User talk:Mullins315

This is Mullins315's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Baptist Church of Christ at Sardis has been accepted[edit]

The Baptist Church of Christ at Sardis, 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 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!

S0091 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Mullins315!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nashville, Tennessee, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free Holiness Church moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Free Holiness Church, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Razer(talk) 21:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry! I just created that page and had forgotten to add my sources! Mullins315 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Holiness Church (February 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Free Holiness Church 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mullins315! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Holiness Church (February 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

no independent sources?

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:Free Holiness Church 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Southern Baptist Logos[edit]

The article Southern Baptist Logos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG with a single sources linking to the SBC's website, meaning it is not independent. I couldn't find any sources that WP:SIGCOV about the logo.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Free Holiness Church[edit]

Hello, Mullins315. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Free Holiness Church, 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 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) 22:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Free Holiness Church[edit]

Hello, Mullins315. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Free Holiness Church".

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!} 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:House of God Church (Keith Dominion)[edit]

Hello, Mullins315. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:House of God Church (Keith Dominion), 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 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) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:House of God Church (Keith Dominion)[edit]

Hello, Mullins315. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "House of God Church".

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!} 21:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. If you have sources meeting WP:RS a post including them would be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add to Doug Weller's comment: It seems that you didn't read the article before commenting on the talk page: "The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution." That's what the article quotes directly from the official web site. Is that "supportive of the confederacy" or not ? Rsk6400 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that this needs to be edited in certain ways, and whole parts of the article need to be redone and get better sources. "The Sons of Confederate Veterans neither embraces, nor espouses acts or ideologies of racial and religious bigotry" This is from their website! Anything that makes this out to be an actively racist group, "Once Again, Racism Rears up in the Sons of Confederate Veterans" as this article does is wrong. While they support honoring confederate ancestors, not saying that your average southern soldier was in full support of the brutality of slavery, and the use of confederate symbols, that does not mean that you can over-exaggerate these claims. Thank you for contacting me. God Bless. Mullins315 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the name of a source, the article doesn’t say that. It describes different factions, some overtly racist. Correct? And that source is for “ For years the organization has been divided between racial extremists and those interested in history and genealogy.”. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I was talking about the extremely biased sources that were used. Mullins315 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOV Doug Weller talk 20:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every organization describes itself using language that has a positive connotation. Do you think that the Wikipedia article on NAMBLA should describe it primarily as an organization seeking "to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships" as a key principle of "personal freedom", or do you think perhaps it would be better to find out from reliable sources what the actual substance of the organization is? Do you think that we should describe PhRMA as "a trade association of leading biopharmaceutical research companies that represents the interests of patients and health care providers", or might there perhaps be something problematic about that self-description? --JBL (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ertal72. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sons of Confederate Veterans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please reach a talk page consensus, especially given that Sons of Confederate Veterans has been heavily reviewed by experienced editors and contains an extensive list of reliable sources. Ertal72 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mullins315! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sons of Confederate Veterans several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. JBL (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sons of Confederate Veterans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I will do so. Mullins315 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

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 16:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Mullins315 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]