User talk:Elmmapleoakpine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Help desk[edit]

Responses have been made to your help desk query. You may view them at Wikipedia:Help desk#_would_like_to_edit_but..... If you wish to post a reply, then use the [edit] link in the section header. Happy editing! haz (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of NY Roads[edit]

I see you're interested, we have 124 stubs left and anyone is usually around to help. We hope you enjoy your time with the project.Mitch32(UP) 01:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


You asked for a comment on why non-Jews get interested in Kabbalah. Kabbalah is an explanation of how the universe works, and what our relationship to God is. Furthermore, in the interpretation that is Hermetic Qabalah, it suggests ways and means of altering one's consciousness to come closer to God, and to more fully realise the divinity that resides in ourselves. Now, while this system relies heavily on the Hebrew alphabet and various texts from the Jewish Torah (and other mystical Jewish writings), there's no particular reason I (or many others) can see why it should be purely a Jewish system, since the implications of the system fit well with many different mystical creeds, probably better, even, than they do with orthodox Judaism. The mystical branches of all the main religions tend to have more in common with each other than they have with the more orthodox aspects of the religion they are supposedly part of.

I think the main reason why people gravitate towards Kabbalah is because it is such a rich and effective way of describing how things work. There's an initial very steep learning curve, and then, once you've got the structure figured out, you start seeing fantastic connections. The Kabbalistic tree of life is like an old and very effective diagram of how we relate to God and the world, encompassing everything from physiology to psychology to spirituality, "karma", fate, and so on. And it's not a rough diagram, but a very detailed and intricate diagram, and the fact that it works can be quickly established.

From my own point of view, I came to Kabbalah (or more specifically, Hermetic Qabalah) through ceremonial magic, and for me it fit very well with my understanding of how God operates in the universe. It also provided a blueprint for the approach I should take in mastering my emotions and intellect, coming into greater sympathy with my spirit/higher self, developing greater wisdom and becoming more directly an agent of positive creation in the world. Essentially, the blueprint that it offers fits well with many streams of mysticism, not just the Jewish, and so they adopt it. Fuzzypeg 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

incase my comment on the kabbalah talk page is removed by jayjg, here it is for you. Kabbalah, from gentile point of view, is satan worship, idol worship, superstition, spirit/demon/jinn worship, sexual magick, ritual magick etc. It is linked to most jews, the movement behind the Global Government, Freemasons are also involved in this. hope this helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding citations[edit]

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I responded to your question at Wikipedia talk:Citation needed#How do I add a citation when I find one?. Hope this helps! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help Desk Query[edit]

Sorry, we only answer questions at the Help Desk specifically (that way others can also see the answers), but I left you a reply there. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

notes on creating citations[edit]

General reference[edit]

If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic.

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.
== References ==
*Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
*Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

Below is how this would look once the edit was saved:

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.


  • Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
  • Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

Furniture design[edit]

I wish I had the expertise to contribute more to these articles, but in fact I simply stumbled across the (to me) surprising lack of an article on Mission furniture so I created a redirect from that title to Mission Style, which seemed to be the closest existing article. Feel free to change "Mission furniture" into a real article-- simply delete the Redirect text and start a real article. (I hope I'm not being too obvious-- you appear to be a pretty new user, so I thought I should point out that a "redirect" can be easily changed to a regular article.)

Anyway, if you have expertise (or even just sufficient interest to do the necessary research) in this area, it looks like you've got some interesting work ahead of you. Please feel free to ask for help if you need it-- Wikipedia can be an immensely confusing place when you're getting started. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looking over your contributions, I see you do appear to have the subject expertise. A couple of suggestions-- use Show Preview more often, and fill in the Edit Summary more often-- the two ideas are related, in that the fewer times you hit Save Page, the fewer times you have to figure out what to put in the Edit Summary. And just what to put there becomes more routine over time. Basically, you want to give people some idea of what your edit was for, though a lot of edits can be simple descriptions such as "copyedit", "spelling", "grammar", etc., and a single edit (and hence, Edit Summary) can cover a number of changes. Only if you're adding real, factual material do you need to give some indication of what you're adding. Take a look at article History pages and see what others put there. So again, ask for help if you need it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be pretty annoying to start a new article and have someone pounce on it one way or another. One way to avoid this is to create the article in a work page, a subpage of your User page: enter "User:Elmmapleoakpine/temp" (or "User:Elmmapleoakpine/Mission Furniture") in the search box, and then create the page. You can then work on the article-to-be in private, and then when you get it in good shape, copy the whole thing into the real article name. One caution, though-- don't put Categories in it while it is in your workpage-- people get cranky when articles in User space show up in Category lists. (And don't let cranky editors get you down!) Enjoy! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elmmapleoakpine/Mission Furniture[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Elmmapleoakpine/Mission Furniture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Non-dropframe (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your message. Crafting an article as you go isn't really the 'accepted' way of going about things here. I would suggest building the page in wp:sandbox and posting it when you're satisfied. Also, read wp:first to make sure your article meets Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks again, Non-dropframe (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan[edit]

Hi Elmmapleoakpine, I've removed the material that you added to Bob Dylan. The website you used as a reference [[1]] claims that Dylan owes his success to a pact he made with the devil, and could not be regarded as a WP:RS. Furthermore, Dylan has revisited his Christian, evangelical material several times since the early 1980s, e.g. participating with Mavis Staples in the album Gotta Serve Somebody: The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan in 2003. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NYSR inactivity check[edit]

Hello, Elmmapleoakpine. You are receiving this message because you are listed on the participant list of WP:NYSR. I am conducting an inactivity check on behalf of the project to see if the project still has an active editor base. The status column on the participant list will be cleared today, and to remain a listed member of the project, you must update your status on the participant list (preferably using the terms "Active", "Semi-active", or "Inactive") which is located here. Those who do not update their status after one week (by the night of June 25) and those who put inactive as their status will be removed from the list. If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page or at the "A smorgasbord of topics" section on WT:NYSR. Thank you for your understanding and your time. – TMF 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation regarding article name[edit]

Thanks for your comments. You are correct, it is a trivial matter but the page can not progress until the matter is resolved. Hopefully that will happen soon and we an move on. I have gained respect for the Wikipedia mediation process and marvelled at the patience and skillfulness of the mediator in this dispute. If nothing else is gained, I am happy to have witnessed the process! NancyHeise talk 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I was just having a conversation the other day with someone who was remarking that they had never met anyone from North or South Dakota. I agreed. Living in South Florida we meet people from almost everywhere except there - now I can say I have met someone from the Dakota's! NancyHeise talk 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your neat comments on my talk page! I hope you are enjoying editing Wikipedia - it is a great way to pass the time between loads of laundry or waiting for your teenage children to come home on a Friday or Saturday night! NancyHeise talk 04:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Nuclear Terrorism[edit]

Hi - I noticed you participated in the Nuclear Terrorism discussion; would you be willing to weigh in on this discussion? This is the second attempt at an RfC on these issues (the first was here). Thanks, csloat (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong and organ harvesting[edit]

You nailed it. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of an entry from List of new religious movements[edit]

Please actually check the cited WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, before removing an entry from the page List of new religious movements. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You have done this again, even though there were multiple citations to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Nation of Islam has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. NW (Talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC) My apologies; that was a mistake! NW (Talk) 02:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming SBC resurge/takeover article[edit]

The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at: Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2 (once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

List of new religious movements[edit]

Thanks very much for adding cites to List of new religious movements. Can you please use WP:CIT templates when doing so? Cirt (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dup cites[edit]

Please do not add the exact same cite twice. Instead, name the ref, and use it again. Like so: [2]. Cirt (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent additions to List of new religious movements[edit]

Can you please use the formatting style setup for this page? Thank you. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Additions of entries to sources that fail WP:RS[edit]

Please do not add entries to sources that fail WP:RS, as you have done at List of new religious movements. Such as Daily Mail, or some random college newspaper. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of new religious movements[edit]

Let's please use only secondary WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Conference paper as source[edit]

[3] = is this verifiable somewhere? A link online? Or was it published somewhere that is accessible somehow? Cirt (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I originally found it online. I just can't seem to find the link now. I will keep looking.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I get it[edit]

I understand exactly what you are trying to say at the talk for the List of New Religious Movements. You might find it interesting to read the thread about that exchange taking place on another site. [4] I'm not involved in that discussion, just been reading about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • That discussion forum is not affiliated with Wikipedia, but most of the participants are current or former editors that have become disgruntled with the politics of WP. I haven't participated there, but I do read it once in a while for laughs and sometimes they bring up some very good points. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Self religion[edit]

Hi Elm and thanks for your participation on the Self Religion article. Because there were several threads all talking about the same thing ie Notability, Sources and possible AfD I have made a combined thread at the bottom of the talk page. The third editor active on the article has indicated he feels it is a notable topic and cites several books that mention the topic. I am a bit skeptical and leary of OR and Coatrack but feel the editor(s) should have a chance to make the article notable if they can. So I'm going to wait a week or so before taking up the topic again and I just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you keithbob. I will wait to see and gladly participate in the conversation. Please note I am not on Wikipedia everyday. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi Elm,I just posted on the Self Religion page. Since there are two votes on either side. Maybe we should get some outside input and see what others think? Sorry I didn't respond to your invite to the List of Scientoligists. Although I disagree with the whole concept of the article, I am already involved in a number of contentious articles and I just finished participating in an Arbitration for Transcendental Meditation and its related articles and I feel at this time I don't want to add another controversial subject to my list. :-( Sorry I couldn't help there, maybe another time. -- KeithbobTalk 11:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that there always seems to be more to the story with editing situations on Wikipedia? I do wonder but at this point it seems like a rhetorical question. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


I will no longer be editing that page, List of Scientologists. Have fun with it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber awards[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the merge discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. If you have the chance, please comment on how the information should be merged to the Justin Bieber article. Regards, –Chase (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your work for fairness and accuracy that you did at the List of Scientologists article a while back. I was thinking that you may be interested in checking out a discussion about an article that is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System and Talk:Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. --MLKLewis (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a little hard to follow what is going on. I will have to read through it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

AFD of article you contributed to[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Elmmapleoakpine. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan King.
Message added 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bluegrass region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antebellum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Seer Stones[edit]

You did not follow the seer stone debate. Foxe was saying that unless we include the seer stone in the lead we are guilty of "pushing a blatantly religious POV." Since I have already seen a debate develop over whether the seer stone is related to treasure hunting or translating of sacred records, it is clear there is no agreement on what exactly the seer stone was used for, and it is the type of divisive thing that does not belong as a short explantion in a lead. Definantly there are reasons for not including it other than "a blatantly religious POV".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mormonism and polygamy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List of new religious movements[edit]

Hello! I am writing to you as you are an editor who has participated in the disccussion at List of new religious movements. There is a related discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard which primarily consists of the same editors and many of the same discussion topics as the RFC. In an effort to forward the discussion to a resolution, I am inviting you to participate in the RSN thread as well. Thank you in advance for considering it. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi- Let me see. It looks like there is a lot of reading to do there. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC request re:Peter Sellers article[edit]

Hi Elmmapleoakpine. Just requesting clarification from you on your preference as to the wording. Summary here. Want to ensure we're not misrepresenting your viewpoint. --Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, no-one was misrepresenting Elmmapleoakpine's view until you decided to apportion an opinion to it. Stop hassling people and allow them to come to the article of their own free choice without you needling them to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh* SchroCat, this was a friendly invite so as we can get definitive understanding of Elmmapleoakpine's opinion. This was instigated due to your concerns. You're welcome. Elmmapleoakpine, sorry about this strange mudslinging on your talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I had no concerns, apart from your rather bizzare attempt to "summarise" and mislead: I did not ask or hint at people being harrassed - that was your deicision. There are three weeks left to run on the RfC, so stop pushing people in directions that they do not need to go. Things will run their course without your interference, so just let it happen without pressing any further. Elmmapleoakpine, I am sorry that you have been hassled on your talk page and for what has followed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
A friendly asking for clarification is not in any manner "harassing." You violating WP:HOUNDING is. --Oakshade (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hounding? Don't be so bloody ridiculous. If you think that is what I am doing, take it to ANI: if not, drop this silliness and move on. Apologies again, Elmmapleoakpine. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I will go an have a look. Thank you for checking with me. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ICOC Discussion[edit]

You asked me to prove that the ICOC is a cult. I can't prove that the ICOC is a cult; however, I can point to the ICOC's cult-like practices. On the ICOC talk page I listed a lot of sources that call the ICOC a cult. Why are so many people, including news organizations, calling the ICOC controversial and suspicious? Are they all wrong? I think a criticism and controversy section should be left in the ICOC article. I own a whole set of encyclopedias in book form. When I look up various religious groups and religious organizations there are always sections devoted to controversy and criticism. The crticism and controversy sections are not in the lead of the articles but the controversy and criticism sections do exist in those encyclopedias towards the end of the articles/entries. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Qewr4231- I don't think I disagree with anything you are saying here- at least in terms of the controversy. While controversy sections should be avoided per Wikipedia policy, I think the ICOC article would benefit from a neutrally worded section. That being said, the word cult remains a subjective and prejudices readers without adding to understanding the subject. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F You may be interested since you have discussed this subject in the past. DaveApter (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay- we'll see. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Landmark and related articles subject to discretionary sanctions[edit]

Just wanted to make sure you knew that the Landmark Worldwide article and all related articles, broadly construed, are subject to discretionary sanctions as per WP:ACDS as per the arbcom ruling here. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't take my original post here too badly, but, unfortunately, this topic area has probably been the single most litigious in wikipedia for the past few months. There have been, since the case closed I think late last year, no less than 4 requests for AE enforcement, or, on average, almost one every other week. Yes, really. There are a few relevant issues regarding all the articles related to est, Erhard, and Landmark, and I sincerely hope that some efforts that I will be making a bit later this week to bring in more editors will help in that regard. There is also, unfortunately, as was found in the original ArbCom, a question regarding the definition of the term new religious movement and whether it specifically implies that the group in question is a "religion." Unfortunately, having myself reviewed a lot of the reference sources about the topic of NRMs, it doesn't. The term has been pretty much indicated to be a replacement for the more clearly inflammatory words "cult" and "sect" (depending on whether you live in the US or Europe), and has been rather broadly applied to all the groups which were counted as "cults" during the anti-cult craze, whether they ever necessarily had a specifically "religious" character or not. This, along with the use of the similar term "pseudoscience," are among the biggest and most frequent subjects of ArbCom and AE action. If anyone told me I could completely get rid of both of those damn terms and on my own create ones without the baggage both have, I could and would in a second. But, unfortunately, that ain't happened yet. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to give me this background. I am familiar with some of it and I might look into if further. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Davey and Goliath[edit]

No problem! Trivialist (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox linking RfC[edit]

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)