User talk:BoBoMisiu

History of the Poles in the United States
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)
 * 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)
 * Pola.mola (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht (May 3)
 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 comment the reviewer left was:

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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_Old_Catholic_archbishops_of_Utrecht Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_Old_Catholic_archbishops_of_Utrecht 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)

is there a way to remove the red links without removing the s to the foreign articles? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The "translation" about "pneumatomachi"
The edit of Filioque 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)

Papal ban of Freemasonry
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for the information. I will continue to reply and . –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

October 2016
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:. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 with two sentence in which my bold edits were small refining edits, e.g. adding description clandestine, adding, 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)
 * 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)

Notice of continued edit warring
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

October 2016
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:. 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. S warm  ♠  22:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. S warm   ♠  23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Radom Confederation has been nominated for discussion
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)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht


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 and remove the  or  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)

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

New discussions on Catholicism and Catholicity
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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht (695–1580) has been accepted
 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. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=List_of_bishops_and_archbishops_of_Utrecht_(695%E2%80%931580) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Request for Comments regarding faith healing and pseudoscience
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)

Category:Radom Confederation has been nominated for discussion
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)

Category:Eastern Catholicism in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has been nominated for discussion
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)

Nomination of Indult Catholic for deletion
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 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)