Template talk:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OR/Blank

OR-2 placement

@Skjoldbro: can you aid in this, @The Doom Patrol: is adamant that OR-2 should be grouped with JNCOs, with no reason given, just that that is apparently the way it should be, and I don't have the time nor energy to continually revert their attempts to mess up every rank template. Cdjp1 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As a note, @The Doom Patrol:, Wikipedia:BRD the bold isn't the reversion, the bold is what you did, and so the reverting back to the status quo is what's done until this discussion here is completed. But I give up trying to help you with these edits, do whatever you want and another editor can clean it up. Cdjp1 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone tells you to go ask "US DOD" for that it is the "correct template, with correct placing of OR-2", you can tell who's adamant. I cleaned your mess. Anyone who's not blind can see that I am the one who fixed the broken template. I changed this (your version) to this (mine), yeah, that's bold. And, you call someone else (Skjoldbro) to argue and bring sources for YOUR claims? That shows you have no interest to substantiate your claims, just like you did in other templates. This childish guy mass vandalised by content blanking 8 CAPF templates just because he could not provide sources for the misinformation he added (that CAPF has Senior Constable and Officer Trainee ranks). At least bring source for this one.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Note: There's one discussion in his talk page too (and for other edits, see 1 & 2).--The Doom Patrol (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not my version, it's Status Quo. Please actually look into what the history is for what you're editing. I have pinged Skjoldbro as they have been involved in creating the templates (iirc), and has been maintaining and updating them for longer than I have been involved. So their input is going to be more knowledgeable than anything I say. And as I previously explained, I'm not going to be involved in these edits anymore, and wash my hands of it. Cdjp1 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On your other claims, you wanted things that weren't cited removed. I completed that action as per your request, the blanking can be rolled back (you have shown you know how to do this) once sources are provided for it (or without, because, as explained, I'm washing my hands of it). As you keep stating you have sources for all the ranks, this should not be a problem for you to provide, so I am in no doubt you'll bring the templates up to the correct standard, better than they were previously. Cdjp1 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That's no excuse for edit warring. Don't make strawman arguments to justify your vandalism, I never requested you (show me that request) to blank templates, or said that I wanted things that weren't cited removed. You alone is responsible for your actions. In CAPF templates, I removed only a piece of material, a rank name, which I knew was incorrect. But you restored it without providing any source to verify it. If someone removes something saying its incorrect (having no source either), on what basis are you reverting it without a source? So I showed you the Wiki policy you violated, WP:BURDEN, which explicitly states you cannot "add or restore material" without source. But you took that as an excuse for blanking templates just for "revenge", FYI, that does not comes under WP:BURDEN. What do you feel is incorrect enough to blank it? Major edit like blanking an entire page must have a valid explanation other than sourcing issue, it violates WP:PAGEBLANKING that can even get you blocked. Not to mention that YOU CREATED those templates. Are you saying you added no citations? That's kind of self-troll. I am not going to restore those templates, let others see what you have done and judge you. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)