Consistency can be nice, but should never come before accuracy, readability, verifiability, neutrality, and balance. Get all the rest right, then maybe you can think about implementing that universal infobox to replace all custom infoboxes. And, no you can't make that crap edit because other articles have the same crap edit. Which leads me to...
There is no WP:PRECEDENCE policy. What you can put into wikipedia should never be justified because other people have put the similar rubbish in somewhere else.
No, you are not doing a wikipedia a great service by translating that page with no references from Sundanese wikipedia. Why not write from decent references in the first place?
Add the referencenow with your new text. If not, you are only creating a whole lot of work for others. If you're adding info, then you've got the text in front of you - um, right? If you haven't, then you shouldn't be adding it.
The odd grammar mistake is fine, but if you can't read or write in coherent English at a level appropriate to your edit, then you shouldn't be on English Wikipedia. Sorry to be an insensitive prick, but I'm thinking of wikipedia not you. Which brings me, obstensibly contradictorily, to...
WP:CIVIL is ultimately to protect wikipedia, not to protect editor's feelings. If you're going to be a patronising bully about things, don't expect a collaborative atmosphere that helps wikipedia improve. No wonder so many good editors leave.
