Thank you for your recent articles, including Alfons Mieczysław Chrostowski, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given your high fluency in Polish, I am reaching out to you in regards to the History of the Poles in the United States article. It has no Polish equivalent, and any time you can spend towards translating in any capacity would be much-appreciated. I would be more than happy to help any way that I can.

Thank you! Pola.mola (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pola.mola: do you have a link to a draft somewhere? I am more interested in religious topics but I can contribute translating. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1]Pola.mola (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your outstanding work investigating and meticulously parsing the citations and references at History of the Poles in the United States. Without your contribution, far less detail and examination would have been given to the very sources which are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Good Job! Pola.mola (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fix reference error. Remove redlinks unless you are planning to develop these lists in the near future.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! BoBoMisiu, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robert McClenon: is there a way to remove the red links without removing the ((ill))s to the foreign articles? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand the question, because I don't see any links to foreign articles. Maybe I have missed something. Please try asking your question at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robert McClenon: the foreign links are the (NL)'s next to the red links. The upper red links are for other list articles since there was a split after the Protestant reformation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for you work fixing the POV/referencing issues at Our Lady of Akita. The next time the editor tries to self promote/disrupt the article, I will take it to WP:COIN. I appreciate your input. Sro23 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	A Barnstar for your Canon Law Template, now listed on the Wikiproject Catholicism page! --Zfish118⋉talk 23:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit of Filioque#East–West controversy I had done and you have reverted was a trial to do a real translation of the latin sentence. The current version is no translation, but a nonsense. Yes, one can argue about who were the "pneumatomachi" named, but they surely were not those. But that is not the main problem; cut off from the Symbol of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son simply means something quite different than Spiritus sancti ex Filio processionem ex symbolo absciderunt, and sive is not and, but or. --Mmh (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Papal ban of Freemasonry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fiddlersmouth: thank you for the information. I will continue to reply Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry § Mentioning Propaganda Due and Talk:William J. Whalen § Negative assessments of work. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Katie^talk 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Papal ban of Freemasonry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BoBoMisiu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I started a discussion on 2016-09-18T15:24:57 at Talk:William J. Whalen § Negative assessments of work about the author that is the cited source in this BRD.

• The author talk page discussion ended 2016-09-23T00:01:58‎ and was not fruitful in my opinion.
• The admin revert in this BRD returns the contended article back to the 2016-10-05T19:34:17 revision in which I added "The scandal illustrated 'that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies' in the late 20th-century."
• This is the actual sentence in question that was first reverted by Fiddlersmouth in this sequence of reverts (2016-10-06T01:49:31 edit summary:"rm POV edit & ref")
• I reverted Fiddlersmouth on 2016-10-06T02:08:56 with edit summary:%22take it to the talk page [..."]
• Blueboar started a discussion on 2016-10-06T14:12:29 at Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry § Mentioning Propaganda Due about "P2 was NOT a legitimate Masonic Lodge"
• At this time there was two discussions on separate talk pages.
• Fiddlersmouth reverted me on 2016-10-07T00:55:49 edit summary:"rv edit warring. Ref is POV. Use talk page BEFORE reverting" and began discussing on Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry § Mentioning Propaganda Due about both about the content that I added, and about "Making a general case out of P2", "The problem wasn't masonic secrecy, it was the nature of the lodge, and that "source is an unreliable"
• I addressed all of the points on the talk page
• I reverted and added an source and marked the sentence that was under discussion with ((discuss)) on 2016-10-08T13:31:13 with edit summary:"added new citation, added %7b%7bdiscuss%7d%7d to ongoing talk"
• Fiddlersmouth reverted the content and the additional source on 2016-10-10T00:03:20 with edit summary:"rm re-insertion of material still under discussion"
• A series of reverts were done by me and Fiddlersmouth followed by a revert by 158.112.255.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2016-10-10T06:57:06 with edit summary: "Looks like the majority of contributors on the talk page argues for it not being in the article."
• I undid the IP revert 2016-10-10T10:47:53 with edit summary:"discussion is about a specific sentence. Changed clandestine → secret" which had I discussed on the talk page.
• I documented the BRD change clandestine → secret on the talk page with an additional citation to further discuss. Throughout the discussion I have provided citations to what I discussed, the replies seem to be just uncited genetic fallacies and personal incredulity. BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

It's good that you've been using the talk page; however, you clearly violated WP:3RR. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I see that this has already been declined, but my response would have been much the same. Your unblock request does not at any point acknowledge any mistake you may have made, even though, by my count, you were at five reverts, two of which came after a 3RR warning, when I blocked you. Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vanamonde: no, I do not "acknowledge any mistake", that is not my understanding of what happened. I believe the count is not five. I should "Feel free to try a new bold edit during the discussion if the new edit reasonably reflects some aspect of the opposing editors' concerns," according to WP:NOTSTUCK. I did that about two different things brought up by two different editors: how to describe/classify the organization P2 (user:Blueboar), and what the term Masonic secrecy means (user:Fiddlersmouth). The BRD is of an ((efn)) with two sentence in which my bold edits were small refining edits, e.g. adding description clandestine, adding ((discuss)), adding a citation, and later changing description clandestine to secret. All WP:REVEXP, nevertheless I was blocked for 24 hours. I assume admins only see one sentence being changed and not two sentences as one note about perceived ambiguity over which contributors are arguing. I assume admins skim whatever a bot presents and decide instinctively – it was a poor customer experience at my end. I feel sad about having a block in my record but I understand how over loaded could admins let something like it happened. However, I believe the count is not five and will not "acknowledge any mistake" and do not think the block should be on my record. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am disappointed that you are still unable to see that your five reversions constitute edit warring. To an administrator, this would not seem to be the response of a reasonable editor. Please take some time to read the WP:Manual of Style, and understand that aggressive reversion only hinders consensus. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of continued edit warring

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ♠ 22:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Noting for the record that your most recent edit contained the statement, "No, I am not edit warring." There are still attempts at reasonable discussion going on but I find your walls of text on the talk page to be hardheaded, pedantic, and not conducive to dispute resolution. It honestly looks like you're more focused on "winning" the argument or wearing down your opponent than finding common ground or ways to compromise and I took that into consideration. However, the most obvious problem here is simply the fact that you've continued to edit war on top of that, after being warned and blocked and seem to think there's nothing wrong with that. Swarm ♠ 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BoBoMisiu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The other point of view has nothing to support it. It is not worth contributing to Wikipedia under these circumstances. Please retire my account. BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

If you don't wish to edit, you don't have to; but accounts are not "retired". It's a pity you find it necessary to choose between edit warring and not contributing at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Category:Radom Confederation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BoBoMisiu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BoBoMisiu. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TopCipher (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw that some time ago you participated in discussions regarding Catholicism and Catholicity on the page Talk:Catholicism (term). Recently, some of those discussions have been reopened, and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht (695–1580), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you previously participated in a request for comments regarding whether faith healing and whether it is a pseudoscience. I would like to inform you that there is currently an open request for comments that is revisiting this question that you might be interested in participating in. I am notifying everybody who participated in the previous request for comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Radom Confederation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Eastern Catholicism in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indult Catholic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indult Catholic (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]