Talk:United Firefighters Union of Australia

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organized Labour Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Firefighting Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Australia Stub‑class

	Australia portal United Firefighters Union of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

NSW Fire Brigades Employees Union split

I notice that there is a lot of reverting back to the minimal stub. Can the user doing the reverting please explain exactly what is wrong with the information presented, or ask for a 3o review?

p.s. for this page I choose to remain anonymous to avoid trouble from members. I am not a member of the UFU, and I'm annoyed that the FBEU, which had a very public split, is now regarded as the NSW branch, ignoring the UFU's own financial statements. 203.174.137.222 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you only had a concern that the FBEU was referred to as the NSW Branch, you would remove them from the list without vandalising the article.

The information used in this particular Wikipedia article was sourced from the legitimate web address of the title organisation.

Upon reading the response from the FBEU, there is now no reference to NSW in this article, as they may be referred to elsewhere. Atriskboy (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove all the objective information about the UFUAs recent actions, given that they are now part of the UFUA history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.137.222 (talk • contribs) 02:37, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from NSW - I suggest leaving the data in about the split NSWFire (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one else appears to want to do anything constructive, I will ask for adjudication as this is getting silly. NSWFire (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youre essentially trying to use this article as a defamatory tool, which is not why wikipedia exists, and creating a profile in order to attempt to legitimise your behaviour just doesnt hold water. - FF83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 04:54, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Rather than personal insults, let us wait for a third opinion. I refer you to wikipedia guidelines on dealing with the content facyually, and leaving emotive words like 'defamatory' NSWFire (talk)

I would point out that reverting to the first version brings it more attention from google than leaving it alone until adjudicated. NSWFire (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at United Firefighters Union of Australia. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.