User talk:SCBC

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

January 2008[edit]

Information.svg Your recent edit to Civil unions in the United States (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses/phone numbers or Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr or related links to a non-talk page. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008[edit]

Information.png

Hi, the recent edit you made to Christian Egalitarianism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας discussion 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Information.png

The recent edit you made to Christian Egalitarianism constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —αἰτίας discussion 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Hey SCBC. Sorry! :-( —αἰτίας discussion 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you very much.

SCBC (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too. :-) —αἰτίας discussion 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)



Conversion therapy article[edit]

SCBC, I have undone your recent edit to conversion therapy. While I'm sure it was well-intentioned, that article is already much too long, and there has been some discussion about reducing it in size (see the discussions on the talk page, and especially the post 'Big ol' Ex-gay merge/deletion' by Dybryd). Skoojal (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy[edit]

SCBC, I have again removed material you added to Conversion therapy. There are probably numerous other articles where this material could more usefully be added (the article on Ex-gay, for instance, or individual biographies). Skoojal (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy again[edit]

SCBC, I think most of the changes you recently made to the conversion therapy article were improvements. However, I have undone some of them, and I'm unsure about others. I'd appreciate it if you would comment on the article's talk page. Skoojal (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy yet again[edit]

SCBC, your addition to the article was misleading and inappropriate. I intend to continue removing it if you add this again. Simply put, the problem is that these ex-gay groups and individuals are not giving accounts of change through conversion therapy. For instance, one of them [1] contains this passage:

'Bennett ended, "Let the chips fall where they may. It's time the world knows where those in the pro-family movement stand. It was Jesus Christ alone who set me free from the sin of homosexuality - not an ex-gay group, not reparative therapy and not any psychologist. I was made whole by the Word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ shed for me on Calvary, and I will proclaim and offer that same hope, freedom, grace, truth and reality to all who seek it until the day that I die. I pray my brother Alan Chambers will grasp that same message.'

It is very nice for Bennett that Jesus Christ has set him free from the sin of homosexuality, but that has exactly nothing to do with conversion therapy, as he makes clear. Thus, your addition is not even about the subject of the article. You used the words, "ex-gay/pro-conversion-therapy communities" as if the ex-gay movement and conversion therapy were the same thing. This is a confusion that I have been trying to remove from the article for a long time. Skoojal (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy once more[edit]

SCBC, notwithstanding your request, "please do not revert again", I have reverted again. The addition you are making to the article on Conversion therapy appears to violate the policy on WP:SYNTH. In effect, you are equating the views of LIFE Ministries with the views and research of Robert Spitzer, as if LIFE Ministries had published research in the same way that Spitzer has. This is not an appropriate way to use sources. Skoojal (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)