User talk:VibrantThumpcake

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, VibrantThumpcake! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your contributions to Wikipedia[edit]

I noticed your nomination of the article on Tom Insko. I think you have brought up a valid point. An article that I created Steven D. Bennion also came up for discussion recently. I was unable to directly participate in that discussion because of an editing restriction placed on me over two months ago. I am actually under multiple editing restrictions. I have began work to try to broaden the allowances of what I can edit. The Steven D. Bennion discussion did not even go at all towards figuring out how we will applly the academic notability rule on heads of major academic institutions. It went off into left field over a misunderstanding of the closing outcomes suggesion on bishops. The big problem there is no one has ever actually made a religious leaders notability guide, and the reasoning behind the bishops practice has never been considered. A big issue is that there are a bunch of bishops historically who were outright political leaders, such as in the Holy Roman Empire, or quasi-political leaders. In the modern era there are 4 things that complicate this A-the rise of breakaway Churches that have bishops B-the appointment of bishops in large churches in areas where they have little social, political and other importance C-the continuation of dioceses in Churches like The Episcopal Church (formerly the Protestant Episcopal Church) even when they loose most of their members and become very small, some of those dioceses are under 1,000 members, and D-the fact that a large number of Churches have bishops who are not regional leaders in the same way as in historical Catholicism, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Methodism and Luteranism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a more understandable part of this group than are some Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches, in those groups it seems bishops are a special title with no clear system of giving them, although it may be more clear than I realize to those in the groups. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bishop's are essentially volunteer pastors over congregations that are at the level of being "wards". There are probably roughly 25,000 bishops at any given time, and in general they serve 5-7 years, so there are quite possibly 75,000 living people who have been bishops in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and easily 150,000 in the entire 191 years the church has existed (although the numbers were much lower in the 19th century, and do not reach anything close to the current number until maybe 1990). Other religious offices held by Bennion put him as one of 400 worldwide and 1 of 170 worldwide, but they are offices only held for 3 years and not even over all church operations, just specific parts of operations, so there is no notability from them. Since Bennion was actually head of 3 different tertiary academic institutions, so the question was complex. One of those, Snow College, is still a junior college. Southern Utah University was maybe comparable to Eastern Oregon University, except someone did argue it has regional impact, but that was only one eidtor, others just ignored the issue. The third was then 2-year Ricks College and is now 4 year BYU-Idaho, which was a major focus of Eyring and Christensen's book The Innovative University", they even had a little to say about Bennion's time there, but it was maybe 2 sentences, he in many ways was the least covered leader of the institution at the time their book was published, at least of those who lead it after it became in some way a tertiary educational institution in about 1910.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- It however seems quite common for people to argue that "so and so was the president of such place" or in the Commonwealth context "so and so was the vice chancelor" without actually conisdering whether the place in question was academically notable enough to meet this prong or not. I think we will agree that not every president of every place that conducts tertiary education is default notable. I am wondering if we need to have some sort of RfC to consider the question of what exactly we need to know about a tertiary institution so it can give default pass on this. I have the sense some editors wish we would just scrap this prong of academic notability and go for applying GNG to the issue. An example on this is Paul F. Sharp for whom we can find secondary sources, dating back to a New York Times article on his appointment as head of Hiram College. It also appears Sharp was notable as an academic for his impact in his field even before then, but that is a different story. If you want to see where the broad interpretation of that criteria leads just look at the article on Charles N. Watkins. As best I can tell Watkins was 1 of 2 faculty at "Bannock Stake Academy", that was more elementary school than secondary school, may not have had more than 30 students, almost centrainly not more than 50, served as principal for 3 years, and even though this becomes BYU-Idaho, he is not even once named in Eyring and Christensen's "The Innovative University". True Watkins in no way headed an institution of tertiary education, so it is actually an odd cross mixing of a broad reading of the prong with applying it retroactively based on the current standing of the institution. It is at least arguable that BYU-Idaho passes academic notability guidelines for inclusion of its head currently, I do not think there is a reading on earth that could apply such to pre-1900 Bannock Stake Academy, Jacob Spori, the first head of the acadmey passes notability on GNG, not because of being the academy head.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your support[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement#Requested_move_16_May_2022

You may wish to make your support official by bolding it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 07:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]