Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

/Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Definition

I have put in ACT's defining characteristics. This may seem rather detailed for such a small topic, but it may resolve any arguments about what ACT do or do not say attachment therapy is.Fainites ^barley 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of ACT-Friendly WordPress Blogs

I believe this is relevant as it shows that certain aspects of ACT's approach may fall outside guidelines devised by the EFF and others.

Didacticderivative (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 26.09.09[reply]

22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)~ 26.09.09

Discussion of Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa's Litigation

I understand this is not an "attack ACT" article.

There are several valid reasons to include this information.

1) Credentials/backgrounds of ACT members has been raised before. This gives some insight into Mr. Sarner, who has been described as a "mathematician and cryptographer"; his voting machine project work, documented by court cases and patents, sheds some light.

2) It provides context for evaluating statements made by ACT.

3) I would agree that if Mr. Sarner had his own wiki, this discussion could be moved there.

4) This provides a balanced view of ACT.

Didacticderivative (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 26.09.09[reply]

I agree with you and have added some additional and sourced (sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies) factually correct material. Omar Faizel (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed contributions of a sock

A user active on this article, Argon&Helium, looks to have been banned as a sock puppet in a long-term abuse case. The edits I undid a few days ago seemed pretty pernicious, so I guess it's not a surprise that it's not the first time the same stuff has been added:

Accordingly, I have removed the content added by this user. Regardless, this is not an area of expertise for me, so if there's consensus that parts of the user's contributions were productive, feel free to add them back in. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advocates for Children in Therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]