this context, but crude is quite accurate. A few of the slogans are "politically incorrect", but far more are sexual references and as such have no real political context. They are simply crude references about having slept with your girlfriend and the like. That is why I believe crude is much more accurate than a vague piece of newspeak like "politically incorrect".


 * I find it strange that you criticise the Daily Telegraph reference when you have just inserted a reference to the Wicked website and another to one of their ads on Wicked's Youtube channel. Do you consider those to be impartial or encyclopaedic? (Not that a tabloid is exactly encyclopaedic) The referenced material is interesting, so perhaps you might want to find a reference a little further from the source? The personal blog reference may also upset some.


 * Objectivity is of course the aim, and your last visit did much more to bring objectivity than jumping in and removing all edits which were not positive about the company. The article is improving incrementally so lets keep working together on that. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha. I can work with that. Keeping crude but removing primitive is a good compromise. Valid point about the personal blog but as far as I can see its a blog that they've chosen to make public, not restricted with a password, and since they are raising money for charity maybe on balance they would like traffic to it? I honestly don't know. Your call. Yeah a tabloid is not encyclopedic--I tried to find outside sources for the other campaigns but no luck yet. I am happy to change those if I do find better references. Emily Bronte (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as that goes, more authoritative references would of course be good, but the content itself is interesting and might as well be there even if better references cannot be found. They are hardly controversial claims needing unquestionable authority are they? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador Cars
Why are you singling out Sonia Gandhi as a prominent politician using 'Ambassador Cars' ...That's dumb and out of context of the page.


 * I did not insert her there, she was already mentioned. If you look at the talk page you will see that it is discussed there. She is the one mentioned in the reference for that section, and some editors have argued that she is a known identity outside India. Is I said in my edit summary, please contribute to the discussion on the talk page. That way your arguments will become part of the record and this will help stop the issue descending into an edit war. &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes
Very confused by this revert. Maybe you meant to revert something else, or could explain on the Talk page? Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it quoted two references for two separate reports, the first is quite reasonable, but the second picks one sentence when the two paras around that sentence give significant evidence against the impression given by that sentence alone. If using that reference one should carry across the qualifications the reference applies to the statement quoted. Otherwise one should find another reference which does not qualify the statement. Do you want this discussion mirrored on the article talk page? &#32;  Djapa Owen (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * that is much better yes. please do!  i will put my original question there for you.  btw your explanation doesn't have enough detail to make sense to me (i crafted the original sentence - the editor you reverted had cut it in her previous edit, and had just pasted in a different section, in the edit you reverted - it was not a new creation) I will add here that I am trying very hard to avoid discussion about what atrazine actually does or does not do in the article about Hayes.  It doesn't belong in that article which is about the man; discussion of atrazine belongs in the atrazine article.  All I was trying to communicate with the sentence about the EPA is that they didn't agree with his findings; nothing more. but let's pick this up on the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Djapa gives friendly welcomes
Thanks for the welcome Djapa! Hope I'm writing it in the right place. Manymak!Zaddikskysong (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilson-Pilcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Displacement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Foreign troops in New Zealand wars
Hi Djapa, I noticed your query at the New Zealand wars re the use of the RNSW Regiment and Victorian troops. I recall only the use of British troops apart from the later use of settler militia, Forest Rangers, Armed Constabulary, kupapa etc, but you may be right. There is no mention in that article of NSW or Victorian troops though. In which of the NZ wars in particular were Australian troops used? That may need to be added to the relevant articles. BlackCab (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just another thought: the Royal New South Wales Regiment article on Wikipedia says this regiment was formed in 1960. The oldest of the battalions that were drawn into it was formed about 1860, but I can find nothing to suggest they served in New Zealand. Victorians were lured from the goldfields to fight in New Zealand, but not in any Victorian/Australian outfit: they were encouraged to migrate as military settlers, fight if called on and would be rewarded with a grant of land provided under the 1863 land confiscation legislation. If you're able to clarify which Australian regiment was sent to New Zealand though, I'd be grateful. BlackCab (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)