Talk:Rodney R. Crowley

Infobox

Which parameter is in error in the Infobox? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the edit summaries of the editor who is removing the infobox as I can't see what's actually wrong. But it appears to me that this infobox is not useful at all, just distracting. It's calling attention to all the wrong things, except perhaps Crowley's terms in the office of Superintendent of State Prisons – if that's actually worth stressing. (I don't known what Supervisor of the Town of Randolph means, but it sounds more impressive to me.) And for navigational purposes the navigation template at the bottom is much more useful. Hans Adler 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Federal positions would be more important than State positions, and State positions would be more important than Local positions. Almost all Federal positions have lists of appointees. Some state positions do, and local mayors for large cities may have lists to connect to. If you want "Town Supervisor" added it can be added, but we don't have any information on who came before and after. Nothing in the manual of style says you can't have two types of navigation devises in one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

READ THE TEXT, MR. NORTON, THE INFO IN THE BOX IS STILL WRONG! IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND IF YOU CAN'T READ, JUST LET IT GO!

Dear Mr. Adler, the office of Town supervisor is like a mayor of a city in a town without executive department, or like the president of the board of trustees of a village. Wrong in the infobox is appointed by Gov..., predecessor and successor. I fully agree that the infobox is not helpful in short articles which appear as a whole on the screen without need to scroll down. Removed per consensus. Kraxler (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You asked User:Lifebaka for her opinion and she said "keep", now it looks like you are venue shopping till you get the answer you want. I will ask again: What information is incorrect in the infobox? Any error can be corrected --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler said remove. Lifebaka said, she has nothing against it, being neutral. I am not opposed to infoboxes on principle, I resent it that a mentally retarded copy-and-paste wizard hijacks my time to eliminate errors introduced in a correct article, and tramples on almost all wikipedia guidelines. I will have you blocked permanently as a vandal, there is already enough evidence to show it. Now you are already hiding sources that contradict you, and state "may have been", hahaha. There is a guideline that says that no controversial content should be added. It's controversial where he was buried, so to decide in favor of one or the other is original research, just don't add it. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to discuss what you think is wrong with it here and get a consensus to agree with you here. I have reverted your latest removal - and be warned, further edit-warring will get you blocked. And further abusive comments will get you blocked even quicker -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In bold up there, I urge you to read (both the text of the article, and this talk page) before editing!!!! Iwon't fix it, it's under debate on ANI already. I have fixed many things already and Mr. Norton just blind-reverts, thank you. Besides, I do not think that I overstepped WP:CIVIL with a plain statement of fact above. JUST READ THIS PAGE. Is it possible that somebody can ask "What is wrong with it?" after I explained above? I will spell it out again: The Prison Inspectors were not appointed by the Gov., they were elected by popular ballot on the State ticket; there were 3 of them serving concurrently, so that a "predecessor" and a "successor" are not easily to be established, except in a box with has an "alongside" underline. Besides it says clearly in the text that Crowley was one of the last three, the office was abolished in 1877. Can't you read? You think it is uncivil to ask that? If you are unable to edit an infobox, and if you don't know anything about the subject, and if you are unwilling to check the blue links, then just let it go, and don't edit. Don't disrupt editors who know what they are doing. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well just correct the incorrect part then, and don't remove the whole infobox, as people have been telling you. Also, calling people "mentally retarded" is most definitely way outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. (And the whole "Can't you read?" bit is not really a good indication of a constructive and collegial attitude, but no matter) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The change was very easy to make once pointed out. I have now "serving alongside". So much drama over an issue that took milliseconds to adjust. Anyone else have an opinion on "appointed by". The reference says Tilden nominated Crowley, but there appears to be an objection that "appointed" is not the correct word since a committee is involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He just deleted "appointed by" before anyone had a chance to comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I have found a compromise with "|governor = Samuel Jones Tilden" for offices serving under a governor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are still at sea, Mr. Norton. The nominees are nominated by State conventions, on whoever's instruction, but then are elected by the people, the Republican candidate might have won. Statewide elected officers do not serve under a governor. They are elected in their own right. Besides, you could just have piped C.A. Walrath, without first undoing my edit, if you are a stickler for accuracy. Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I have wasted another 4 hours on defending the obvious against your vandalistic attacks and unfounded suppositions, if you start to do that with all other articles on my watchlist, we will be busy for the rest of our lifes. I will now wait for the outcome of the discussion at ANI. Kraxler (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)