We don't use the "Batman (Bruce Wayne)" and "Catwoman (Selina Kyle)" links in the appearances section, because the categorization still uses "Bruce Wayne (New Earth)" etc. The former are for google optimization. Internally, we use the latter.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
We don't use those page-names for linking at all, for categorization reasons.
You were still changing the Quote links.
We don't add textless covers to cover galleries. Those belong on issue pages, and can be used on team and character pages etc, but the cover galleries are strictly for the full retail covers.
If we're missing covers, the appropriate thing to do is find them, upload them, and add them to the issue page and cover galleries with the proper template, etc.
I understand you challenging the site conventions, but having edit wars against admins is not the way to do that. If you want to challenge an admin's ruling, the appropriate way to do that is discussion through a talk page. I wanted to do this politely, but I will simply protect the page if you won't stop changing it.
Please don't tell me you know more about the storyline pages on our site than I do. I made at least 90% of those pages. I made the Storyline Template. Our policy is that we use the cover for the collected edition if we have it on file, and if we don't then we use the cover to the first issue.
We use the collected edition cover when we have one on file on the site, if someone uploads them. They're the preference, because they're the image that DC has chosen to represent that storyline. They're the preference, but it's acceptable to use a regular cover image if something better isn't immediately available. I'm not going to go around making sure every storyline image is stricly updated based on collected edition covers, but I am going to revert edits that change to a less preferable image when we already have a good one.
Hey Varese, please either link character appearances in trades like a normal page, Character (Universe), or don't link any characters and add {{Missing Characters}} at the bottom of the page. Linking to just Bruce Wayne or Penguin isn't very helpful because they're empty categories. Thanks.
They existed on one or more of the main pre-Crisis worlds, One, Two, Four, X, and/or S. Several of them should be moved and/or split up. Also, some of them only appeared in non-canon appearances; John Quincy Adams, for example, only appeared in a history story about Abigail Adams in Wonder Woman.
You still did not give a satisfactory reason. As I've stated above, it's for navigation purposes. Like all these topic boxes: {{Batman}} links to the disambiguation pages. {{Superman}} links to the disambiguation pages. Every topic box template (with a few notable exceptions) links to the disambiguation pages. This one is not an exception.
You reverted without bothering to check what you did. I had made several other edits to the template, and because you simply reverted it, you filled it with red links.
You are abusing your power as an administrator, because you are the other part of the discussion. I demand another administrator to decide on this matter. Unless you feel your position is too weak to have it submitted to another administrator...
User:Hatebunny. I'll abide to what he tells me to do regarding the template, because he is a third party. In the meantime, I demand to be unblocked. I will not edit the template until he settles the matter.
You never warned about the block, you just went ahead and blocked me. That is abusive. I wasn't even told about a set of rules regarding that penalty or its duration. You are acting with bad faith.
Presidents in the wrong place should be moved to where they go. So... somebody do that. The block should be reduced to ... let's say... 2 days?
Varese, your behaviour around here has been... weird lately, to say the least (for example, the last two items on this very message wall).
It's never a good idea to revert an edit that was undone by an administrator just because you don't think you did anything wrong. Edit summaries are nice and all, but they're not the same as actually discussing issues.
A week is probably a bit harsh for a block, but I think that a block is justified for the initial edit war - but a shorter one.
If there had been a discussion, there would have been some warning for the block, I suspect, but there should always be a warning of some sort. Given that the block is already in place ... a warning would be redundant.
You agreed to abide by my decision.
My decision was to have your block reduced.
I also agreed that the presidents in the wrong place needed to be moved.
Essentially, I validated your concerns. That doesn't mean that the thing you were blocked for in the first place magically didn't happen.
And I will keep my word. What I don't agree with is a giving someone a penalty at all without a warning. So, in short, I was blocked for trying to make this wikia better, as I saw it, even if others didn't. If that is the case, User:Tupka217 should also be blocked, for the same period of time. Or are administrators treated differently?
Yes, you should.
Administrators are trusted to do the right thing. And while blocking you without warning you isn't necessarily the best course of action, it doesn't hurt the wiki.
You should have known not to redo something an administrator has undone.
That in itself is cause for punishment, because YOU should trust the administrators to take the best course of action too.
Abuse of power would be if I blocked you over an edit war on a subjective topic. Like, say, the alignment of Robert E. Lee (but let's not go there).
This is not a subjective matter. The topic boxes link to disambiguation pages. It is the standard for just about every topic box on this wiki. I can only think of one or two that don't. Your only argument to not follow the standard was "It lists the New Earth presidents". I countered that point by saying several did not appear in New Earth, or in non-canon stories, or not as Presidents. (I gave an example with JQ Adams; I could give more: Eisenhower, Grant, Harding, Harrison, Madison)
Contrary to popular belief, a block does not need an explicit warning beforehand.
We were having a discussion. In the meantime, I had made several adjustments to cater to points you raised, and moved several pages to different universes. I relinked the template accordingly. I also removed links for presidents that did not appear anywhere in the DC Universe. Without replying, you reverted all of those edits - and thus created a template full of red links. The only reason you gave was "I did explain."
Giving an unsatisfactory reason, ignoring discussion, and reverting unrelated edits... those three are enough reason for a block without warning.
I blocked you for a week, which is not much. People have been blocked for longer, for less (and not by me). I unblocked you while review was pending. Hatebunny suggested bringing it down to two days, but didn't reblock you. Since a day more has passed, only a day would remain. I won't block you for that day. I'll leave it at that.
Don't remove covers from cover galleries and issue 5 already has an image. We talked about this the other day. Unless you can specify why you have a "personal" problem with an image or why we should delete/replace it, it needs to stay.
I can't imagine why you have a problem with that cover but whatever. It was a published cover by DC and we cover it. Other than this issue, you've been a good editor but if you keep going around behind our backs on this, you will end up getting a ban.