User talk:Lolkafka1888

Welcome!

Hello Lolkafka1888! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Boris Dralyuk has been reverted.
Your edit here to Boris Dralyuk was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.bdralyuk.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christian Lorentzen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian Lorentzen 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Lorentzen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Jonas Mekas has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mhwak10, thanks for your message. My edit was only made to clarify the details of the controversy, since the previous edit made contained a lot of unresearched, highly biased information. I edited it back to how it looked like, and added all the relevant dates as well as publication. I will attempt to do it again and clarify it better in the edit summary. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you for your response here. Just as a heads up, I opened up a discussion on the article talk page to discuss the section. The removals were by and large reasonable, though we typically don't label them as "graffiti" (or vandalism) unless they are 100% disruptive in nature. Edits like this one are largely productive, though I still have some concerns about giving one person so much weight. Would you be willing to engage in discussion on the article talk page to help hash this out? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Sure, happy to engage -- I have plenty materials on the fact. Thank you for doing that Mhwak10. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mhawk10, I'm writing to ask that you take a look at the recent edits to the entry on Jonas Mekas. References to scholars who dispute Michael Casper's claims are being repeatedly removed. This places a great deal of emphasis on the claims of one lone researcher at the expense of established historians of the Holocaust and Lithuania. Is there a problem with presenting scholarship that disputes Michael Casper's research?

Thank you 66.65.110.16 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would appreciate some clarification on this too. This unkown user has repeatedly added content to dispute the claims, creating a hefty controversy section far bigger than most on Wikipedia. They are removing relevant material (like B. Ruby Rich and J. Hoberman) and only adding criticisms -- thereby presenting the one-sided article and using block quotes that are too long for the article. I shortened it to the most relevant contributions, and the unkown username not only cut that but also introduced some errors (see the repeated line by Barry Schwabsky).

Thanks! Lolkafka1888 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The problem is that from the outset of the appearance of the section, lolkafka1888 has repeatedly put a great deal of emphasis on Casper’s claims, which I have tried to show are disputed. Repeatedly, quotes are modified to present Casper’s claims in the best possible light. For instance, while J. Hoberman admits that there are questions, he notes Casper “fails” to provide evidence. Time and again, a variety of people (art historians, trauma specialists, historians, etc) have expressed doubts about what Casper has purportedly proven. It is crucial for Wikipedia readers to know that major institutions, like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Jewish Museum, have conducted their own research that arrives at very different conclusions from Casper. The dispute should be emphasized. Otherwise, the article gives an extremely questionable presentation of Mekas’s life that is largely grounded in insinuations. I can understand questioning the expertise of film critics and art historians, in which case Schwabsky, Hoberman, and Rich are not relevant. However, van Voren is also a historian who has published on wartime Lithuania and his input is as relevant as Casper’s. Likewise, to diminish the significance of the findings of the USHMM and the Jewish Museum is to denigrate these institutions, which have a much longer track record of addressing the Holocaust than Casper. Their findings should at least be given equal consideration to Casper’s. There is no consensus on this dispute and readers ought to be aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.16 (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi unknown IP address,

I hope you're well. I think you might have misread the J. Hoberman's post -- the "failure" that he is referring to is in reference to Jonas, since the parenthethical and sentence that comes after clearly references the lack of empathy and memory that is exhibited regarding the holocaust in Lithuania.

The sources that you cited "doubting" Casper's research don't really engage in the findings themselves (which are also present in the encyclopaedia articles from Lithuanian sources that I added as references in the wikipedia article), but rather ask the question of whether to judge Mekas for this or not. It is not a question of the research, but rather of the morality behind its findings. Van Horen is no better than Schwabsky or Hoberman in this sense.

Best,

-K Lolkafka1888 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karen Van Dyck has been accepted

Karen Van Dyck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]