User talk:Zeupar

Introductions
Regarding this - anything in an article's introduction must also be present in the main article, otherwise the introduction is not meeting policy - See WP:LEDE. It is NOT POSSIBLE to duplicate an introduction in the main article. TRIVIA has nothing to do with it, I don't know why you even mentioned it. Please do not revert this again, otherwise you will be blocked from editting to prevent you from doing so. If you don't understand the policy, please seek assistance at the help desks. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't always agree with User:MickMacNee, but in this instance I have no choice. The lede in any article should contain material that introduces the subject. This information should be elaborated upon later in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about an item of a trivia section. As you can read in WP:TRIV, you are supposed to integrate these items into the article text if appropriate. While I agree that integrating said items in the introduction is not appropriate in most instances, I think that this is an exception. In fact, that information was already in the introduction before I added trivia section. Zeupar (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an exception. There are no exceptions to LEDE. It can be in the lede and the main article, or integrated just in the main article, but not the other way round. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead links as references
Hi Zeupar. This is nothing heavy but I would like to ask you to be careful when dealing with references with dead links in them, such as the one on Time Cube. Firstly, there is no rule that says that references have to have links (although, obviously, it is very useful when they do). A reference to a printed publication that is not available on-line is still valid. Secondly, it is often possible to find an alternative links for a dead-linked reference by Googling for its title or looking on the publisher's restructured website. Rather than removing references with dead links it is normally better to tag them with so that somebody else can have a go at fixing them. Of course, that doesn't apply to references that appear to be irrelevant, superfluous or spurious for other reasons (e.g. newly created dead-links that probably never pointed at anything) but in the case of long standing valid references it is important not to remove them just because some site has restructured its web content. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2014
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2014 FIFA World Cup, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, are you sure you aren't mistaking me for someone else? Zeupar (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I was meaning to warn 7amozza. I have stricken the warning. Thanks for making the correction to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)