User talk:Linda

Sorry it's so tardy, but I thought you might enjoy it any way. Happy editing! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 10:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw one of your postings on the village pump and concluded you must be new :D. Then I noticed your username. Now THAT is a miracle, that no one registered it before you did in october 2007. Congratulations on acquiring this username !! --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheDJ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

They look OK to me because they seem to be well sourced. Eaglizard is a fan of Bailey's but he seems much more open too criticism of Bailey than a lot of the other Bailey fans were. Here is what he said when I aske him about his reverts to your previous contribution's.

As for Linda's edits, I almost left her a note on her talk page, but I got distracted. Do you think I should? I thought the New Thought reference could be accepAtable, but not without a cite to somebody else saying it. Frankly, the connection isn't particularly clear to me. What is clear, however, is that the message of The Secret (2006 film), ie, prosperity, is precisely the opposite of that of AAB. DK tells would-be students and disciples constantly that they are letting themselves in for a life of poverty, painful karmic discharges, and constant toiling in total anonymity. So, no, I think that part's out... :

So I intend to wait and see what happens and hope for the best ....: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletion board heads up. I will have a look see in a day or 3. I will also pass the info along to Some of the others when I get a chance

Albion moonlight (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with Splash Mountain. I want to try and make the article good article status if not featured article status. If you want to help. Thanks.--BAITT (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the invitation. I like that article and will try to help some more with it. --Linda (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come, birth not conception? See my note on that discussion page---Jean Mercer (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on the article talk page. --Linda (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that an editor by the name of James1 has resurfaced on the Alice Bailey article. I have italicized a copy of a note I placed on his talk page.

I hope you are well. As far as I am concerned the obvious conflict of interest you had in the past will continue to bar you from making significant edits to the Alice Bailey article indefinitely. I am dropping you this note to advise you that I am ready willing and able to take the whole matter to the arbitration committee if it should become necessary. Your most recent edit seems to be very innocuous and I am assuming that you are once again testing the waters to see if the coast is clear for a return to the old days when you tried to own that article. The answer to that question is a No. No it isn't.

I am hoping that James heed my warning. I am also hoping that both you and Malcomn are willing to back me if it should become necessary. If you require an explanation as to why I find the return of James1 to be so potentially insidious I will provide you with the necessary diffs. Otherwise I will wait until he tries to make an edit that attempts to help him in his quest to keep Alice Baileys antisemitism a secret. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I saw your note I read the talk page archives - intense stuff! I will try to watch the situaion and also if you need any help keeping the article balanced, you are welcome to send me a message any time. --Linda (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Linda.:Albion moonlight (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my complements on the edits you did for The Secret (2006 film). Excellent job and very professional. I wrote the original copy and find you brought it to a new level of readability -- thanks. - Len Raymond (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thank you for the note! It's nice to know that my work is appreciated! --Linda (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda, thank you so much for adding all that text and those references to the article. Are you aware that a bunch of Christians and atheists have been trying to get the article deleted because it lacked third-party references? The astonishing thing is that some of those people are administrators on Wikipedia -- they are nothing but a bunch of bullies. They are holding the Seth Material article to such high standards that 95% of all the articles on Wikipedia would be deleted if they were held to the same standard. Thanks so much!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here. I would hate to see it get deleted after all the work that was put into it. Thanks a bunch. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo the thanks, but I do not endorse all of Caleb's comment. Verbal chat 11:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Linda. Verbal has deleted two-thirds or more of the article because he doesn't like the tone. He claims that I have done 3 reverts in one day, and now they are going to block me in some way. They're a pack of wolves who have no sense of fairness or objectivity. They are determined to truncate the article to nothing. If you go back there, please revert it back to my last revision -- that revision includes the deleted material.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda, thanks for your invaluable contributions to the Seth Material article. NoVomit put it in for deletion and got quite a tongue-lashing for trying to delete a good article. The extensive text (and references) you added to the article made it much stronger, and was quoted by the editors who voted against deletion. Having gone through this process, it will be harder to delete the article in the future.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

]

Request for mediation not accepted

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material . For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]