This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Userboxes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For people born in some decade, or who are here and claim to be born in a particular decade. For example I was born in 1944 so I would have the box for 1940-1944. User:AlMac|(talk)16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Adult child boxes
Some kids may desire userboxes declaring themselves to be teenagers, teenage boy, teenage girl, enrollec in a particular level of schooling.
I have seen bumper stickers:
A member of my family has _____ (very good grades) at _____ (fill in name of school).
That was my first thought when I saw the new list. The automatic listing of userboxes is a great idea, but it should all be in one place. --¿WhyBeNormal?05:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The automatic list is too long to be included here, and includes no discussion of what the user boxes are. Keep it separate, but link to it from here. --Angr (t·c) 08:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That's what I said. Or meant, anyway. See above. :)
Once the stuff is sorted', then merge: Of course adding them to the appropriate relevant categories here, not just as one big list. :)
One thing people should note is that list isn't actually automatic - someone just got the list somehow by running that script it seems and then added the result to the article - the page itself doesn't automatically update so new userboxes won't get added to that list unless someone else adds them --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)09:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge - I think users would find it easier to see the userboxes on a page with the title 'userboxes'. I mean, it's just common sense really. Although, in defence of others, I do think the argument of the page being too big already is right.--Dan(Talk)20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep seperate/Organize, there are too many and it definetely belongs on its own page; it also deserves some organization and classification, I can't even tell what most of them are by the name alone. ArgentiumOutlaw07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge sorted templates (assuming there are any that aren't already listed), but keep the big unsorted list separate and have a bot re-generate it periodically so new userboxes can be found easily by looking at the diffs. —Andux10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Featured User Box
Can I add a featured user box of the week? So we could showcase new and creative user boxes or new user box series like the astrological sign boxes.--God_of War20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Given the Kelly Martin controversy, and an expression by some of her supporters that Userbox lovers are an unproductive sub-culture, perhaps rather than cool userbox of the week should be some kind of a barnstar identification of what userbox was most helpful in encouraging work on the Wiki encyclopaedia itself. User:AlMac|(talk)13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Userbox guidelines
Please participate in the discussion about userbox guidelines at the village pump. WikiProject Userboxes might be a suitable home for any guidelines or policies that might eventually come from the discussion. --TantalumTelluride04:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for Incorporation into Wikipedia Rules Regarding Removal of Graphics from Userbox Templates
If and until US Fair Use Laws, as Wikipedia seems to be a majority US concern, change to disallow fair use of copyrighted images in a non-commercial and personal display of likes and dislikes, whose sole purpose is to advocate other Wikipedia user's of that users preferences and affilations, any and all users that seek to remove copyrighted images and text, used under fair use laws, from userboxes, thereby adversely affecting and changing innumerable user's personal pages without prior notice or consent, any such actions should be taken as malacious; as they are not required by any US law, damage content lowering its value and by proxy Wikipedia's, and effectively vandalize other user's personal userspace, any user, Admin, or other entity who degrades userboxes by removing graphics and replacing it with lesser text, should be construed as the actions of a vandal against Wikipedia users, polices and spirit. (also posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Suggestion_for_Incorporation_into_Wikipedia_Rules_Regarding_Removal_of_Graphics_from_Userbox_Templates)
I highly disagree with this idea. At WP:FU and at WP:FUC, we have stated that fair use images should only be used inside of the article space, not on user spaces. The userboxes will mostly be used on user pages, and they must not contain any fair use icons/photos/pictures/whatnot. The most of the problems I noticed about userboxes breaking this rule is when it comes to political parties (not ideals), sports clubs, shcools and using X product or website. All attempts should be made to find an icon that is under a free licenses, and the Wikimedia Commons is a pretty good place to start. If your stuck there, there are people willing to design these icons for you *ahem* and probably will be happy to do it and release it under GFDL or PD. Most userboxes are fine, it is just mainly those that I mentioned earlier are the most problematic, but I still believe that replacing images on userbox templates should not be considered vandalism at all, unless it is obvious vandalism (like a picture of the Democrat logo is replaced by Goatse). Zach(Smack Back)08:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have a vote to change the policy on fair-use images in userboxes. The only complaint I am hearing is about the legality of such images as they are supposed to be used to illustrate the article. However, If the userbox itself lists the name of the product along side the image I don't see a problem. It is free advertising for the ps2 or photoshop or whatever and I don't think they are going to ever complain about such use. For the firefox userbox, even when a link was provided to mozilla's website saying it is okay to use their logo, said logo was still removed by an admin as "unfree". Unless someone can prove that these images pose a legal threat I suggest we amend the fair use policy to allow userboxes.--God_of War08:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have changed a bunch as per my understanding of what was legal and wikipedia precedent. I will stop as of reading this until I get a more definite answer on the matter -- just because I have no real need for controversy. I will not revert anyone's reverts of my removals on this matter until a clearer understanding... I do think this should be a fairly simple matter but I do not wish to antagonize. Pardon for me not reading this first. Haha, I would be able to get a better grasp of what policy was if we didn't have a revert war on this very issue going on at WP:FUC. grenグレン05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
SELECT COUNT(*) as count,page_title FROM pagelinks JOIN page ON pl_from = page_id WHERE
page_namespace = 2 AND pl_namespace = 10 AND pl_title LIKE "User_%" GROUP BY page_id ORDER BY count
DESC LIMIT 500;"
He's a dev, he might just have used the "normal" toolserver though. "Anyone" can in theory get access there if they have made some usefull Wikipedia tools that interface directly the database, like the edit count tool for example. --Sherool(talk)03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it seems not, it is just output of a manual query. You could Ask for an update I guess (I certainly have added lots more to my page since). Ian13ID:54005322:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Whatever|{{PAGENAME}}]] ({{PAGENAME}} turns into the users name minus the namespace bit, ensuring that they are sorted alpabeticaly, and not all under U). Optionaly add <includeonly></includeonly> around it to prevent the template itself from beeing added to the category. Do try to be a little conservative if you plan to create new categories though. Maybe some coordination between Wikipedia:User categorisation and this project might be in order? --Sherool(talk)02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Until such time as there is a Tutorial for people who not know the Wiki language, with sections for people who want to learn specific applications, but not yet the whole thing, could we put stuff like this in some kind of a HELP FAQ on Userbox creation? User:AlMac|(talk)01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is a good idea as I was unable to find the answer by wading through the hard to navigate Wikipedia category help section. Station Attendant02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
anti-consumerism
Why isn't there a userbox for anti-consumerism? (ex. "This user is an anti-consumerist.") Or, for skeptics, or people interested in philosophy?Maprov05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Problem
I find using userboxes very impractical at small wikis. Large wiki like English can handle this quite easily because against propagation of any extreme opinion, an oposition is found very quickly. However, smaller wikis do not have this negative feedback or it is much weaker. As you probably know, Wikipedia is like a magnet for many extremists. Userboxes become weapons in their fights. It is sad. I do believe it can be helpful at English wiki but it is very controversial elsewhere. Miraceti21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fear that on other wikis they either need more strict POV enforcment, or to be avoided altogether. Ian13ID:54005314:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Wording needs change
This user would like to remind you that today is Remembrance Day.
This seems like a job for somebody's bot. A bot could easily go through the 1000 names or so on the list and see if each and every one of them links to Wikipedia:Userboxes. I could got through and fix the one's that aren't properly included. Then we could delete this ugly list.--God of War23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think TV,Movies & Radio section be split
I think TV, Movies & Radio section be split from Interests section & create a new Media section for userboxes. --RaptorX15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
All items in template space are governed by the Neutrality policy.
I think it's a reasonable statement and follows from our function as an encyclopedia dedicated to the neutral point of view. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have changed NPOV -> CIVIL. I feel that is more suited (sorry, i changed before I noticed this comment). I think there is some debate as to whether NPOV does apply (infact I'm not even sure that current policy governs that it does), but I think CIVIL is a good compromise for now (I hope), since I have not heard that be called into question. Replies welcome. Ian13ID:54005322:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I disagree with Tony S's action. If this were strictly applied, vandalism warning templates would be forbidden, as it is not a neutral statement to describe soemthing as vandalism. In my view the WP:NPOV policy applies only to articel space, and to templates being used in article space, or clearly intnded for such use. Expressign PoV on talk pages is often a poor idea, but it is not IMO grounds to remove the content in the way that it would be in article space, nor is it grounds to take a user to the ArbCom in the same way that it would be in article space. Template-space is really a sort of limbo, what is significant is normally where and how the content appears when teh tempalte is used. A tempalte obviously intended for use solely in user space should have the same policy restrictions as apply to other content in user space, IMO. DES(talk)22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I quote the first line of WP:NPOV: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.". (Sorry about the edit conflict!) Ian13ID:54005322:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the maximum number of userboxes one is allowed to have on their user page? I had quite a few on mine but an admin came through and not only deleted them but deleted the page history. If there is some maximum number allowed then it should be specified somewhere. --Cyde Weysvotetalk01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a maximum. It's possible some were removed for other reasons such as fair use images or not being apprropriate. There shouldn't be one either because you should use as many as apply I'd imagine. grenグレン02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it was a fair use issue. It's not like I was making up my own userboxes in violation of fair use. If there was a problem it should have been addressed on the userbox template, not by deleting my user page. --Cyde Weysvotetalk04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm..I am not sure why your page was deleted either, but I still believe that was extreme to do. I only recall of one guy having his userboxes deleted, but was determined he was a sock of someone. It was probably User:N000. Zach(Smack Back)Fair use policy05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. The current logos seem different to what I did, and in my version the side was black. Sorry, Ian13ID:54005316:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Some looking in the history shows that Viakenny reverted with the comment 'new colours not yet effective', so I will instate once they are. Ian13ID:54005317:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
New name for Sexual orientation, gender and status?
Would anyone be opposed to changing the name from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexual orientation, gender and status to just Wikipedia:Sexuality? It would make the title much more concise and easier, and the subtitle could explain what was in the caregory, ie:
I notice that a number of U.S. state userboxes are inconsistent in what they mean. For example, User_Washington says "This user lives in Washington" while User_Massachusetts says "This user is from Massachusetts."
Frankly, this suits me just fine, since I personally am from MA but live in WA. :) But clearly these boxes indicate semantically different things.
I also notice that there are a few states that have "non-native" versions. For example, User Maryland Import goes to the trouble of singling the user out as non-native (which IMO is a symptom of a certain xenophobia).
Seems maybe our location userboxes might deserve the sort of breakdown available to the language userboxes. Language userboxes indicate level of familiarity, from xx-0 which is "does not know" to xx-1 which is "knows a little" up to xx which is "knows natively".
I would argue for the ability to similarly breakdown state boxes. A la:
Explanation of Tony Sidaway's edits to notes by TCorp
User:TCorp added some notes for new administrators. Of those, I have commented out the following pending rewording:
Userboxes are not subject to NPOV policy by definition of their nature
Expressing a view through a userbox does not equate pushing that view (even though you may not agree with the view and feel the box justifies a speedy deletion)
Never speedy-delete a userbox without consensus. This can only cause a backlash of Wikipedic proportion.
Firstly, I see no reason why userboxes in template space should not be subject to the neutrality policy. It is possible to make a statement about your point of view without breaking the neutrality policy--just make it a statement of fact. "This user thinks that the EU is undemocratic and overpowerful" as opposed to "This user opposes the overpowerful and undemocratic EU".
Secondly expressing a view in a userbox may be intended to promote that view. We should judge them on a case-by-case basis.
Thirdly there is broad agreement (supported by Jimbo Wales) that certain userboxes are intended for the purpose of personal attacks (the ones attacking Kelly Martin are classical examples) and for promoting inflammatory viewpoints ("this user is vehemently opposed to jews", for instance, which was speedied) and should be speedily deleted.
Thus those particular notes placed by TCorp do not seem to be in line with current Wikipedia consensus and practise. I have no problem with his two other points, but I have removed some unsightly bolding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
As these notes seemed to focus on usage, I've renamed the section and expanded as follows:
Name is now "Notes on usage"
Userboxes are not encyclopedic content. -> Userboxes are not encyclopedic content; they are unsuitable for use in articles.
Userboxes are intended to express views and affiliations on user pages -> Userboxes are intended to make statements about a user's skills, attributes, views and affiliations on user pages, but they are public resources residing in template space.
Added: Userboxes should avoid incivility and personal attacks.
Added: Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning and userboxes created or used for this purpose may be deleted.
In the section on "Content", I have made the following amendment:
Userboxes are distributed user page content, and as such, are to follow Wikipedia's guidelines concerning user pages -> Userboxes reside in template space and are public Wikipedia content; some statements that are permissible in userpage may not be suitable for userboxes.
How ironic that you should remove that entire section, since activist admins like yourself that delete first and ask later, were the target of that original message. Perhaps you should start an anti-userbox project on wiki since that's what you seem to be doing here most of the time anyway - TCorp17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I endorse your edits Tony. and value your explaination. I do ask you try to AGF, and understand the motive of these edits (which I am no part of), I think the main effort is to highligh the issues that have been raised about the deletion of userboxes. Ian13ID:54005318:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fully understand, and acknowledge, TCorp's motive in raising those issue. My reason for removing them was that, as it stood, the wording reflected his personal opinion rather than consenus and practise on Wikipedia.
In reply to TCorp, I'm pleased to see that he acknowledges me as an "activist admin". His belief that I'm a new or inexperienced admin, however, is unfounded. Also I'm not opposed to userboxes, having created a few myself and carrying several on my user page. I do have my opinions about the relationship between the encyclopedia and the community and agree with Jimbo's statement, endorsed in a recent arbitration case, that the community must always serve the encyclopedia. Where in my opinion the encyclopedia is damaged by a userbox (which is the case with personal attacks and the like) I will tend to delete first, ask questions later--building a high quality encyclopedia is what it's about, not permitting editors to pursue personal vendettas against other editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Morgan695 removed the following note from "Contents".
Userboxes reside in template space and are public Wikipedia content; some statements that are permissible in userpage may not be suitable for userboxes.
I have restored it because it's a factual statement. It is acceptable to say on your userpage that you're vehemently opposed to Jews, but the userbox template making that statement was speedied. Userspace is in general recognised to have some limited privilege, but template space is public and statements there are subject to more stringent rules (though I agree that the details are yet to be fully worked out). --Tony Sidaway|Talk20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what would be permissible on the User page that wouldn't be permissible in a userbox should probably be noted, or if it hasn't yet been established note that too. --AySz88^-^03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Condensing Categories
While I do agree that it is a good thing to condense categories to make the page as navigable as possible, I feel that Life, Situation and Beliefs, with 12 categories in total, is a catch-all a tad too large. Morgan69515:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but the reason this occurred is simple: it's really hard to put these things into accurate and useful categories, because some of them (like Life and Sexuality and Funny) are so vague and over-arching. The system we were using before was completely unacceptable, not only because many of the pages and descriptions were out of date, but also because a lot of the placement was inaccurate. So, as a stopgap measure, I reorganized it into the current system, which is simpler, but yes, I agree, a little too unsubdivided for easy navigation. Here's the problems I ran into trying to place the pages under the very vague "Life, Situation and Beliefs":
"Life" could chiefly fit under "Situation" (things you're born into or live in, like age, family, ancestry)
"Location" could chiefly fit under "Situation" or "Place"
"Beliefs" could chiefly fit under "Beliefs"
"Time" could chiefly fit under "Situation" or "Place" (time zones differ based on where you live)
"Political Parties" could chiefly fit under "Beliefs" (which parties you align with) or "Place" (since it's subdivided by place and largely concerns regional politics)
"Education" could fit under "Situation" or "Place" (though this is a bit of a stretch, even though some of it is divided by location; maybe we should consider merging "Profession" from "Life" into "Education" (under some new title), since those two seem much more linked and "Life" is too vague of a page anyway?)
"Health" could fit under "Situation"
"Sexuality" could fit under "Situation" (things like sexual orientation) or "Beliefs" (things like stance on LGBT issues)
"Religion" could fit under "Beliefs"
"Zodiac" could fit under "Beliefs" (possibly even as a subdivision of "Religion"), "Situation" (because it's based on when you're born, not on personal choice), or "Interests"
"Personality" could fit under "Beliefs" or "Interests" (and is a bit disingenuous, since it really has more in common with "Zodiac" than with a real page about your personality traits, being an artificial, unscientific system of vague personality traits associated with specific responses that people enjoy playing around with)
"Seasonal" could fit under "Situation" or "Time and place" (if we put "Time" and etc. under such a thing, as is being done with the navigation box currently, and which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea; certainly things like "time zone" blur the line between the two areas, and it's hard to place "seasonal" without a time-related section)
As you can see, it's very difficult to pack subdivide many of these pages at all together at all, without blurring the actual nature of the pages and misrepresenting their contents. "Sexuality", for example, would be inappropriate under "Beliefs" (because much of it concerns things you're born with, as well as things like marital status which reallly wouldn't fit) and simultaneously needs to go under "Beliefs" (because so much of the page concerns major ethical and political and ideological issues, much like the controversial matters on the "Beliefs" page). See the problem? And putting it under "Other" certainly wouldn't be a satisfactory solution; ideally, we should eliminate all "other" sections (and similarly vague methods of categorization) from this system so it'll be easier to find what you're looking for. Any system is better than no system at all (i.e. "other", which could conceivably have anything at all listed). -Silence03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
categorization
I am attempting to catergorize these userboxes better. I have seperated location from politics and beliefs. Tommorow I am going to resort the political boxes out of the regional location categories and give them their own page.--God of War05:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now all regional political views are listed at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics]. I have subdivided by continent. I considered the americas one continent since we have no boxes for south america. Tell me what you think.--God of War06:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposition to remove class="wikitable" from preview tables
This class="wikitable" declaration disrupts userbox design and adds thick borders and paddings to them in the previews due to Wikipedia's CSS file. I propose we remove all the class="wikitable" declarations from the preview tables in the category pages.
Update: added style="background:none" to the above.
As I can see it in Firefox, the table without the wikitable declaration shows the userboxes as they were designed.
Discuss. - TCorp21:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I feel that everything sort of runs together without borders; there's no barrier between one row and the next, and thus no immediate visual connection between each box and its corresponding code. —Andux02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not very well-versed in HTML and such, and I've been throught all the userbox pages and through some users' pages, and I want to ask is there a userbox for epileptics? Far from wanting to hide my condition I want to 'boast' XD about it, but I can't find one, if one even exists. Lady BlahDeBlah18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone else get this message from Jimbo on their talk page?
I wonder if you might consider...
I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.
Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The question becomes what is a political or polemical userbox?
Userboxes are a good way of showing areas of expertise and interest as well as show an honesty about personal leaning.
Would "I root for the Seattle Seahawks" qualify as a polemical userbox? It certainly could incite userbox wars. What about "I like the ArbCom"? Wouldn't that also be polemic? - Keith D. Tyler¶21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Before you ask that question, you must first understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is supposed to be the repositry for all useful human knowledge. Therefore, userboxes are unnecessary because they only alienate us from eachother and the task at hand.
Are all userboxes bad?
No. If everone used the same particular userbox, e.g. the one condemning all personal attacks, new users would realise that that is exactly what we mean and that we do not take personal attacks lightly. Userboxes can be tools, but quite often they are not.
Is there anything else bad about userboxes?
Yes! Loading the template for the userbox every time (and taking up that extra space) costs Wikipedia money, meaning less money can be spent on more important things. Therefore, userboxes should generally be avoided anyway! Look after your pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.
Asfar as I am aware, it is considered more harmful to have images in signatures, than use templates. Infact lots of pages using a template uses less disk space than direct insertation into each. Ian13ID:54005319:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The server strain from loading userboxes has to be pretty negligible, like on the order of 0.005% or less. 0.005% of the total costs last year would be USD$37.50. (Proportion of all pages used to load userpages * proportion of viewed userpages with userboxes * average proportion of server time needed to load userboxes in comparison to rest of the page = 0.5% * 10% * 10% = 0.00005)
*shrug* I missed almost everything, but I think we should just punish those who abuse the userboxes, which keeps the good and tosses out the bad. --AySz88^-^19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd have more sympathy for the "server strain" argument if Wikipedia hadn't also banned external image links. I'd be more than happy to host my userbox icons on my own server...—Chowbok04:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
HRC
Is anyone competent enugh in the ways of userboxes and willing to make a box that says something along the lines of "This user supports the HRC"? (and then have an HRC logo on it). By the way, the HRC is the Human Rights Campaign. If so, please contact me on my user page. Thanks! -- Brian197919:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Templar template
I noticed that, in an edit today, User:Zanimum removed Template:Templar from the listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny stating, in the edit summary, that he or she didn't "see the funnyness of a religous affiliation". However, as far as I can see at the present moment, Zanimum didn't follow through to list that template elsewhere. As the template exists and it is a user-template, it should be listed somewhere in the user-template listings. It would be great to have consensus on the template's placement. I don't really care where it placed as long as it's placed somewhere in the user-template listings. Thanks. --Aquarius Rising00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Userbox request page
how about creating a userbox request page where some wikipedians who don't know how to create userboxes or who doesn't want to waste their time on creating thier own userboxes can place their requests ofr userboxes???
i apologise if there already is a page like that, if so can anyone put the link here or on my user talk page.--Wikipedian DOG10:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"The founder of Wikipedia [ Jimmy Wales ], the charitably funded online encyclopaedia, says that the website is considering carrying advertisements in a move that could raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenues." (TIMESONLINE, 30. Dez. 2005)
Before you get all userbox happy - I am pretty sure we have that box....
I'm pretty sure they're misinterpreting Jimbo's words - the quote the article uses is "at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down", which isn't anywhere near "I'm planning to add advertising". (And what are "wikitopeans"?!?) --AySz88^-^18:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That is an invalid reason for deletions. I remeber seeing that the developers wrote that worrying about server load is our job. If there is an issue then they will restrict images on a technical level. I am paraphrasing here because I do not remember the exact quote. It is similar to what brion said at WP:AUM about not worrying about using meta templates.--God of War02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
![[2]](http://images.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/library/160x120_itv2010_1and2.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://images.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/library/160x120_itv2010_3and4.jpg){kind=link}