Talk:Upul Tharanga

Lead section

It is my believe that Tharanga's three month suspension for doping violations should be included in the lead section. It has been argued that "if every banned a player receives in his career were to be listed it will make a poor summary". But most players don't receive bans for doping violations. Category:Doping cases in cricket has only 17 articles. Category:Cricketers by nationality shows there are approximately 14,000 cricketers articles on Wikipedia. So bans for doping violations in cricket are very, very, very rare (0.1%). It has also been argued that other players who have been banned, such as Ian Botham, don't have their bans in the lead. But this flies in the face of WP:OTHERSTUFF.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This argument is a contradiction in its self. Please clarify, you are saying that WP:OTHERSTUFF should mean that we should not compare Ian Botham drug violation and yet you use statistics of other doping cases in wikipedia cats to support a argument "doping violations in cricket are very, very, very rare (0.1%)". The later is not only WP:OTHERSTUFF but Original Research. Therefore there is no argument there only pure contradiction.

As to reason that this dose not deserve to be in the lead section is that, first it did not cause a major controversial or gather media headlines as the Armstrong case. Secondly the tribunal " found that Tharanga had no intention to enhance his sporting performance or to mask the use of another performance enhancing substance, but that he had failed to satisfy the high levels of personal responsibility implicit upon him as an international cricketer subject to anti-doping rules." Sportsmen, Cricketers any other receive suspensions for various reasons yet are not included in the lead sections as their careers are not defined by them. Therefore addition of this would be blowing it out of proportion. Cossde (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not going to agree so I've taken the matter to WP:DRN.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Doping violation

I reworded the section on doping violation as per the refs cited there, including quoting the judgment. Cossde (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have re-worded to tell the story in chronological order: he failed the test -> a tribunal was held -> he was found guilty -> he was banned.

File:Upul Tharanga.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Upul Tharanga.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Upul Tharanga.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upul Tharanga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018075838/http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=16022_1308918960 to http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/newsdetails.php?newsId=16022_1308918960

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)