This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
I have added info box to make it consistent with other articles. However an editor has taken objection to this and has undone all my hard work of formatting, said editor has also been removing existing info boxes that I had nothing to do with creating from other articles such as Lincolnshire CC elections 2013. Said editor has also threatened to have me blocked for edit warring, when it is that individual who is vandelising articles by removing information from articles. If any block is required I would suggest it is of that editor and not myself.94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the infobox is duplicative and unnecessary page clutter. It is not justified. It is just there for the sake of it. It is page clutter and superfluous duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case every info box on wikipedia is uneccessary page clutter and they should all be removed from every single article because afterall ALL election info boxes are duplicates because they are a short summary (snap shot) of the election. I am not merely intending to add info boxes to everything, I want to upgrade the articles so that they are all consistent. that involves starting from the top of the page (the info box) and working your way down. Do you want to do something constructive and actually help? Or continue to vandelise? I seem to be the only person that seems to bother with proper formatting and layout consistency, would be helpful to have others do the same. Can you work with me and other editors instead of in this unconstructive manner. Thank you :-)94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not spread this discussion out over many articles please stuck to one article to discuss this the first article where this is being properly discussed is here please discuss there and not everywhere. There may be a ban for disrupting Wikipeidia to try and make a point. Please also refrain from being patronising with replies and please make sure that wikipolicies on things like vandalism are known before personal attacks claiming vandalism are wildly thrown about in violation of wikipolicy on no personal attacksSport and politics (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try and be polite instead of saying "rubbish" all the time. I don't take kindly to your accusation, I am the only person who has access to this IP and I do not have an account...that is my right and that is my choice. My history is clear and I have been accused and blocked before and appologised to for being wrongly blocked, so please do not peruse that route again. I have a good record, I mainly format, if you want to help help, I only do formatting really, I am getting the formatting consistent, I will not be trawling through websites to add results, I format and maybe add text, if you want to help adding the results would be a good thing you can do instead of persistently undoing my hard work. Like I say no one else seems to bother formatting at my level so I would appreciate it if you showed a little mutual respect, instead of "rubbishing" and reverting my edits, be helpful to wikipedia, not a vandal. 94.2.4.145 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
