User talk:Sarah Williams

With all due respect, I have been deleting the literature list in United Kingdom because it has been the majority view in the discussion which I started BEFORE I first deleted it, not because of personal disagreement with Mark Thomas. That alone is a good enough reason, although I admit that I have been influenced by Mark Thomas's general attitude on Wikipedia which include serial breaches of WP:NPA, WP:BLP and WP:3RR. Viewfinder 17:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that - unless a majority is you and one other person versus Mark. Very puzzled though as to why you are focusing on the literature section specifically, do you have a beef with Brit authors or something? Sarah Williams 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Talk:United Kingdom#Literature_section and read the entire section. You do not need to have any knowledge of Brit authors to be able to see that three other contributors support the removal of the list, although I agree with the contributor who states that a proper summary article, mentioning a few names, would be best. I hope you can agree about this. Perhaps, unlike me, you are qualified to write such an article. Viewfinder 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-gay and Re-evaluation Counseling

You removed the ex-gay link from Re-Evaluation Counseling, with no explanation. May I ask why? If this group is teaching that homosexuality can be cured, as they seem to do, they're an ex-gay organization. eaolson 13:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did explain in the Edit summary. You take a very sweeping view of Ex-Gay, I think most people would identify Ex-Gay as to do with the Christian Right, which RC most definately is not. Also to do with the view that "homosexuality is curable" as you say, which is not the position of RC. RC takes the view that acting out homosexual distress in actual sexual intercourse with a same-sex partner is harmful to the person, and therefore worth discharging on. You perhaps think that's the same judging from your comments, others don't. Sarah Williams 19:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet & Re-evaluation Counseling

Hello Sarah I am new to this, but am quite concerned at having been accused of being something called a sockpuppet. I have looked it up, and it seems to be a user name which is not legitimate. I am legitimate as is my username. Second, as i understand it, instead of making damaging accusations, you (we) are, in this forum, encouraged to have a dialogue with the person. So here I am, ready to dialogue. I also am not too pleased about you representing my edits as "bile" since they are considered opinions written to offer a balanced perspective.Please explain to me what right you have to automatically revert my edits? Are you in some way that I am not aware, superior to me? I would appreciate clarification.Frances-Anne Solomon, 14 October 2006

PS: Later on: I had written the below onto the RC page thought it better placed here as a basis for discussion, and hopefully, a more amicable solution to our differences : Hello Sarah, I don't know what a sockpuppet is. My name is Frances-Anne Solomon, as reflected in my user name. I have been leaving edit summaries, am happy to engage in discussion, and believe my edits to be always in the interest of balance, for the benefit of all who are in RC, or may be interested in getting involved. They deserve to have a full picture, not a partial one. I am sorry that you don't agree. Please explain to me what right you have to automatically reverse my careful edits? They took alot of time to write, and were motivated by a genuine concern for fairness. I am not a member of an anti-RC group, but a concerned individual. I do believe that RC demands alot of its members in terms of trust, time, commitment and vulnerability. I consider that the organisation should offer accountability and transparency in return, at the very least, so that people know and can judge for themselves whether they want to make such a huge investment. However as a matter of documented fact, RC is insular, authoritarian (with no checks and balances inside or out) and covert in the way it presents itself to its members and to the world. RC's own literature is extremely POV. That is why its important for the information available here to be rigourously balanced, even if that means sentence by sentence presenting the alternative view. I also believe that the link to the Re-evaluation Counseling Resources Site should be included and available to readers. Some of the content may be "POV", but there are also historical documents, academic papers, a timeline of events and some very valuable first hand testimony from people who participated in RC over a long period of time. It serves to balance the "POV" publications of the organisation itself. I genuinely dont understand what the objection is to this being available here.I know many people who have benefitted alot from having access to the broad perpspectives it provides (myself included). Please, I would like you to consider: if your child, or someone you cared about was thinking of joining an uncertified organisation (one that refuses to be certified by any mainstream measures or standards), wouldn't you want to be able to research and have access to information about it in order to make up your mind? If you were joining - a school, a bank, a hospital... or taking a new job, hiring an employee, or a caretaker for your child or elderly relative, ... would you not want to check history and references, have access to all the information, to be able to question the organisations leaders and so undertand fully and make an informed decision? Isn't this the purpose of Wikipedia - to provide access to all the information? Any way - thats my aim - nothing else. Yours Frances-Anne Solomon

Adolf Hitler

Watch your language please. --Golbez 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit summary, in support of Mark's blank revision of my edit, you presumably referred to me as a numbnut. I took mild offense to that, being a joke as it may, it added to my annoyance of having my reasoned edits reverted without a posted reason. Something I like around here, being told why people undo my work. I offered the courtesy, I ask it in return. Your comment was a pileon. --Golbez 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed and I apologize. --Golbez 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]