User talk:Robovski

Welcome!

Hi, Robovski, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
Find everything in the Directory.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windy City

Thanks for your help, I'm making additional article adjustments now. Jasenlee 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to the new article at List of nicknames for Chicago and Windy City. Robovski 23:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Current events

Hello Robovski –

I'm trying to get some discussion going on two proposals regarding the current events page, but so far have gotten little to no response. Since you have recently edited the current events page, I'm asking for your input on these two proposals:

One proposal (this is the big one) involves putting the daily events from the current events pages into article-templates, a lá the monthly pages from 2003 to 2005, as well and having a consistent number of recent days on the current events page instead of a monthly archive. This would allow for the current events page and the respective month pages to be updated simultaneously without the monthly archival. For more, see the current events talk page.

Another proposal involves merging the content of the regional current events pages (such as British and Irish current events and Canadian current events) into fewer continental articles. For more, see the current events WikiProject talk page.

Your input on one or both of these issues would be appreciated. joturn e r 22:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided input, thanks for the request. Robovski 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for your help

No problem. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Illinois -> Chicago vote.

FYI, there is another vote to change the name of the Chicago, Illinois page to Chicago. See Talk:Chicago, Illinois --Serge 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

Please vote at Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Robovski 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear River Expedition

I noticed that you were the individual who created the stub for the above named article. I have a few questions for you:

Where did you get the information that this particular expedition had anything to do with native americans?
Did you realize you have written more about this topic than just about any other historian that I have been able to find?

All of this isn't saying much. I have checked the sources of information you listed in the article, but the only references anywhere that I have been able to find outside of this Wikipedia article simply list the "Bear River Expedition" as one of the various military engagements the U.S. Army has participated in.

I contend that this expedition never happened at all, but trying to prove that may be an uphill struggle, as trying to prove a negative is harder than trying to document something that did happen. As I live within 5 miles of the Bear River (Utah) (the likely spot for such an expedition if such an expedition did occur), I do have access to local histories that are not normally available on-line. Still, it is remarkable that absolutely nothing is written about this topic, but then again I may be looking at the wrong Bear River.

It certainly would be an interesting story by itself if in fact this expedition never happened, or rather was something that was confused with earlier and later military engagements, of which I do have some candidates. --Robert Horning 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for comming to me with an interest, and I am somewhat flattered by your implication that I am a historian. I wrote up the stub after seeing it on a needed article list. I researched my material through google, which gave me a few mentions on a few web pages but material was limited. Looking at the stub again, I see that I did link to my references. I have undertaken no independent research as 1. I don't have the resources available to me here in Scotland and 2. it's against wiki policy. If you have published local sources (like newspapers or books) then those could be quoted and referenced to make changes to the article. If you can cite more information from published sources for either it having happened/not happened or even speculation that it never happened certainly this could be added to the article and I would be glad to see it. Sadly, unpublished statements are not allowed should you have local verbal information. Robovski 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I have would be accounts published in the historical archives of local newspapers or published thesis by master and PhD students graduating from the history departments of local universities, so that would be something referenceable by Wikipedia. Of course, as I pointed out, this is trying to prove a negative here, which surprisingly is even harder than trying to prove that something did happen. Thank you for your reply here, and I think I'm going to try and work this into something a bit more substantial, including a note that the 1859 date was very likely in error, perhaps added by historians with the U.S. Army. The real trick now is to try and rule out if it could have been related to any other Bear River other than the one through Utah and Idaho. --Robert Horning 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.. No not you.

The sock farm is listed at the top of the page. Someone else noted the same similar edits by the same users and started a page after I made mention on the AfD (which my mention was almost two weeks before your vote.). We're cool. :) SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me to edit before I've had my first cup of tea for the day. Ran completely off the handle. Sorry about that. Robovski 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

That guy has recreated the article about 'Spanish Gibraltarians' and there is another Afd discussion you may wish add a comment to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spanish_Gibraltarians

--Gibnews 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Robovski 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Why all this hostility? --Burgas00 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against you personally, but I don't like people suborning wiki to thier own personal ends. You've subverted the AfD process during the previous nomination and that's probably where the root of the issue lies with me. Robovski 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reincarnation or regurgitation ? Spanish Gibraltarians are back amongst us AGAIN --Gibnews 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a bad penny - and I never get to say anything when it's up for an overturn ruling. Seems the article isn't much different than it was. Apparently it was overturned because some editors disagree there was a consensus. Considering that even if the article IS deleted again it will just come back, perhaps you can find some version of the article that you would be happy with exsisting? I'll participate in this AfD regardless, thanks for pointing this out. Robovski 02:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem is that you do not correctly address the arguments and concerns of fellow wikipedians. That is why the Afd has been overturned twice. The article is not different than it was because in its current state, it does not qualify for deletion. Even your own arguments show that you have neither thoroughly read the article nor the references offered. (Ask me, if you dont see why after reading it again). Nevertheless, you seem to be practically the only editor who refrains from using POV or political/emotional arguments in favour of deletion. In any case the article does not claim that Gibraltar is Spanish, should be Spanish or that its people are Spanish. It simply documents the use of a term, which can refer to a large immigrant community (and their descendants) which has always existed in Gibraltar, to a diaspora and their descendants from times of the British conquest, or to a hispanic ethno-cultural group which corresponds to Gibraltar's working class, as opposed to the more anglicized middle-class of the territory (Read sections on 'Buena vista society' and 'the High Street' in article by Benady. The term Spanish-Gibraltarian in this sense, enjoys two sources one from 106 years ago, as you say, and one from a couple of years ago... If you think this is not enough tell me.

It is an interesting article which helps understand the complex historic, human and cultural relationship between both sides of the Gibraltar/Spanish border and it helps dispel many preconcieved notions held both in Spain and the UK. --Burgas00 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so full of it I'm suprised you can type. Robovski 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Argo Tea in Chicago

Thought you might be interested in commenting or voting on this. [1] TheQuandry 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I was happy to participate. Robovski 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Userpage

Everything should be fixed. However, I don't see anything wrong with the change of {{user retrogamer}} to {{User:Scepia/retro gamer}}, and that was the only edit my bot made to your page, and the only box that had the error like that was {{User:Scepia/gamedev}} which I just recently changed all instances of it to {{User:Scepia/game dev}}, which repaired the error I made. I hope you have a good day, and happy editing. Kyra_~(talk) 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention. Now I have to figure out what's wrong with the other userboxes...Robovski 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 194.75.128.200 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: -- Natalya 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've been blocked as part of stopping some temp or other jerk who works here from vandalizing pages. While I understand the need to stop vandals, It'd be nice if I could be unblocked so I can get back to things. Robovski 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you blocked anons from here? This is a pretty big office. Robovski 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, happy editing. -- Natalya 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Springs State Park

I noticed that you created Dixon Springs State Park article back in January of 2006. You may want to rewrite the article now, since it is simply a copy and paste of this page [2].--Kranar drogin 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO survey

WP:CHICAGO

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)

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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]