User talk:Llightex/Archive 2

"private"

 * Dear Llightex. My grammar and citations were fine. You wrote that "private" was not in the cite. My cite and the Pelosi remarks were subsequently removed from the subsection of the article. The cited story, and feel free to delete it of course, was as follows: GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win Dareh Gregorian and Kasie Hunt and Kyle Stewart Wed, December 30, 2020, 2:18 PM PST
 * Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., announced Wednesday that he would object to the certification of some states' Electoral College results on Jan. 6, a move that will force his fellow Republicans to vote on a choice between rejecting President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in this year's election or disenfranchising millions of voters.

While numerous Republican House members are expected to object to the Electoral College results from several swing states during Congress' certification of the votes next week, Hawley is the first senator to commit to doing so. The announcement is significant because under congressional rules, a written objection that is endorsed by both a House member and a senator is needed to force Congress to consider an objection. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ripped Hawley's announcement in remarks on the Senate floor. “The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic," Schumer said. "The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting. This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on fact and reason — not conspiracy and fantasy." The objections from GOP members are highly unlikely to succeed. For one to be sustained and a state's presidential vote thrown out, a majority in each chamber has to vote to agree to the objection. The Democrats hold a majority in the House, and while Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, a number of moderate Republicans have already said they would not vote to toss out a state's votes. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had privately urged Republican senators not to challenge the vote because it could put some vulnerable Republicans at odds with fervent Trump supporters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shrugged off Hawley's announcement, telling reporters she has "no doubt that on next Wednesday, a week from today, that Joe Biden will be confirmed by the acceptance of the vote of the Electoral College as the 46th president of the United States." Biden’s incoming White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, also showed no concern during a virtual briefing with reporters. “Congress will certify the results of this election as they do every four years,” Psaki said, adding: “This is merely a formality. It certainly should be treated as such." Despite the long-shot nature of the challenge, Hawley's objection could lead to a long day; Congress could debate for up to two hours on objections to each states' results before members vote. Hawley, who is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2024, did not say how many states' votes he would object to, but he suggested that Pennsylvania would be one of them. “I cannot vote to certify the Electoral College results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws," Hawley said in a statement, echoing a claim made repeatedly by the president and rejected repeatedly by state and federal courts. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, blasted Hawley's announcement as "another baseless attempt by Trump’s enablers to undermine the will of the people." "Pennsylvania’s election was secure, legal & fair. Our electoral votes have been cast for Joe Biden & Kamala Harris," he wrote in a pair of tweets, adding that "people should know that any senator making declarations about challenging Pennsylvania’s election result is performing political theater for Donald Trump, not following any facts or laws." Outgoing Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., slammed Hawley and members of their party in the House who planned to mount objections. "All this is based on disinformation and conspiracy theories," Riggleman said in an interview with MSNBC's Kasie Hunt, blasting his colleagues for "throwing away federalism" for "really a baseline of disinformation and ridiculousness." "When does a scam become a coup?" he asked, adding, "You inject disinformation into the constituents and then use that disinformation as a rationalization to protest this. It's unbelievable, and it's how disinformation works, right?" "A lot of people are fundraising off of fantasy, and it comes a time you have to get more and more provocative to raise those funds," Riggleman continued. Hawley, he speculated, "is looking for a higher office. Maybe he's positioning for 2024. This is all just political. Has nothing to do on rule of law, has nothing to do on what's good for this country. It has to do with what's good for the individual" and "assuaging the Twitter mobs or assuaging a certain specific part of your electorate instead of doing what's right, and that's serving your country based on the Constitution." In his statement, Hawley tried to portray the extraordinary move as business as usual, saying, "I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past," pointing to the 2004 and 2016 elections. During the certification of the 2016 election results, several House Democrats attempted to object to the vote in a number of states, but they were ruled out of order by then-Vice President Biden, who noted that no senators had joined in their objections. After the 2004 election, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, objected to Ohio's votes, charging there had been voter suppression because of long lines and missing voting machines in minority areas in the state. Then-Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said those complaints were “outrage based on fantasy conspiracies” while the Bush White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said, “It is time to move forward and not engage in conspiracy theories or partisan politics of this nature.” The measure failed in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 and in the House by a vote of 267-31. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., took a dark view of Hawley's actions in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. “Josh Hawley and anyone who supports his effort are engaged in the attempted overthrow of democracy," Murphy said. "There is no evidence that there was any fraud. Sen. Hawley apparently believes that if a Democrat wins the presidential race, it must be illegitimate by definition, even absent any actual evidence of misbehavior."GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win Dareh Gregorian and Kasie Hunt and Kyle Stewart Wed, December 30, 2020, 2:18 PM PST Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., announced Wednesday that he would object to the certification of some states' Electoral College results on Jan. 6, a move that will force his fellow Republicans to vote on a choice between rejecting President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in this year's election or disenfranchising millions of voters. While numerous Republican House members are expected to object to the Electoral College results from several swing states during Congress' certification of the votes next week, Hawley is the first senator to commit to doing so. The announcement is significant because under congressional rules, a written objection that is endorsed by both a House member and a senator is needed to force Congress to consider an objection. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ripped Hawley's announcement in remarks on the Senate floor. “The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic," Schumer said. "The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting. This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on fact and reason — not conspiracy and fantasy." The objections from GOP members are highly unlikely to succeed. For one to be sustained and a state's presidential vote thrown out, a majority in each chamber has to vote to agree to the objection. The Democrats hold a majority in the House, and while Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate, a number of moderate Republicans have already said they would not vote to toss out a state's votes. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had privately urged Republican senators not to challenge the vote because it could put some vulnerable Republicans at odds with fervent Trump supporters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shrugged off Hawley's announcement, telling reporters she has "no doubt that on next Wednesday, a week from today, that Joe Biden will be confirmed by the acceptance of the vote of the Electoral College as the 46th president of the United States." Biden’s incoming White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, also showed no concern during a virtual briefing with reporters. '''“Congress will certify the results of this election as they do every four years,” Psaki said, adding: “This is merely a formality. It certainly should be treated as such."''' Despite the long-shot nature of the challenge, Hawley's objection could lead to a long day; Congress could debate for up to two hours on objections to each states' results before members vote. Hawley, who is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2024, did not say how many states' votes he would object to, but he suggested that Pennsylvania would be one of them. “I cannot vote to certify the Electoral College results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws," Hawley said in a statement, echoing a claim made repeatedly by the president and rejected repeatedly by state and federal courts. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, blasted Hawley's announcement as "another baseless attempt by Trump’s enablers to undermine the will of the people." "Pennsylvania’s election was secure, legal & fair. Our electoral votes have been cast for Joe Biden & Kamala Harris," he wrote in a pair of tweets, adding that "people should know that any senator making declarations about challenging Pennsylvania’s election result is performing political theater for Donald Trump, not following any facts or laws." Outgoing Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., slammed Hawley and members of their party in the House who planned to mount objections. "All this is based on disinformation and conspiracy theories," Riggleman said in an interview with MSNBC's Kasie Hunt, blasting his colleagues for "throwing away federalism" for "really a baseline of disinformation and ridiculousness." "When does a scam become a coup?" he asked, adding, "You inject disinformation into the constituents and then use that disinformation as a rationalization to protest this. It's unbelievable, and it's how disinformation works, right?" "A lot of people are fundraising off of fantasy, and it comes a time you have to get more and more provocative to raise those funds," Riggleman continued. Hawley, he speculated, "is looking for a higher office. Maybe he's positioning for 2024. This is all just political. Has nothing to do on rule of law, has nothing to do on what's good for this country. It has to do with what's good for the individual" and "assuaging the Twitter mobs or assuaging a certain specific part of your electorate instead of doing what's right, and that's serving your country based on the Constitution." In his statement, Hawley tried to portray the extraordinary move as business as usual, saying, "I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past," pointing to the 2004 and 2016 elections. During the certification of the 2016 election results, several House Democrats attempted to object to the vote in a number of states, but they were ruled out of order by then-Vice President Biden, who noted that no senators had joined in their objections. After the 2004 election, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, objected to Ohio's votes, charging there had been voter suppression because of long lines and missing voting machines in minority areas in the state. Then-Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said those complaints were “outrage based on fantasy conspiracies” while the Bush White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said, “It is time to move forward and not engage in conspiracy theories or partisan politics of this nature.” The measure failed in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 and in the House by a vote of 267-31. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., took a dark view of Hawley's actions in an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. “Josh Hawley and anyone who supports his effort are engaged in the attempted overthrow of democracy," Murphy said. "There is no evidence that there was any fraud. Sen. Hawley apparently believes that if a Democrat wins the presidential race, it must be illegitimate by definition, even absent any actual evidence of misbehavior."
 * An apology would be appreciated. Thank you. Activist (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Activist, apologies, I didn't realize that "private" was in the Yahoo News article that was cited right after the claim (https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senator-object-electoral-college-181400746.html). Note that I'm not responsible for the deletion of that content, though; you may want to discuss that further in Talk:Josh Hawley if you'd like. Llightex (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never made a mistake in my entire life (well, before today and yesterday...and...), so thanks. No problem. Activist (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CIRS school logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CIRS school logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dayananda Saraswati CMW Piercy $900,000 issue
In reply to the CMW Piercy $900,000 issue it is stated in the biography of Swami Dayananda written by Padma Narasimhan (1990). Swami Dayananda Saraswati: The Traditional Teacher of Brahma Vidya. Chennai, India: T.T. Maps & Publications, ISBN 81-7053-103-9, that “One difference between our course (ie. Piercy) and the previous courses Swami Dayananda had taught in India was that there were no hired staff. All the staff were students from previous courses and the current students were their legion of helpers. Students were expected to work at least two hours a day, but most of us put in far more. We repaired and remodelled and maintained the building, kept the grounds, cooked, did the office work, published periodicals and texts, duplicated audio tapes of the classes, hosted the camps, created a library and somehow found time to study. There were those who had it on good authority that this was not the way it was done in a real Indian gurukulam - students there were supposed to study  not work – but as Swamiji gently explained to us the sādhanā of gurusevā and the importance of having at the gurukulam only people who were totally committed to its purpose, most of the doubters began to accept the idea of combining study with work. This acceptance was of value later. No sooner had we been introduced to the idea of sannyāsah as a lifestyle, then we realised that we would not be able to live a lifestyle of sannyāsah after the course. A bhiksuh in America would be considered a bum, without even the benefit of doubt. We would have to live as householders, and fit study and teaching into the precious time that remained, as we had at the course”. Many students also paid regular dollar amounts for the upkeep, food etc of the gurukulam. The main administrator of the gurukulam, Carol Whitfield (Radha) who later founded the Arsha Kulam organisation, would be able to confirm this. The statement of $900,000 for student costs would appear to be false. Renlock (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing! The book seems interesting and I'd love to check out that book sometime. Llightex (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ho_Chi_Minh
Thanks for raising that. Are you aware of the background 10 years ago with Kauffner and the anti-Vietnamese names socks? There are 5 Vietnam bios, 1 Serbian tennis player, 1 Puerto Rican tennis player that are at odds with the rest of the modern bio article corpus. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @In ictu oculi interesting, I was not aware. Can you link to the discussion / provide more context? Llightex (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Poverty Knowledge
Hello, Llightex. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Poverty Knowledge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hindus for Human Rights has been accepted
 Hindus for Human Rights, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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  [//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=Hindus_for_Human_Rights 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the page, @Devonian Wombat! Appreciate it. Llightex (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Poverty Knowledge


Hello, Llightex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Poverty Knowledge".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not change the spelling of “organisation” where it’s in the title of a source
See. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks! Llightex (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Batrachochytrium
Hello, Llightex. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Batrachochytrium, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Batrachochytrium


Hello, Llightex. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Batrachochytrium".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Llightex. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Linux Foundation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''Directly editing articles on your own employer is extremely discouraged especially things like re-arranging thing suite client desires. WP:MAKINGEREQ is preferable.'' Graywalls (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Graywalls, sorry for the confusion -- I've been a Wikipedian for a while and have only recently started doing some paid editing -- I read WP:PE and read it that as long as I disclose on my talk page, editing articles directly or proposing changes are OK (but more substantive changes would be better done through the proposed changes route). I now see that WP:BFAQ says something different (that paid editors shouldn't edit articles directly about their organization). Thanks for flagging and I will go the proposed changes route for future changes.
 * I'd also add that I strive to ensure all my changes on Wikipedia follow WP:NPOV, and in particular with the Linux Foundation article (for previous edits and edits going forward), my goal is to update longstanding issues with the article (such as outdated information, lack of references, huge amount of subheadings / lists on the article). Will propose these changes! Llightex (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, are you paid directly by Linux Foundation, or are you paid by a business that is hired by Linux Foundation? If the latter, please provide the name of the company so I can properly update the talk page banner with the name of the company. Graywalls (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an independent contractor, so I think it's the former. Llightex (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindu American Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Pitts. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Omkhar Arasaratnam (November 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 AirshipJungleman29 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Omkhar Arasaratnam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Omkhar_Arasaratnam Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AirshipJungleman29&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Omkhar_Arasaratnam reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)