Talk:Jersey Coastguard

Jersey Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible revert back to stub level

I think it is important to have most of the additional factual information on this page, I think it is a good upgrade of the page. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is correct that an upgrade can be simply removed by you, User:Theroadislong when the creator User:Jersey Coastguard is supported by an independent party, namely myself. If as you say "It is YOU who needs to get consensus." then no upgrades could be done without having a number of people approving something they cannot even see. Please explain what you believe is wrong with the upgrade ? Can it be toned down in any way to suit you ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was entirely unreferenced, Wikipedia only reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk)

It was not my expansion of the article, that was User:Jersey Coastguard, all I did was remove some bold headings, for which you thanked me. However coming back to the article, if it is just about referencing, is it not normal to just post a warning in the article about needing references and if they do not appear after a month or so, in then removing the unreferenced material. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Theroadislong that this was not a good "upgrade". It removed usual lead para style, removed a reference, added large amounts of unreferenced material (possibly WP:OR), and large amounts of material not necessarily relevant. In any case, User:Jersey Coastguard has since been blocked from editing. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]