User talk:GenoV84/2018/November

Vandalism on Clerical Fascism

Your recent editing history at Clerical Fascism 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 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.

Please end your vandalism. Removing a warning against vandalism is very serious, especially since you have a history of vandalism. I have reported you. You still haven`t followed Wikipedia guidelines and discussed matters on the talk page. I provided numerous accurate sources while you took sources out of context. The majority of historians do not regard the Catholic Church as having been pro-Nazi. Sources that disprove this are too numerous to count but here are some:

• The Myth of Hitler`s Pope by Rabbi David G. Dalin
• Pope Pius XII and World War II: The Documented Truth by Gary L. Krupp
• Hitler the War and the Pope by Ronald J Rychlak
• 3 Popes and the Jews by Pinchas Lapide

It is generally acknowledged that Mussolini opposed the Holocaust. This is why the Holocaust only started in Italy after the German occupation in 1943. A fact that your edit conveniently leaves out. It also leaves out the fact that Pope Pius XI objected to the 1938 Italian racial laws and that the German Nazis and Italian Fascists both killed more than a hundred priests each after 1943. 62.45.158.228 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at Clerical fascism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Longhair\^talk 13:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Olive branch

I hope they end your block soon. I hope we can reach a consensus regarding the article. I want you to know that I do read plenty of history books and that I never meant to threaten you. I am sorry if it came off that way. However there are many sources that show that Pope Pius XI objected to the Manifesto of race in 1938. Just as he objected to Kristallnacht. Pope Benedict XV had started positive relations between Catholics and Jews. Pope Pius XI went back and forth between supporting and hating Mussolini.

Pope Pius XI publicly asked Italy to abstain from adopting a demeaning racist legislation, stating that the term "race" is divisive but may be appropriate to differentiate animals. Source: Confalioneri, 351.

On 11 November 1938, following Kristallnacht, Pius XI joined Western leaders in condemning the pogrom. In response, the Nazis organized mass demonstrations against Catholics and Jews in Munich, and the Bavarian Gauleiter Adolf Wagner declared before 5,000 protesters: "Every utterance the Pope makes in Rome is an incitement of the Jews throughout the world to agitate against Germany". Source: Martin Gilbert; Kristallnacht – Prelude to Disaster; HarperPress; 2006; p.143

Too add such context to the article does not seem like vandalism to me.

Greetings, 62.45.158.228 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

I hope we can find consensus on the Clerical Fascism article. Pope Pius XI did not support the race laws. Mussolini did not support the Holocaust. These are historical facts. I hope you do not primarily base your knowledge on Christopher Hitchens. I do not mind leaving your additions, I just want to add sources and context to make it fit into the rest of Wikipedia and to make it appear less biased. 62.45.158.228 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GenoV84. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alchemy

Hello, GenoV84. Just to be clear, my objection to your reference to the Routledge volume in the alchemy volume is that it is both unhelpful to the article, and (in my judgment) not a very good definition of alchemy. Routledge is indeed, as you say, a reputable academic publisher, and the author of the article is a legitimate scholar, as far as I can tell. But the definition of alchemy in your reference is, frankly, not very good. I say that as a person with considerable expertise in the matter -- I am a professional historian of chemistry (you can easily google me). For instance, the first line of the Routledge definition reads as if it had been written by a contemporary advocate of alchemy (note the present tense), rather than by a historian of science. And why do you think it is helpful, in an encyclopedia, to cite another encyclopedia as a reference? That seems to me like a dictionary whose entries contain references to other dictionaries. All that said, I know that you are conscientiously trying to improve the alchemy article, and I also know that these are judgments, about which reasonable people (like you and I) can differ. So I won't try to change the revert again, and I will let these words end our dispute. I send you my best regards, and wish you happy Wikipedia-ing! Ajrocke (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)