User talk:FlintlockNed

Welcome!

Hello, FlintlockNed, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Small Groups, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Small Groups[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Small Groups, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might look in on[edit]

…the Scum/SOTEC article. It has undergone a major update. Remember, the goal is accurate to sources, and so we can only improve it to the extent that sources give us material. As a Denver native/ex-pat, you may know of sources that can be used to improve the article. (And perhaps can source the Lincoln Park statement.)

We have the Merritt article at RNS in 2014, another stray one or two similarly recent (but with limited content), then we are back at 2011 and earlier. Point is, we do not have (i) a well-sourced recent history of church changes and direction, (ii) a thorough history of church leadership at the various sites. (As well, the Co. Springs church is discrepantly presented either as unaffiliated or as a sister church in different references.)

Point is, I have done almost as much as I can, given the sources and what I know. Someone who knows and cares about the old sources needs to weigh in, as does someone with more recent sourcing. Note, I am aware that some awkwardnesses are still in place (e.g., the Leadership section, separated because so spotty in source and fact, and the chronologic Further reading). THese are temporary, and explained in notes in the markup (also temporary). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]