User talk:Webrobate

Eurovision 2012 Spoiler
The results of Eurovision 2012 were posted on the en.wikipedia front page several hours before the televising of this event in Australia. This business of telling people the ending before they've had the pleasure of reading the book or watching the program (etc) is known as a "spoiler", because it spoils people's fun. It spoiled my fun. I was unable to share in the suspense of who would win the contest while watching the telecast (we had a Eurovision party at my place that evening). With several hours left before the Eurovision telecast was due to begin in Australia (and who knows what other time zones) I requested that this spoiler be taken off the front page so that other people's fun wouldn't be spoiled. It wasn't taken off. Discussion of the issue in response to my request appears below. (The reason there are two sections is it wasn't clear to me how you request an alteration to a locked page, or indeed to the front page, so I ended up placing two similarly worded requests on two different pages.) Webrobate (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Spoiler
(This section originally appeared on Main_Page/Errors. It was removed by Bencherlite, 09:01, 28 May 2012, with the edit summary "remove per WP:WONTFIX etc", whatever that means. Webrobate (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

GET THE EUROVISION SPOILER OFF THE FRONT PAGE

People living in Australia and maybe elsewhere do not watch the Eurovision Song Contest live. We see it on a 12 hour or so delay. We look forward to the uncertainty and suspense, which the designers and producers of Eurovision go to great lengths to cultivate. We don't want some busybody, fingers poised over the keyboard as the winner is announced in real time, to wreck the Eurovision experience for us, just because we happen to open en.wikipedia.org Webrobate (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, then don't come to the site until you watch it. Wikipedia's front page will have news on it just like hundreds of other sites, and since you're actively trying to avoid spoilers then it's best to avoid any site which carries current events, not just the ones you can't shout at to change them. GRAPPLE   X  01:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * People should be able to check out a Wikipedia front page without being in danger of reading spoilers, especially for entertainment events a large part of whose value derives from watching it without knowing the winner. Should Wikipedia be like "hundreds of other sites" that do readers the basic discourtesy of putting spoilers in the path of readers without warning?
 * If you think there's some overriding reason why Wikipedia should be doing its readers this discourtesy, then please argue why; don't just say, well other people do it so it must be okay.
 * Note that Wikipedia is not specifically set up a news site but is used for general knowledge queries, and it (at least the "en." version) is known to be read by many people in all timezones. Webrobate (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting a Eurovision spoiler on a Wikipedia front page is a basic discourtesy to readers who haven't seen Eurovision broadcast in their timezone. It it easy to remedy. Put a spoiler alert on the item and let readers click through if they want to read who the winner is. An example can be found (at time of posting) at sbs.com.au/news, which goes something like this:

Eurovision results are in

27 May 2012, 9:47 AM

EUROPE | SPOILER ALERT: The thousands-strong crowd at Azerbaijan's Baku Crystal Hall has celebrated Eurovision's 2012 winner.

Read more

Webrobate (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, no, we don't cover up spoilers. For the same reason we wouldn't delay posting the results of a sports final or an election. — foxj 08:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that the results of the Eurovision Song Contest (and similar entertainment events that are telecast on time delay around the world) should not be posted within seconds of its being announced. All I'm asking is that said results not be posted prominently on the (en.) Wikipedia front page. Let the In-the-News item say that the Eurovision winner has been announced, and provide something to click on to find out more.
 * There is also the question of whether who won Eurovision has news value, such that this important fact has to be released breathlessly as soon as possible. Presumably the people who most care who the winner is - fans of Eurovision - are precisely the people who wouldn't appreciate their evening's fun being spoiled by premature announcements. Webrobate (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I live in Australia. I understand what it's like to get programmed broadcast "live" about fifteen hours after the fact. The announcement of the winner (if you follow it well enough) should have been blindingly obvious; she was touted as the favourite for months and months prior to the event, she has charted in at least fourteen countries in the EBU, and in the weeks before the contest betting odds on her to win where sensationally slashed. Her victory was closer to certain than a great many things are. I wouldn't expect anyone to be surprised at that result. — foxj 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people, even from Australia, may want to see the results immediately and are, indeed, looking for spoilers. I agree with Fox's example of sports events and elections. If you don't want spoilers, don't go to websites full of information. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tough shit.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers - Eurovision 2012
(This section appeared on Talk:Main Page. The discussion-is-closed box was invoked by Bencherlite, 12:36, 28 May 2012.  I'm not quite sure of the official status of the message: The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.", but it reminds me of that stripy tape which says "Police line, do not cross". Invoking a "discussion is closed" box on the same page as the claim (in bold), "Wikipedia is not censored", is of course hilarious. Webrobate (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

GET THE EUROVISION SPOILER OFF THE FRONT PAGE

People living in Australia and maybe elsewhere do not watch the Eurovision Song Contest live, the watch it on a 12 hour or so delay. They look forward to having bets with their friends as to which song is best and enjoying the suspense as the winners are announced, all of which is important part of the Eurovision spectator experience. Unfortunately, some busybody, their fingers maybe poised over the keyboard as the winners are announced in real time, has posted the winner on the front page of en.wikipedia, presumably to spoil other people's fun. If this isn't a copyright violation, I'd like to know what is. Webrobate (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you have all news sites take the Eurovision winner off their frontpages? Of course not... that would ridiculous. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:SPOILER. One should not be shocked when looking at a section entitled "In the News" (or any [esp. European] news site) to find this mentioned. --  tariq abjotu  06:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'If this isn't a copyright violation, I'd like to know what is.' Hahahaha. 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the current consensus among the majority of users here is that generally spoilers are not removed regardless if there is a broadcast delay in certain time zones. In addition, the "In the news" section of the Main page is also updated in real time as soon as those relative articles have been substantially updated to reflect those recent or current events of wide interest – similar to a news site, again, regardless if there is a broadcast delay in certain time zones. I also do not understand how merely posting the name of the winner can be "a copyright violation", especially since Wikipedia is based in the United States, where such updating of real time news facts are not covered under American law. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted
Please see Talk:Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liane (river) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liane (river), a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Liane (river)


Hello Webrobate. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Liane (river).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dead Rider


A tag has been placed on Dead Rider requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Revent (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead Rider for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead Rider is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dead Rider until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Revent (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)