Talk:Jersey Coastguard

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)