text:
Template talk:Infobox Airliner accident

Comments
Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The international orange colour is used for the main template colour, because it contrasts with a clear blue sky and it is evocative of the flames and blood that so often attend aircraft crashes.

 * I think the bright red (thats what it looks like on my monitor) is a bad choice. It is quite ugly, the infobox becomes a bright flashing red light on the page, instead of becoming an integrated part of the article. I think a simple grey, black, or white will do. Qutezuce 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur. I get a nasty red which makes it nearly impossible to read the text. I am changing to ffcc99 - if no one likes it, I am sure it will get reverted or changed to something else. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The toned down orange seems to work. It still retains some of the sense of flames and danger, but I think readability issues have to take precedence over symbolism. Thanks for that. What about the aircraft infobox for alternate aircraft (i.e. second or fourth)? The light grey colour for the text background now looks a little out of place. --Jumbo 17:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Question. Is there any way, either directly or via bot action, to have all crash info boxes automatically create a unified 'Aviation Accident' category? Even if the cat is 'aviation crash', that would be useful. Ideally the cat should be universal, without limitation for country, region or sector of aviation, but anything derived from the crash info template would be acceptable. Ideas or comments? Crum375 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Suggestion. Can we add coordinates in the coor format? In some cases the crash site is very small. In those cases it would be helpful to pinpoint it on the map. See Pulkovo Airlines Flight 612. Solarapex 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree and second the recommendation. We do need to decide on a standardized coord format and datum. Crum375 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Datum - UTC like Wikipedia signatures (although the exact point of time may nobe know, there may be an interval). Coord - I wouldn't limit the precision, but would encourage to provide a region and scale. The scale parameter is needed as a crash site area may be pretty large. Also, this page (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/database.cgi) has a good list of attributes. Solarapex 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename?
Suggest rename to "Infobox Aircraft incident" as (a) infobox template names seem to follow a "Template:Infobox ..." format; and (b) "incident" is less specific than "crash"; I don't think all the pages featuring this infobox describe crashes...? Regards, David Kernow 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to this, as I believe some of the incidents, like the Qantas Flight 1 overrun could hardly be described as crashes, but I'm wondering how much work is involved? This is a bit more complex than merely moving a page, isn't it? --Jumbo 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd hope using the [move] tab at the top of the page would suffice...? Regards, David 23:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further thought: This template also seems intended for airline flights, so perhaps "Infobox Airliner incident" preferable...? David 23:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That suggested name sounds good. I'm not sure we want a WP article and template for private plane crashes anyway, and military accidents and disasters would need to be more specialised. I'm not sure of the technical details of renaming a template. What happens with a normal article move is that the article is renamed and a redirect page created, so that wikilinks keep on working. The thing keeps on flying and a good editor will then go back and change all the articles that reference the old name so that the redirect is no longer needed. With a template, does this work? Wouldn't renaming the template immediately break all the articles? --Jumbo 23:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been bold and made the move; according to this there don't appear to be any double redirects, so I'm guessing all should be well. If you agree (and no-one else reading this objects) I can use AWB to convert all instances of "Crash infobox" to Infobox Airliner incident relatively simply.
 * I'm also minded to try upgrading extending the infobox (using #if: ) so second or third planes involved in an incident (are there any involving more?) may be included within rather than bolted on below. What do you and/or anyone else reading this reckon? Yours, David 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Aviation incident and accident are very different. Up to now, I have been using this nice template for the various accident articles I either wrote from scratch or upgraded/improved. If this name remains, it will make all those articles wrong since they are accidents and not incidents. Please reconsider this move, and if need be create a new 'incident' template, but do not leave this name change as is, as it messes up lots and lots of articles that rely on it. Thanks, Crum375 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I didn't realiz/se there was a crucial distinction; it appeared that an accident was a type of incident. Thanks for correction, David Kernow 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It is a common mistake. As I assume you discovered, aviation accident has the NTSB definitions near the beginning. Crum375 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A third aircraft option needs to be added too as 1990 People's Republic of China airliner collision had three planes involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tail Number
I would suggest that Tail Number be changed to Registration as the term Tail Number in the aviation industry does not always have then same meaning - and all the infoboxes I have seen so far actually have the Registration in this field.MilborneOne 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Nobody has commented so I have changed tail number to registration. The term tail number is a colloquialism, the american FAA for example uses the term Registration or Aircraft Registration.MilborneOne 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Crum375 comments below, but I suggested changing the template two-weeks ago, waited for adverse comment, had none then changed it. I still stand by the fact the "Tail Number" is not a generally used term, it certainly is not used on the american FAA website, the UK CAA website or British and Australian accident reports who all use the term Aircraft Registration. I can only presume government agencies are north american perhaps this should not be a global template ! MilborneOne 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Injuries and fatalities
These parameters are officially and formally defined by various government agencies that investigate accidents. By changing them and creating a new terminology, the existing body of accident articles that rely on this template will become technically incorrect, and new ones will not be able to use the template, as it will not conform to the accident reports prepared by the investigative bodies. Please do not change these parameters without thinking long and hard about their effects on the existing articles and the formal definitions. Thanks, Crum375 13:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * And what about canadian and german authorities? http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_02_00.asp
 * And how does a fatality happen when not by an injury (I mean, when the head is ripped off by some piece of metal, isnt that an injury somehow?)?
 * Thanks! --213.54.144.50 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * For comment on Crum375s revertion of my tail number change please see above.MilborneOne 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Regarding your comment "above" regarding this (below) section: Why? Just because some silly newspaper cant use the official wording? Or some crazy US agency likes to play insane word games, while describing the consequences of governmental failure? Btw.: Where is your source? And why dont u just adopt the articles in question to the official wording instead of adopting the Infobox to some silly newspaper wording. --213.54.144.50 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If I dont hear a reasonable explanation within 7 days (on my calendar), I will revert it to the official version in the hope, that somebody repairs the already wrong articles... --213.54.144.50 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw.: I have an account here now, too, and I am responsible to some extent for all edits caused by 213.54.0.0/16 in this area of wikipedia... --Homer Landskirty 13:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The concept of 'fatal injury' is not by itself wrong, and some agencies do use it, but not all. The issue is finding the terminology that will fit the most reports and official definitions. I did not say which agency we should use, although it's logical to rely on the major English speaking countries: US, Canada, UK, Australia, as reference, since this is the English WP. The non-English countries will normally translate their reports to terminology that is similar to the English ones. As an example of the complexities, the US NTSB/FAA (in 14CFR 830.2) define an accident related 'fatality' as any injury directly caused by the accident that leads to death within 7 days after the accident. For example, if a passenger dies of burn injuries sustained in the accident after 8 days, s/he is considered an 'injury' FAA/NTSB wise, while another who dies after 6 days is considered a 'fatality', Many countries follow suit with this (or similar) definition. Obviously if different countries use a different fatality 'cutoff window', that would create a difference by itself in the definitions, but we just have to accept it and it doesn't seriously affect the entire article. In some cases we may need to include the specific definition (e.g. in a footnote), but overdoing it could clutter the articles, IMO. Crum375 14:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The TSB of Canada (see link above) is among the "english (speaking) countries" u mention above. The TSB of Canada clearly follows my argumentation (a fatal injury is an injury, too). Your example about the definition does not explain, how the number of "injuries" can be zero, if the number of "fatalities" is non-zero. Cheers! --Homer Landskirty 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * We have to cater to all agency reports, old and new, hence the simpler our terminology the more inclusive it will become. I see no problem in the current version of "fatalities: 3, injuries: 7". It is simple and to the point. An agency can decide where to classify an eventual fatality based on their own time window. The bigger problem I see is with serious vs. moderate vs. light injuries. Do we include a minor scratch, or a minor neck strain (whiplash) as 'injury'? What if not all reports make the distinction or use the same criteria? Despite that gap, I would leave the template as simple as possible, and let the editor(s) make the decision 'on the ground', on a per case basis. BTW, I see no problem with having '10 fatalities, 0 injuries' - the reader immediately understands the concept, and the text of the article would normally say: "all 2 crew and 8 passengers on board the aircraft were killed". Crum375 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * OK - last try: In ur own example "fatalities: 3, injuries: 7": So 4 of the injured people, who r involved in that accident, survived, while 3 died? Or 7 of those injured people survied and 3 died? Semantically it is better to classify the involved people in "fatalities" (or "fatal injury" or isomorph), "seriously injured" (or so) and "other" (or "minor/none injury" or so). I would say, that every serious government agency (e. g.: german, canadian) does it so (or do u know a report, that uses semantically different wording? The FAA? Can u give me a link to one such report?). --Homer Landskirty 14:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Ohoh: I found another problem: "seriously" could euphemistically include "fatal", so that the semantics related problem could remain in spite of the additional word ("serious")... --Homer Landskirty 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * In my example, "fatalities: 3, injuries: 7" means 3 died, 7 survived (at least 7 days). That's pretty straightforward and very common. Typical language from reports: "Of the 85 persons on board Flight 123, 62 were killed, 22 were seriously injured, and one was slightly injured". Again, I am not disputing the validity of using 'injuries' to include fatalities, it's just that it could be confusing. Formally, we probably need to define 'injury' as 'serious or moderate, non fatal injury'. Generally, when someone says "X were killed and Y were injured", the meaning is crystal clear: the Y survived (at least for a while). Crum375 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Argl! I cant let it stand like that. Your favorite wording is in contrast to official governmental wording (see the Canadian TSB). Again my question: Do u have a FAA report, that uses ur wording? Or do u just know newspaper reports, that tend to me inaccurate and even wrong. --Homer Landskirty 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) The "typical report" example I gave above (85, 62, 22, 1) is from a real NTSB report. Here is another example from another NSTB report: "Of the 181 passengers and 8 crewmembers aboard, 8 passengers, the flight engineer, and a flight attendant were killed and 21 passengers and 2 crewmembers were injured seriously." We could use 'killed' and 'injured' as our categories, but I think 'fatalities' and 'injuries' is better. And you didn't reply to my point above about when someone says "X were killed and Y were injured", the meaning is crystal clear: the Y survived (at least for a while). Do you disagree? Crum375 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Since I am physically and psychologically unable to discuss this as thoroughly as obviously necessary, i would like to stress the "seriously" in your previous citation (why do u want to omit this?). --Homer Landskirty 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And as I mentioned before: "X were killed and Y were injured" is ambiguous, since X could be the size of the subset of the injured persons (with size Y), which my attempts r all about. But I am really unable to discuss this correctly (I am not even sure, if my understanding is correct -- I still wonder, if a "serious injury" could be fatal -- already in school I was quite bad in languages (german, english, french and latin; all D (in germany: 4 of 6 with 1 "very good", 4 "satisfactory" and 6 "deficient") or so))... Sorry. --Homer Landskirty 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are overcomplicating it. I think that to 99 people out of a hundred, the statement: "There was an airplane crash. 100 people were killed, and 30 were injured" would be totally unambiguous. Clearly each is a separate category. I agree with you that technically getting killed is getting 'fatally injured', and many reports do use that language. But it is inconsistent (as not all use it), awkward and confusing. In order to try to cover the largest variety of reports from many countries, I think the simpler is better, and "X killed and Y injured" is extremely clear and would cover all bases, IMO. Granted, there is that issue of defining "killed" as "not surviving X days after the event", where X may not be the same world wide, but you can't have everything, and this is a relatively minor issue. Crum375 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Parameter adjustment
Why not move the "Survivors" parameter to right after the "Injuries" parameter? Shouldn't the number of Fatalities, injuries and survivors all be one atop another. As it is now, the survivors is the last parameter. Just a suggestion.--MONGO 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some injuries or fatalities can be to people on the ground, while some are among the passengers/crew of each aircraft, in a multi-aircraft collision. 'Survivors' only makes logical sense when applied specifically to the occupants of one of the involved aircraft, as arguably every person on Earth is a 'survivor' of each crash. Crum375 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it. I see "58 Fatalities" and think, how many people were on the flight? How many of those were on the ground? The spread of passengers-crew-survivors-fatalities-injured over both parts of the box make this info hard to discern. I can see putting the passenger/crew info into the Aircraft box, because that info is particular to the Aircraft, but I think the Injured/Fatalities/Survivors info should be grouped together. And maybe a separate parameter so that the reader can distinguish between injuries and fatalities to those on the ground vs those that were on the flight. I could also argue that the passenger number be including in the Summary portion, since that number obviously changes flight to flight. Not so obviously, the crew number does as well. In other words, if there's Crew and Passenger numbers in the Aircraft portion of the infobox, then those should indicate Standard Crew Size and Maximum Number of Passengers that the aircraft type allows -- not the numbers on the specific flight. Heresiarch Yo 17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that some pages add a parenthetical after these numbers, eg "Fatalities: 10 (8 official)", in those exceptional cases where additional information is needed. -Heresiarch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heresiarch (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox colour
please change to a less-bright colour. I think white or some sky grey-blue should do better. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason we use the orange is because it represents the International Orange color code, which relates to aviation safety and accidents. IMO it reminds people that many (if not most) of these accidents are mostly due to violations of safety principles and are largely avoidable. The reason we and all other media present these safety articles is not only to describe the accident as a news story, but to prevent recurrence by exposing the safety violations. Having the brighter orange color that connotes safety helps convey that message better than some sedate blue, IMO. Crum375 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said that, if there is consensus for some other color I would accept it - this is not a critical issue. Crum375 03:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * according to the article on International Orange, the code is #FF4F00 so please let it be precise. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At least on my machine, #FF4F00 comes out fairly bright red, which is very distracting and makes the writing hard to read. So it seems we need the more subdued orange #ffcc99, as we have had for a long time now. Crum375 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone does not mind, the text within that orange color should remain black. That "linen" color made it a bit difficult to read within the orange color. KyuuA4 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The symbolism that strikes me is that of the bright orange used on flight recorders. --GregU 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image size
I thought that 210px was too small for the image size. Most infoboxes that I've seen allow images to be sized up to around 300px. I changed it to 250px. Cla68 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ship name
Is the word "ship" used for airliners also ? Jay 11:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another rename?
Since this box is becoming more and more commonly used for all aviation crashes, including military ones (see B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base for example), I suggest renaming to the existing Aircraft accident redirect, since when you look at the box in an article in edit mode, "Aircraft accident" is what it shows it being called.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest, to prevent ambiguity but maintain accuracy, this is renamed "Infobox aircraft accident" or something similar? (we might want to mention incidents as well, though I personally feel that isn't nescescary). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes and merger with Template:Infobox Mid-air accident
I’ve been thinking that this template should be combined with Template:Infobox Mid-air accident. But I would also like to see some minor changes to parameters.
 * I think that the “ship name” should be completely removed as most aircraft that crash do not have a nickname. It’s also difficult to find, and isn’t that notable.
 * I believe it would be more concise to just have the origin of the aircraft (where it took off from) and the destination (where it was supposed to land). There’s really no reason to list the last stop-over, it would just be the “origin” if there were one. It would be better if these were listed as airports instead of cities.
 * Perhaps there should be accommodations made for fatalities on the ground, but the existing format suits me fine.

As for the merger of the templates this is what I have to say:
 * More than two aircraft can be involved in a collision (Ramstein airshow disaster) and it would be easier if it were possible to allow for more aircraft (maybe four or five, just in case).
 * The new template would be called “Infobox Aircraft incident”. – Zntrip 14:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle with most of the above. As for the origin, though, there are times that an intermediate stopover for fuel is made (ie, Gander) but that really shouldn't be listed as the origin, as it's not the point of origin for most/all of the folks onboard. Granted, this doesn't occur that often, but I'd like us to be clear on that.  AK Radecki  Speaketh  20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I also agree, although we may need set rules for apropriate use of that stop-over thing if we decide to keep it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions for the "last stop-over" parameter? How about we leave it as an optional parameter? – Zntrip 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(General comments) "Ship name" is probably more relevant for the early days of aviation (e.g. "The Hindenberg"; "Lituanica"), and should be kept. Please write "guidelines", not "rules". Yes, parameters like "stop over" should be kept, and optional. Please be sure to retain the hCalendar microformat mark-up, or drop me a line on my talk page if you need my assistance in that regard. Cheers, Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't want the infobox to be cluttered. If you are looking at the article for the Hindenberg, you would know the name of the ship from the article, the infobox doesn't have to have everything. – Zntrip 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The infobox won't be "cluttered" by including relevant information. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I must say it doesn't take up too much space or look cluttered as-is, IMO. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The ship name is not relevant to the infobox. The infobox is about an event involving the aircraft, not the aircraft itself. It doesn’t matter what the aircraft was called. And if your talking about the Hindenberg and Lituanica, then the name is in the article’s name and it would be redundant to list it in the infobox. That's why I think it should be ommitted. – Zntrip 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "The ship name is not relevant to the infobox" - that's a subjective opinion, and not a fact. I disagree, an I don't think you could make a logical argument to support it. AS for the name of the aircraft being n the article; so is most or all of the other information in the infobox. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I don’t have time for this. Of course it’s an opinion, but I gave you my reasoning.  You haven’t supported any of your comments other than saying you disagree.  Explain to my why the name of the ship is just as important as the other parameters and why it’s more important than things not in the infobox. – Zntrip 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. But do we really need a third one and migrate every user from the two old ones to the new one? Why can't we just make backward compatible change to the one that is closer to the desired form, and then extend? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Also, I'd like to point out an often overlooked issue. What about inter wiki? de is the same for both, es isn't. And every other language has only 1 version. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 * An easy way to do the merge would be to rename this article and switch all the pages with Template:Infobox Mid-air accident, since there are only 24. – Zntrip 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Infobox Airliner accident


text:
Bandula Warnapura

Bandula Warnapura (බන්දුල වර්ණපුර; 1 March 1953 – 18 October 2021) was a Sri Lankan cricketer and former captain of the Sri Lankan cricket team. He played four Test matches and twelve One Day Internationals (ODI) during his international cricketing career from 1975 to 1982. He was a right-handed opening batsman and a right-handed medium pace bowler.

Warnapura captained Sri Lanka's first Test match, and also faced the first delivery and scored the first run for his team. He also had the rare distinction of opening the bowling and opening the batting in the second innings for Sri Lanka in their first ever Test match.

He captained Sri Lanka in all the Tests he played, although he could not lead his team to victory in any of them. However, Sri Lanka won the first ODI match he captained. He scored one half-century in ODI cricket.

Personal life
Bandula Warnapura was born on 1 March 1953 in Rambukkana. Malinda Warnapura, who played for the Sri Lanka national cricket team, is his nephew. He was an old boy of Nalanda College Colombo. Bandula captained Nalanda College Colombo first XI cricket team in 1971. Warnapura has worked as an ICC match referee and an umpire, and was also a certified cricketing coach. He served as the coach for the Sri Lanka national cricket team before he was appointed Director of Coaching in 1994. He became Director of Operations of Sri Lanka Cricket in 2001. He functioned in that post for eight years before he resigned in 2008. He was the Development Manager of the Asian Cricket Council. He has also refereed two Tests and three ODIs in 2001

Domestic career
He made his first-class debut against the Indian Universities in 1970. He rose to prominence at first-class level for his blistering knock of 154 against Pakistan Under-25s during the 1973–74 season.

Test career
Warnapura was the first Sri Lankan Test cricket cap and got the opportunity to lead the Sri Lanka national cricket team in their very first Test match, which was played against England in 1982. The five-day match started on 17 February 1982 at the Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu Stadium. Warnapura and English captain Keith Fletcher made the toss in the morning, which was won by Warnapura. He elected to bat first, and opened the batting for Sri Lanka with Sidath Wettimuny. He faced the first delivery of the match, and scored the first Test run for his country. According to a local newspaper, he was even the first Sri Lankan batsman to get hit on the chest. However, he was dismissed for only 2 runs, when he was caught by David Gower off the bowling of Bob Willis. The first player to bat in a Test match for Sri Lanka had faced 25 deliveries during the 35 minutes he batted. During the Sri Lankan second innings, Warnapura made 38 runs off 155 deliveries – the second highest score in that innings. England won the match, and Warnapura's 38 would remain as his highest Test individual score.

Warnapura was unsuccessful in his second match, played against Pakistan in March 1982, scoring just 13 runs in the Sri Lankan first innings, and getting out without scoring in the second. He could not play in the second match of the series due to an injury. In the next match, also against Pakistan, he scored 7 and 26 in the first and second innings respectively. Both matches were lost by Sri Lanka.

Warnapura's fourth and last Test match was against India in September 1982. He was unsuccessful again, scoring just 4 in the first innings and 6 in the second, and the match ended in a draw. During his Test career, Warnapura captained the Sri Lankan side in all four matches he played. He had scored a total of 96 runs, with an average of 12.00.

ODI career
Warnapura was the 11th Sri Lankan ODI cricket cap. His One Day International (ODI) debut was against West Indies on 7 June 1975, in a 1975 Cricket World Cup match that was also Sri Lanka's first ODI. He was dismissed for 8 runs in that match, which Sri Lanka lost. Bandula had a weird ODI debut scoring 8 runs off 54 balls and he became the first Sri Lankan batsman ever to score a boundary in an ODI as well as the first boundary scored by a batsman for Sri Lanka in a World Cup match.

He was given the captaincy of the team to temporarily replace Anura Tennekoon (who was injured) in his fifth match, which was played against India on 16 June 1979, as part of the 1979 Cricket World Cup. He led the team to victory, scoring 18 runs in the match and taking a wicket. It was also the only victory in the series by an Associate Member nation (Sri Lanka had not yet gained Full Member status) in the tournament.

In 1982, Warnapura was appointed captain of the Sri Lankan team. He made his first and only half-century against Pakistan on 12 March in the same year. He made 77 runs in that match, although it was lost by Sri Lanka. Warnapura played 12 ODI matches, accumulating a total of 180 runs at an average of 15.00. He also captured 8 wickets at an average of 39.50, as well taking 5 catches during his career.

Arosa Sri Lanka
Disputes had arisen among members of the Sri Lankan team and its administration only a few months after Sri Lanka's inaugural Test match. This resulted in a "rebel tour" of apartheid South Africa (which was banned from international cricket at the time). Several Sri Lankan players took part in this tour, and the team which was captained by Warnapura and named Arosa Sri Lanka, left the country in secret in September 1982. The tour was unsuccessful; Arosa Sri Lanka played 12 matches and lost 10 of them, while the other two ended in draws. As a result of this tour, the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL) imposed 25-year bans from all forms of cricket on all Sri Lankan players who participated, including Warnapura. Although the ban was revoked after nine years, Warnapura did not play international cricket again. He later claimed that not only financial issues but pressure from some members of the BCCSL forced them to undertake the tour, and expressed disappointment at the fact that no formal inquiry was held.

Later life
He served as the coach of the Sri Lankan team, and has also served in its administration. He also coached Mahela Jayawardene at the Nalanda College and was also a Under-19 national coach of Russel Arnold. He became an administrator at the Bloomfield Club in 1991 after the end of the ban which he served for being part of Sri Lanka's Arosa tour of South Africa in 1982.

Warnapura was an official of the Asian Cricket Council. Warnapura participated as a judge in the reality show Youth With Talent telecasted by Independent Television Network in 2016–17.

Death
In October 2021, Warnapura was admitted to hospital due to a diabetes-related issue, with doctors forced to amputate his left leg. He died on 18 October 2021 while receiving treatment at a private hospital in Colombo.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bandula Warnapura


text:
John Lombe

John Lombe (1693 in Norwich – 20 November 1722 in Derby) was a silk spinner in the 18th century Derby, England.

Biography
Lombe was born in Norwich in approximately 1693, the son of a worsted weaver. He was a younger half-brother of Thomas Lombe who, after John's death, would go on to amass a fortune as a silk merchant in Norwich and London.

In the early 18th century, the centre for producing silk stockings by framework knitting had moved to the Midlands from London and the demand for spun silk was outstripping supply. Lombe had obtained employment at an abortive silk mill built in Derby by George Sorocold for the silk spinner Thomas Cotchett of Derby, built on the River Derwent.

The Italians had been using power spinning since the early 15th century, with a description published by Vittorio Zonca. Leonardo da Vinci had sketched a similar model, but Zonca's was more complete; it is unknown if there was contact. Lombe was sent by his brother Thomas to investigate the Italian machines spinning organzine thread (raw silk warp threads used for weaving fine silk cloth). William Hutton gave an account of Lombe's time in Italy, in his History of Derby.

In 1718, Thomas Lombe was able to obtain a patent for silk throwing machinery, granted for fourteen years. John Lombe died suddenly, in 1722. According to legend, the King of Sardinia, having heard of the success of the Lombe’s undertaking, instructed a female assassin to travel to England to kill the brothers. A bas relief sculpture of John Lombe is on Derby's Exeter Bridge.

Lombe's Mill
The Lombes engaged Sorocold to build a new and larger mill on the site of the old one in Derby: Lombe's Mill was completed in 1722, the year of John Lombe's death.

title: John Lombe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhereToLive.com

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

WhereToLive.com
NN company, POV NeilN 21:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This page reads like it's the company's promotion leaflet (→delete as advertising). --IByte 21:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete policy violation DV8 2XL 22:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert Psy Guy 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Hooking Up

Hooking Up is a collection of essays and a novella by American author Tom Wolfe, a number of which were earlier published in popular magazines.

The essays cover diverse topics dating from as early as 1965, including both non-fiction and fiction, along with snipes at his contemporaries John Updike, Norman Mailer and John Irving.

Hooking Up

 * Hooking Up: What Life was Like at the Turn of the Second Millennium: An American's World – contemporary teenage promiscuity.

The Human Beast

 * Two Young Men Who Went West – profiles of Robert Noyce and William Shockley; especially comparing Noyce, founder of Intel and a graduate of Grinnell College, with Josiah Grinnell, its founder.
 * Digibabble, Fairy Dust, and the Human Anthill
 * Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died - essay by Tom Wolfe (Forbes, 1996) contains profile of E. O. Wilson.

Vita Robusta, Ars Anorexica

 * In the Land of the Rococo Marxists
 * The Invisible Artist
 * The Great Relearning
 * My Three Stooges –Wolfe's castigation of Mailer, Updike, and Irving

Ambush at Fort Bragg: A Novella

 * Ambush at Fort Bragg – a fictional investigative television program delves into military harassment of gay people.

The New Yorker Affair

 * Foreword: Murderous Gutter Journalism
 * Tiny Mummies! The True Story of the Ruler of 43rd Street's Land of the Walking Dead! – 1965 profile of The New Yorker editor William Shawn
 * Lost in the Whichy Thickets
 * Afterword: High in the Saddle

Publication data

 * Tom Wolfe, Hooking Up (2000), Farrar, Straus and Giroux, hardcover: ISBN 0-374-10382-8
 * 2001 Picador trade paperback: ISBN 0-312-42023-4
 * 2001 Picador mass market paperback: ISBN 0-330-48611-X

title: Hooking Up


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Belarus/archive1

Belarus
I know some nation's articles are FA's, and to calm some folks down, I am going to try and get this article up to Featured status. I, wish to know, what should I do to fix this up. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no culture?! Dmcdevit·t 22:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I need to write that, but I am not sure how I will go about it. I wrote about specialty artwork called rushniks, but not sure what else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Australia and India are both good articles to model this kind of article on, it looks like you got quite a lot of sections that need to be fleshed out in this article. One useful thing to do will be to make a table like the one on Australia where you can keep all the miscellaneous but realted links. Also try and reference all the stats you add to the article so they are easily verifiable.--nixie 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the table in. There is one reference so far, but I am going to add more in soon. Plus, not to mention stuff that needs to be flushed out, I also need to add a few things (if I can find them). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Nixie is right. I'd suggest you use the Australia and India pages as a guide. For example, see what is there in the =history= section in India and match it in the Belarus article. Note the length of the history, the summary form and the flow of the history through time. In the geography section note the geology, rivers etc. Try and include the Belarus equivalents of food in India, dress in India etc mentioned. in the culture section. Keep adding references. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I got the history fixed up, but I think the last bit on Lukashenko would be a point of contention. I know my country called him as Europe's Last Dictator, but I am not sure how that can be worded as NPOV. While I got sources left and right stating this stuff, but I am not sure how it can be worked, since it seems I am the only person who wants to edit the damn thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are some sections that I have not edited but they could use a healthy dose of POV checking. I mainly need it in the Politics article so far. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One thing that strikes me is that the Belarusian name of the country is not very prominent in the first paragraph of the leader text. Consider, "The Republic of Belarus (Belarusian: ) ..." Rob Church Talk 08:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * India also discussed their name and the different languages at the last paragraph. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I never knew Belarus was so flat! The highest pt in my city is 457 m ,higher than the entire country. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I could see myself climing that. I still need to work on about a few more sections, but overall, do you think the article is ready for FAC? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The demographics section is still pretty weak I think it should mention any demographic trends, eg is the population aging significantly, immigration/migration trends, whats the average level of education, perhaps some more detail on languages, rural/urban population distribution. Similarily the economics section is lacking, what makes up the economy in Belarus %GDP agriculture/manufacturing and so on, what does it export and to whom, whats the level of unemployment, is Belarus a popular country for foregin investment from Europe, is Belarus planning to try and join the EU? Culture could also mention the national media and sports, the music of Belarus article makes the traditional music sound pretty interesing so something could be added to this article about music, has Belarus produced any great artisits or writers that could be mentioned? Geography should mention climate. The symbols from earlier hisory seems strangely out of place and may be better a a captioned image in the history section that a section in the culture section. The reamining see alsos in the text should probably be merged into the table. --nixie 01:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the earlier symbols before, but I got reverted (probably by those who do not like the Luka-symbols. Though, to compensate, I have a photo of the 1991 flag in the history section.) I will focus on those issues as much as I can. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, its not ready for FAC, I would say its about 60% done. Nixie has some good points, I'd strongly suggest you implement it first before I review again. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for a few small details, I nailed everything Nixie wanted to be done. I could try to do more tomorrow, but sleep is calling me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok now for the serious review: You'd have to take care of all these: Round 1 over: =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * sanctioned by the United States and by Human Rights Watch. I don't think the statement belongs in the lead.
 *  Its borders, which have changed over the years due to wars and treaties -- is not necessary. India's borders have changed too.
 * What are the powers of the Prime minister. Who is more powerful, the prez or PM?
 * Can you tell me something more on the parliament?
 *  lakes and river can be seen in the country. --> abundance of lakes...
 * I've commented on Canberra above regarding the &nbsp; issue. Please implement.
 * The size of the Belarusian territory can be compared roughly to the following areas: Remove this sentence and the list that follows. The country should stand up on its own, and not be compared with states in other countries.
 * monetary unit?
 * sex ratio, life exp'ncy, languages spoken %, density?
 * an estimate performed by the CIA, not required.
 * merge religion with demographics; remove second para of =religion= not req here.
 * =sport= is small, merge with culture
 * Under culture I want to see this: clothing, food, festivals, and literature produced in BLR.

--nixie 03:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A few more things:
 * 1) I think a sentence or two about the variety of media, number of tv stations and daily newspapers ect would be a good addition to the culture section. I read in the music article that there are quite strict local content restictions on radio, is this the case across all media if so are there any popular local televsion productions and so on that could also be mentioned.
 * 2) What are the items listed in further reading, are they references? If so call this section references, and the section currently called references notes. If they weren't used to write the text then they probably don't need to be included.
 * 3) You may want to add a foreign realtion and miliary section like that in Australia, although it's not absolutely necessary.
 * 4) Some information on the governence of the subdivisions wouldn't hurt.
 * 5) I think some description of what is acturally produced by the economy of Belarus is necessary as are employment figures. While on the subject of the economy, the CIA data says Belarus is a net recipient of Aid- who's giving the aid and why? This section shouldn't focus too heavily on economic history.
 * 6) Some people dislike images of the head of State in a country article which may come up on FAC. All images also need a fair use rationale.

 * Some of the images are a mixture of Fair Use and PD. I uploaded about 5 photos (1 PD and four fair use). I also added some photos already at the Wikimedia Commons. There is a link to foreign relations in the politics section and has a little bit mentioned. I do not know much about the military, but I can always provide a link. As for how the subdivisions work, I need to find that out. The section on the further reading, not quite sure why those are there but I can remove them. I added the employment figures (mainly unemployment), but I need to add GDP, trading partners, etc. As for Luka's pic (which is PD), I am keeping it there since he is referenced a lot in the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I removed Lukashenko's photo. I added the food section and the economy information. Other than the media, government and some culture stuff, I think I got everything I needed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Another missing item is international rankings, I worked them into the text in Australia but article like India and Hong Kong have them in a list toward the end of the article.--nixie 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I added them in the infobox. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with having the country rankings to the main page. 2) Its not complete and the rankings vary. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Remove the religion subheading. It looks odd. 2) I'd strongly discourage the use of fair use images on the page. The page wont be free then. Search for free images here: http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ . The atribution licence (-by-2.0), and share alike (by-sa-2.0) are allowed in WP. Also this search will throw up possible PD images. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I still only have one fair use image still, but it could be in the public domain. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Capital punishment could get a mention, possibly in the paragraph about human rights. Beyond the other things Nichalp and I have already suggested to do with format, the article could use a good copyedit, then its pbabably good to go to FAC.--nixie 04:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Me and Evil Monkey are still toying with the Capital punishment article, but I can add a mention. I am asking folks in IRC to do a spell check and grammar check. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You've inspired me to rewrite Bhutan: See work done so far: User:Nichalp/Bhutan. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Blushes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Peer review/Belarus/archive1


text:
User talk:MorderKaj

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! : V.   Molotov     21:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging for Image:PsykeProject.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PsykeProject.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism warning
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita&diff=next&oldid=329615844 Pdfpdf (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Psyke Project

The article The Psyke Project has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MorderKaj


text: User talk:82.201.171.64

title: User talk:82.201.171.64


text:
File:Littledoe Lake.JPG

Summary
Sunset in Algonquin Provincial Park

title: File:Littledoe Lake.JPG


text:
Mule Haas

George William "Mule" Haas (October 15, 1903 – June 30, 1974) was an American professional baseball player. He played as a center fielder in Major League Baseball from 1925 through 1938, most notably as a member of the Philadelphia Athletics dynasty that won three consecutive American League pennants from 1929 to 1931 and won the World Series in 1929 and 1930.

Professional baseball career
Haas was born in Montclair, New Jersey and attended Montclair High School. He left school to play for a local semi-pro team. Haas was signed by the Pittsburgh Pirates as an amateur free agent in 1923 and, after three seasons spent playing in the minor leagues, he made his major league debut with the Pirates on August 15, 1925 at the age of 21. He appeared in four games for the Pirates but, was not on the team's roster when the Pirates defeated the Washington Senators in the 1925 World Series. His contract was then sold to the Atlanta Crackers of the Southern Association and he returned to the minor leagues for two more seasons.

In 1928, Haas joined the Philadelphia Athletics and became a member of one of the most feared batting orders in the history of baseball featuring three future Baseball Hall of Fame members (Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, and Mickey Cochrane). He was one of six Athletics players to post batting averages above .310 during the 1929 season when he produced career-highs in batting average (.323), home runs (16) and runs batted in (82). The Athletics won the 1929 American League pennant by 18 games over the vaunted New York Yankees of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.

Haas is notable for his hitting performance during the 1929 World Series against the Chicago Cubs. In Game 4 at Philadelphia, as the Athletics trailed 8–0 in the seventh inning, Haas hit a three-run inside-the-park home run as the Athletics rallied by scoring ten runs in the inning to win, 10–8. This was the ninth inside-the-park home run in World Series history, and the last until Alcides Escobar did so in Game 1 of the 2015 World Series. Two days later, in what was to be the final game of the Series, Haas hit a two-run home run in the bottom of the ninth inning to tie the score, 2–2, as the Athletics later won the game on Bing Miller's RBI-double.

With the onset of the Great Depression and declining attendance, Connie Mack sought to reduce expenses by selling or trading his best players. In September 1932, he sold Haas, Simmons and Jimmy Dykes to the Chicago White Sox for $100,000. After five seasons in Chicago, Haas ended his career back in Philadelphia, playing in his final major league game on September 1, 1938 at the age of 34.

Career statistics
In a twelve-year major league career, Haas played in 1,168 games, accumulating 1,257 hits in 4,303 at bats for a .292 career batting average, along with 43 home runs, 496 runs batted in and a career on-base percentage of .359. Haas had a career fielding percentage of .983; he played at all three outfield positions and first base.

Later life
Haas died in New Orleans, Louisiana on June 30, 1974, at the age of 70. He was buried in the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception Cemetery in his native Montclair, New Jersey.

title: Mule Haas


text: User talk:69.235.207.23

title: User talk:69.235.207.23


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamwalk

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. No support for the redirect, but that can of course be created by someone whenever they like anyway. -Splash 02:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dreamwalk
Delete Seems like non-notable nonsense to me PhilipO 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense. After deletion, redirect to Sleepwalking. --Blackcap | talk
 * delete as rubbish, no redirect DV8 2XL 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Nerl (Volga)

The Nerl (Нерль) is a river in Pereslavsky District of Yaroslavl and Kalyazinsky District of Tver Oblast in Russia, a right tributary of the Volga (at the Uglich Reservoir). The length of the river is 112 km. The area of its drainage basin is 3,270 km2. Its main tributary is the Kubr (left).

It originates in the Lake Pleshcheyevo under the name of Veksa-Pleshcheyevskaya, flows northwest and is known as the Nerl downstream of Lake Somino. Downstream of the village of Andrianovo a stretch of the Nerl makes the border between Yaroslavl and Tver Oblasts. Further downstream, the Nerl enters Tver Oblast. Its mouth is in the village of Sknyatino.

The drainage basin of the Nerl includes the western and the central parts of Pereslavsky District, the southern part of Kalyazinsky District, as well as relatively minor areas in the southern part of Uglichsky District of Yaroslavl Oblast, and northern parts of Alexandrovsky District of Vladimir Oblast and Taldomsky and Sergiyevo-Posadsky Districts of Moscow Oblast. The town of Pereslavl-Zalessky and the urban-type settlement of Kubrinsk lie in the drainage basin of the Nerl.

title: Nerl (Volga)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Helson Sisters

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 05:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Von Helson Sisters
Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn forumcruft. I've also VfD'd Johnny Gambino and Gino Gambino, two related articles to which this article links. --Idont Havaname 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; This may be of interest more to Gaia fans than anyone else, but not so much that I'd class it as cruft. There are over 2 million registered members on Gaia - Even assuming that only 100 or 200 thousand are active, that's still enough to definitely qualify this as notable. (Edit:  I should state, I do have an interest in the article, as I am the author.)  Trisk 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. not encyclopedia material, cruft DV8 2XL 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is just fanfic by another name. Redirect to Gaia Online and add a mention there. This comment may not be interpreted as a desire to retain the content. -Splash 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete cruft. Proto t c 10:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:Orpheus Machina

title: User talk:Orpheus Machina


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Christianson

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Christianson

 * Non-notable high-school (?) baseball player. —Cleared as filed. 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment well that's what I see, have sourced and done some addition to the article to give context, but frankly I don't think it's a winner. Alf 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete nn resume cruft ---CH (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Verifiable?   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Saint Bakhita

This title
Although we don't refer to saints as St , Bakhita wasn't actually her surname (see the article) and this title is sometimes used, notably by Pope John Paul II during St Josephine Bakhita's canonization.

title: Talk:Saint Bakhita


text:
User talk:Mis@nthrope

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! : V.   Molotov     21:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Gee I understand being a misanthrope. : V.   Molotov     21:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop changing other people's comments on a VfD discussion. Such actions constitute vandalism and may result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 23:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mis@nthrope


text:
User talk:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox

image removal
I have removed the image as per the limitations of the rights given to use by Fair Use and by Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:FU. Jtkiefer T 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought the image wasn't being used under fair use. Instead the mozilla reasoning was being used. -Scm83x 10:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * mozilla is the same thing as logo for our purposes. It's not a free image license, since it doesn't allow modification, so the only way our long-standing policies allow us to continue hosting the image is under free use. —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Unless, of course, we ignore one rule. —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * mozilla is a claim of fair use. in this case it clearly does not apply.Geni 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it is not a claim of fair use. It's a claim of permission.  Granted, this contradicts a Wikipedia policy, but I don't believe that this is the sort of situation that the authors had in mind.  —David Levy 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is an application of IAR.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No amount of use of IAR will get us off the hook, since copyright law cannot be ignored, even on here. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * trick it's not with permission in the sense we normaly use it on the other hand a really don't feel like cheacking x number of user pages to see if it is being used to promote firefox.Geni 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not ignoring copyright law, we're ignoring Wikipedia guideline. Mozilla has given permission.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For comercial use?Geni 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The quotes on Mozilla say nothing about commercial use.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * that is the problem. Digging through thier FAQ suggests that they allow it to be used under fair use or for non comercial reasons. Useing it on a wikipedia use page is only allowable if it is allowed to be used for comercial use.Geni 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then the image needs to be deleted based on an email from Jimbo Wales in May of 2005, saying that all Non-commercial images are to be deleted. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We cannot use this logo on userpages, as per policy/license. Barring a good reason given otherwise, I will text-ify the template in about 24-hours (so if you want to do a replacement logo, now's the time!) --Improv 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are some good reasons:
 * 1. This is the subject of an ongoing dispute that has resulted in page protection by an uninvolved party. It's inappropriate to make related edits or to unprotect the template at this juncture.
 * 2. I've yet to read one logical reason to remove the image, other than "because the rules say so." If you or someone else can cite actual harm that otherwise will result, this will change matters.
 * 3. Thus far, the mozilla template's current deletion debate has drawn more than twice as many "keep" votes as delete votes (including the nominator). Among those voting "keep" is Theresa Knott, a member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.  —David Levy 04:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, that level of indentation was getting ridiculous. [ This page went further towards the end--HereToHelp (talk)] In response, it is appropriate to remove the image because the image is contrary to very clear policy, with no interpretation necessary. I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies. The reason to delete the image is simple, and it is a licensing issue:
 * We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage
 * We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images
 * Fair use only gives us a certain amount of leeway in how we can use the image. This leeway allows us to use the image for articles, but not for user pages. Take a look at Fair_use for the precise details.
 * Let's keep the discussion moving -- I'll leave the template be so long as we're still making meaningful progress on the topic. This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long. --Improv 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not talking about deleting the template, which Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway have been involved in -- that involves some judgement as to the meaning of different policies.

 * To be clear, the deletion debate to which I referred concerns the mozilla template — the one with which the images in question are tagged specifically for this purpose.

 * We cannot accept the terms on the firefox icon because they conflict with our policies on what kinds of licenses we can accept. We cannot accept either specific grants of use to Wikipedia nor usage that prohibits commercial usage

 * Sure we can, simply by ignoring the rules (in favor of common sense). The rules usually should be followed, but not purely for the sake of following them.  I honestly believe that this sort of situation was not what the authors of said rules had in mind.

 * We therefore are bypassing the license by claiming fair use on the images

 * No, we aren't. This is not fair use, so that would violate copyright.  We're bypassing the Wikipedia policy against images used by permission, but no law is being broken.

 * This is, however, a matter of law/core policy, so a vote is inappropriate, and it is possible there may be legal reprecussions for the project, so it's not in our interest to ignore this for long.

 * By all means, please cite these potential legal repercussions. —David Levy 07:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * please show exactly where we have permission to use these images in a comercial manner. Furthermore please show where we have permission to allow reusers to do the same.Geni 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * David, I normally am made a bit queasy about IAR, as, I think, most people on the project are. It can be made to justify anything, and in cases where it is taken way too far leads to a kind of attitude that is extremely off-putting to others on the project. Kelly Martin, for example, has indicated that she doesn't even bother reading policy because she's acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. While I trust her to actually do so, in the end when enough people do that it leads to horrible chaos when disagreements happen as to what those best interests are. An entire community of that would be very disruptive. At the same time, there are certain areas where normal concerns for due process cannot hold - when dealing with licensing issues or other legal affairs or core tenets of the project, there is considerably less role for discussion or consensus. If, for example, right after a major terrorist attack, people had a massive vote to insert phrases like "X is a shithead" into the article of the person believed to be behind the attack, it would still not be considered encyclopedic, even if the masses went that way, and should be deleted and locked by any admin. Likewise, no matter what the community thinks, if something puts the project in legal jeopardy, we cannot do it. Finally, if people suddenly decide that it'd be keen to start using user pages as personal webpages or a BLOG, we should not permit that either, even if all of livejournal showed up on our doorstep and wanted to vote on it, overwhelming our normal consensus mechanism. I suppose my point is that I am not trying to be a jerk, nor to even be particularly questionable. This is a legal issue, and it's important to get it right. Moving back to specific objections:
 * As I understand, you're suggesting that we not use "fair use" licensing, instead using the images under the offered noncommercial license offered by the Mozilla foundation. This avoids the worries about legal appropriateness of fair use for userspace. Unfortunately, it has ill effects for things that have been considered priorities by the foundation that have decided how our license policy works. There is a concern for freedom -- the wikipedia project's data dumps is, in theory, supposed to be loadable and usable by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not. We've been doing our best to make a good faith effort (legally speaking) to keep that true, and things like this fly in the face of that. Noncommercial licenses could cause Wikipedia mirrors to need to be taken down by a single letter from someone who makes any specially licensed content, and that makes our project a lot less useful. Consider also that companies are starting to embed Wikipedia into handheld devices for portable use. If we're not careful about licenses, that will come back to bite them, preventing such projects from bearing fruit. Allowing restricted-use licenses was also decided to not be in the spirit of the GFDL nor aiming for the kinds of liberties that we hope to see in the project. Note finally that this license is decided policy, so if you want to see that policy change, go over there and try to start something to rework it. I believe Jimbo has declared by fiat some large aspects of the policy, so changing this may not be permitted, but you can give it a shot and if you win, you might have your way on this issue. Until then, I don't think IAR permits you to ignore those rules, especially on a topic like licensing that has broader implications for the project. To be safe, we should remove the image, and you can add it back later if policy is changed to permit it. --Improv 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Any handheld reference like the one you mentioned would not include userpages. Mozilla has allowed us to use this. I see the dangers of described by the "one exception leads to the next" argument, but I disagree. More exceptions should be made if the image has been released under copyright similar to Mozilla's. The facxt of the matter is that you can't paint with one brush.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Again, we have decided their license is not permitted by general policy. I intend to change the template to use the LGPL image sometime later today unless you have anything else to say.--Improv 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * David, I normally am made a bit queasy about IAR, as, I think, most people on the project are. It can be made to justify anything, and in cases where it is taken way too far leads to a kind of attitude that is extremely off-putting to others on the project.

 * I seldom invoke WP:IAR. As I said, the rules should be followed when they make sense.

 * Likewise, no matter what the community thinks, if something puts the project in legal jeopardy, we cannot do it.

 * I agree. Please explain how using Mozilla's images in this context puts the project in legal jeopardy.

 * There is a concern for freedom -- the wikipedia project's data dumps is, in theory, supposed to be loadable and usable by anyone for any purpose, commercial or not. We've been doing our best to make a good faith effort (legally speaking) to keep that true, and things like this fly in the face of that. Noncommercial licenses could cause Wikipedia mirrors to need to be taken down by a single letter from someone who makes any specially licensed content, and that makes our project a lot less useful. Consider also that companies are starting to embed Wikipedia into handheld devices for portable use. If we're not careful about licenses, that will come back to bite them, preventing such projects from bearing fruit.

 * This template is intended for use on user pages. It has no bearing on the encyclopedia proper.

 * Allowing restricted-use licenses was also decided to not be in the spirit of the GFDL nor aiming for the kinds of liberties that we hope to see in the project.

 * Bureaucratically forbidding the harmless use of an image is not in the spirit of the product.

 * Note finally that this license is decided policy, so if you want to see that policy change, go over there and try to start something to rework it. I believe Jimbo has declared by fiat some large aspects of the policy, so changing this may not be permitted, but you can give it a shot and if you win, you might have your way on this issue.

 * Jimbo endorsed WP:IAR.

 * Until then, I don't think IAR permits you to ignore those rules, especially on a topic like licensing that has broader implications for the project.

 * I'm still waiting for someone to cite these "broader implications." —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As a simple request, could we please wait for a consensus before changing the logo on the template? It's changing every other day, which is annoying, and is getting progressively weirder. Thanks. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval voting
I can go though the history to grab all used images (and non-image), so that we can do some approval voting, but I won't count them. Is there someone interested in doing that? ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please wait a short while. I'm still attempting to determine the copyright status of this image.  If it's available under an open license, the derivative icon that I assembled is a candidate.  I managed to find the creator's (hopefully current) e-mail address, and I sent an inquiry yesterday.  —David Levy 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I received a reply; the creator has agreed to distribute the icon under the GNU GPL (one of the three licenses under which the Mozilla globe icon is available). I've added the composite image for now, but feel free to hold a vote.  Thanks for waiting!  —David Levy 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What about
The variation used with the firefox package shipped with Ubuntu Linux ? Unfortunately, I'm not absolutely sure about the license/copyright status - I think it's GFDL, but I could be wrong. Still, it *might* be a feasible alternative. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have a horible feeling we would be running into the GFDL/GPL issue and a really don't want to go there.Geni 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The globe is released under a tri-license (MPL/GPL/LGPL), it's only the fox that is protected. →Aza Toth 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is true, and if we can verify this with the Mozilla foundation (we don't want to inherit sloppy license use), this would be an admirable solution to this specific issue. It doesn't solve the general problem of people not honouring license policy/licenses themselves, but it at least would make things better on this particular point. If someone can drop a note to the foundation and verify the license, we can get this changed over pretty quickly. --Improv 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/faq.html: ''The Mozilla trademarks include, among others, the names Mozilla®, mozilla.org®, Firefox®, Thunderbird™, Bugzilla™, Camino™, Sunbird™ and Seamonkey™, as well as the Mozilla logo, Firefox logo, Thunderbird logo and the red lizard logo. The default logos in CVS which are built into Firefox and Thunderbird by default (i.e. the globe without the fox, and the original blue bird) are explicitly not protected as Mozilla trademarks. The files themselves are available under the mozilla.org tri-license; you can do anything you like with them under those terms. (The cute green dinosaur is not a Mozilla Foundation trademark either; its legal status is unclear, and we are moving away from using it.)

''
 * Excellent. Is this a solution that everyone is ok with? If so, this matter can be closed. --Improv 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Once we implement, of course) --Improv 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have implemented the change. --Improv 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated in the first place, I believe that an unofficial logo is an acceptable substitute. Others, however disagreed, and I still see no logical reason why the official logo cannot be used.  —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What a waste of time
"This page is 100 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Perhaps people should go and find something more useful to do. the wub "?!"  15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Archiving, anyone? because it's now 106.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Archived. - Ekevu (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Text Logo
Does anyone know the font used by the logo on Mozilla's webpage? They cannot copyright the font, and we could use that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

How about this template? The colors went a bit dark when I uploaded it, but otherwise it's ok.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC).
 * That doesn't meet Wikipedia's userbox style conventions. —David Levy 23:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what about this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schwarzm (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
 * That looks fine to me. :-) —David Levy 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like it. Jtkiefer T  19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer some unofficial logo rather than plain text or an image that looks like so. But I'll bring up a vote soon, with all non-{{copyvio}} options such as yours (as soon as I get an ok from David Levy on the e-mail he mentioned on a discussion above), so please don't change the official template for now. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the image thing, I did one above but it didn't seem to go anywhere, and seemed to be disregarded. Ian13ID:540053 20:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Maybe it'll do better now that the flamewars are off. That's what I'm counting on anyway. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A note about the first statement in this category Fonts can actually be covered by a leagal protection I think its usually a trademark but im not possitiveShimonnyman 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template version straw poll
Before we get into an edit war, can we please put the two different firefox template styles to a vote? I've taken some time and creativity to come up with an icon to be used for this, so could we make sure the community here knows what template they want to use? --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the colors also change. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Version 1
Nominated 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

 * 1) Version 1 --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Version 1 -- Glennnnn 09:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Version 2
Nominated 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

 * 1) Version 2, per, if those are the only choices we have. —  The KMan  talk  07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 2. More aesthetic, IMHO. ≈ Ekevu talk contrib 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Version 2 (my compilation). I support Leon's decision to hold a straw poll, but I don't understand why this required reverting to his icon (especially given the fact that it displays improperly for most users).  —David Levy 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the PNG images which are on userboxes look wrong in IE6. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 2. Ian13ID:540053 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Version 2. — Ian Moody (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * V2. — Nightstallion (?) 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 2. jareha 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the majority has spoken. When I made the icon, I was thinking detailed and flashy (sort of like this icon, but the other one's fine as well. It's simplistic and gives the same visual cue as the original Fx icon. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 06:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Version 3
A new improved version, yet to be designed by someone with the skills. - RoyBoy 800 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Text-like Version
Nominated 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

You know, If one design doesn't win and people really want it, they can always just make an alternative template at Template:User browser:Firefox2.-- Talk [ (add)] • Contributions 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your example looks like text but isn't text. :) Sencody, yes, that has happened already. See Template:User browser:Firefox text. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Text version
Nominated 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

 * 1) I also support this one. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LGPL from nuvola
Nominated 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

 * 1) ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Much better. — Nightstallion  (?) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Dunno if this infringes on mozilla's trademark or not, but they can take it up with nuvola if they have an issue. -Fadookie Talk 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. jareha 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LGPL image
I clearly should have checked the talk page (I hadn't realized this was debated this recently), but uh.. Nuvola has an LGPL icon that is pretty damn close to the one used by Mozilla. I've uploaded it as Image:Firefox.svg (the filename it had in the archive, for those keeping track of such things). I already changed the template to use it (because I did recall the issue with fair-use discussed before, and since this is an LGPL image, it shouldn't have any fair-use issues), however, if there's some problem with it, please feel free to revert and discuss here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank jebus, you the man Cole! Hopefully this fiasco is over. - RoyBoy 800 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I sure agree! :) But I added this to the pool for the sake of boureaucracy. ≈ Ekevu (♥, ★) 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Still dangerous to use a copyrighted logo, thought the image is LGPL-ed. commons:Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png is now voted for deletion as well. --minghong 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This particular image is not copyrighted, it's been released under the LGPL. The logo itself is trademarked, but that's a different matter altogether. I've also voted keep on commons, and will vote keep here as well if an attempt is made to delete it. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the responses in commons explain it all: "you can't LGPL a copyrighted logo" and "you can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially". --minghong 07:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Are we producing Wikipedia comercially? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 12:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That license has changed. See Mozilla Foundation's new trademark policy; it now allows commercial use, except anything that competes with Mozilla Store merchandise. It also allows some derivative works. Seahen 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Where on that page is this indicated? I see only only reference to commercial use:
 * "You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission."
 * —David Levy 19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

IE safe
Is the irony lost on anyone else that we're having the SVG (which gets translated into a 24-bit alpha blended PNG by MediaWiki) converted to a non-transparent PNG on the grounds that it's "IE safe" on a Firefox userbox? =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely wasn't lost on me. jareha 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating out what everyone was thinking! ;) • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Link
I am removing the firefox link from the template. I have instead made the image the clickable eg, you click the Firefox Logo to go to the article as it's natural to do for a web user. Few people know that this could be done and I ask that it be kept like this for some time, just so that people realize it is possible. Hopefuly we'll have most userbox images will be linked eventually (or the Developers will bring us that functionality). —This user has left wikipedia 22:11 2006-01-26
 * Personally, I think this is against the common method for doing userboxes, and should be reverted. After all, this was done without consensus. If anyone agrees, be bold and change it back. — Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand images to be linked to their page to satisfy GFDL requirments, and credit the contributer. Ian13ID:540053 22:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, and what about images that areused on articles, this hard redirect makes finding image info alittle hard as the actuctal editis to the image page. Ian13ID:540053 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, by any means put it back. I was hoping people would notice this and maybe learn something and maybe influence other userboxes. GFDL does not specify a direct link, image article can still be reached. Remeber to add #redirect only to images specifically uploaded for userbox use. You can save a downsampled version of the image and then reupload it under a separate name. —This user has left wikipedia 22:32 2006-01-26
 * I think its mainly because its a image->article. If it was possible for the image insertation to be linked, that would be better providing policy allows it. Ian13ID:540053 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the redirect at Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png, if anything because it confused me. And I consider myself very comfortable with Wikipedia. jareha 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Would you prefer the Firefox icon take you to the Mozilla Firefox page or to the Image description page? Below is an example of what I was proposing (click the image). Some people find such a redirect harmful. I see them as an extension of web-expectations.

Agree, userbox images should link to the article, they have no other use

 * 1)  This user has left wikipedia 23:52 2006-01-26 ~ Per nominator, gotta do it although Polls are evil

Disagree, userbox images should link to the Image Description

 * 1) jareha — I found the redirect harmful. The general Wikipedia user (e.g. myself) would expect an <tt>Image:</tt> page, not an article — which could've been found by clicking the Mozilla Firefox link in said userbox. 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ - Per above-- undefined 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 05:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC).  I thought we already decided this. I agree with jareha.  Remember that userboxes are generally only seen by editors, who expect certain things to happen when they click on certain links.
 * 4) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC) - I can see the reason why this might be cool to try out, but I think it's generally a bad idea for legal and consistancy reasons.
 * 5) LBMixPro<Sp e ak 08:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) per above.
 * 6) • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC) per Scm83x.
 * 7) Ian13/talk 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of real logo is permitted, this modified logo shouldn't be used
According to the Mozilla Foundation, images of their copyrighted logo may be used by nonprofit websites like Wikipedia under promotional permission granted at. More details on the specifics of using the logo at [].

The big thing the Mozilla Foundation will not allow, though, is to modify their copyrighted logo as this template's image has done. To quote, "There are two additional broad categories of things you can't do with Mozilla's logos. The first is to produce modified versions of them. A modified logo also would raise the possibility of consumer confusion, thus violating Mozilla's trademarks rights, too (remember the overarching requirement that any use of a Mozilla trademark be non-confusing?)."

To correct this situation, I propose we upload the correct version in place of this image (see http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/identity-guidelines/firefox.html for the correct version to use). If people are opposed to doing this, then that leaves us with the choice of doing without any image at all, since a modified image is specifically not allowed. --Alabamaboy 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I also realize using this image has been discussed at length several times, and that the issue is Wikipedia policy instead of Mozilla's (which has stated that Wikipedia can use their logo in user boxes). However, I think editors have approached this issue from the wrong position because Wikipedia does allow use of promotional copyright material. The big issue, though, is that Mozilla specifically forbids modifying their logo, which is what has been done here.--Alabamaboy 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the logo rules only apply to their trademark, which is the logo they're using for official builds. The one that's currently being used for the infobox is a modded unofficial deer park logo, which is tri-licensed. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 19:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The image source materials say, "Derived from a non-trademarked, tri-licensed Mozilla globe icon and GNU GPL icon by Karabe." It doesn't matter where the image was derived from, what matters is that the image now closely resembles the main Firefox logo. As a result, it violates Mozilla's trademarks rights. This is specifically not allowed and the image should be deleted. However, as said, we could use the main Firefox logo under a promotional license which Wikipedia allows. --Alabamaboy 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The images for deletion page is right there. Be bold! However, you'll probably need to take it to Wikimedia Commons' deletion page as well. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To continue on my point, this trademark violation is similar to what McDonald's does when it sues any restaurant using a big M or Mc in their name. While this modified image did skirt Wikipedia's copyright issues with the logo (although, as I've said, Mozilla does allow orgs like Wikipedia to use their logo) we've run smack into a major trademark violation.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been a lasting problem with this template. But the main reason why we can't use the FF icon, knowing well that we can, is because of other sites being able to take all the content from this site and put it on theirs (AFAIK). Although WP can put the logo, can Answers.com, or Whahoocyclopedia (if it exists)?

 * In case we can't use that icon, how about the other logos which are posted above? And what about the other browser related infoboxes? User browser:Opera has a cursive red "O", while the trademark of Opera is a serif red "O", or even User browser:Netscape which uses a serif "N" over a green and black background. The only difference between that one and the actual classic netscape icon is the line is straight. Since you brought up McDonalds, what about its template? It shows a public domain photograph of a McDonalds restraunt, with three McDonald's arches. Maybe the Foundation needs to create a policy on trademarks as well as copyrights. --LBMixPro<Sp e ak 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * FWIW, which probably ain't much, I made this logo for my own use. Herostratus 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the logo was removed... but I don't like the current one. So, I'm gonna use yours, Herostratus. With your permission, of course. Very nice. =)--Lobizón 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing the image
I have found a public domain version of the firefox logo. The image has been uploaded to commons as Image:Firefox logo.png. This is how the box looks now:

Please tell me what you think. Shards of metal  [ Talk •  Contribs  ] 04:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: The image was recommended for deletion at commons, because Image:Firefox.svg already exists, and is better. Since that image is copyrighted, I thought I'd upload a public domain version of the Firefox logo. Also, since Firefox.svg is copyrighted, it also happens to be up for deletion, invalidating the basis for Firefox logo.png's recommended deletion. If you wish to keep the image (or have it deleted for that manner), you may vote here. Thanks, Shards of metal  [ Talk •  Contribs  ] 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This version of the logo has now been deleted as a derivative work of a non-free logo. --Kjetil_r 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A suggestion would be the [[Image:Fairytale firefox.png|33px]] logo. /Lokal_Profil 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox as in Fox Broadcasting?
The characters "FOX" is normally associated with a certain reactionary corporation, not Firefox. Xiner 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree to this.

--Meno25 04:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo
Could there be a new logo?

--Meno25 14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with the current one? —ptk✰fgs 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cat sup
I've added category suppression capability to the userbox, for those who don't like the user categories. Oc t ane  [ improve me ] 22.11.07 0527 (UTC)

Image
Years ago, there was confusion on the copyright status of the Firefox logo. The bits that are shipped with Firefox are now clearly freely licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. Back when the logo was used via fair use on Wikipedia, it couldn't be used on user pages. But it is now clearly freely licensed copyright-wise.

The trademark issue is separate. I don't see any policy about using trademarked images on user pages. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


text:
Elisabeth of Bohemia

Elisabeth (or Elizabeth) of Bohemia may refer to:

 * Elisabeth Richeza of Poland (1286–1335), daughter of Przemysl II of Poland and wife of Wenceslaus II of Bohemia.
 * Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330), daughter of Wenceslaus II of Bohemia and wife of John of Luxemburg, King of Bohemia.
 * Elisabeth of Bohemia (1358–1373), daughter of Charles IV of Luxemburg, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia.
 * Elisabeth of Pomerania (1347–1393), wife of Charles IV of Luxemburg, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia.
 * Elisabeth, Duchess of Luxembourg (1390–1451), granddaughter of Charles IV of Luxemburg.
 * Elisabeth of Luxembourg, Queen of Bohemia (1409–1442), queen consort of Hungary
 * Elisabeth of Austria (1436–1505), daughter of Albert II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Bohemia and Hungary, and Elisabeth of Bohemia, wife of Casimir IV of Poland.
 * Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662), daughter of James VI/I of Scotland and England, wife of Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia.
 * Elisabeth of the Palatinate (also called "Elizabeth of Bohemia") (1618–1680), daughter of Frederick V, Elector Palatine, and Elizabeth Stuart, philosopher and correspondent of Descartes.

title: Elisabeth of Bohemia


text:
User talk:FritSolms

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  V.   Molotov     21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:UrdadOverview.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:UrdadOverview.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:FritSolms


text:
MediaWiki talk:Licenses

Edit request 2024-03-18
Please update "First published in the United States before January 1, 1928" to "First published in the United States before January 1, 1929" on the PD-US-expired line. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 03:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Crazy idea that might just work
In the last four years, the update for PD-US-expired was done "on time" once:

 * 14 March 2021
 * 14 February 2022
 * 1 January 2023 👍
 * and now there is an edit request on 18 March 2024

what if the template Show by date was used to produce a "forever" edit request? It could be something like this:

to

and on this talk page please change the year in the template Show by date in the section "Forever edit request" to. }}

What do you think? Pinging involved editors: Three Sixty, The Earwig, Grendelkhan, JJMC89, Dylsss. —andrybak (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, str find could be used to check the text of MediaWiki:Licenses for the presence of expected line:

produces: "previous year = 1554, current year = -1". —andrybak (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * MSGJ, please undo your last edit. See Special:Upload where the template is not displaying correctly. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Implemented using the str find in the section below. —andrybak (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Second edit request 2024-03-18
Would someone please undo MSGJ's last change? This message does not support wikitext/templates, and the license dropdown on Special:Upload is not displaying correctly. Thanks. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Licenses


text:
Talk:St Bakhita

This title
Although we don't refer to saints as St , Bakhita wasn't actually her surname (see the article) and this title is sometimes used, notably by Pope John Paul II during her canonization

title: Talk:St Bakhita