User talk:CloudSurfer

; Archives (Old comments have been archived.)--CloudSurfer 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
	Archive 2006;

My sandbox

Talk pages are not a forum to discuss issues

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Australia are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. It is great that you have strong feelings on the monarchy in Australia, your views are valid and well articulated, however the only thing relevant to this discussion is whether the Royal Anthem is of sufficient importance to Australia that it needs to be predominately mentioned in the info box. Discussion as to whether Australia should be a republic or what kind of model should be kept to the many chat rooms on the Internet on this topic, not wikipedia. The placement of the Royal Anthem in this article has been discussed at great length, all arguments were made on both sides and a decision was made. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CloudSurfer, thanks for your comment. Every person has an opinion on issues, particularly controversial issues, every editor of wikipedia has personal points of view, nothing wrong with that, but it is a policy of wikipedia that while editing that editors should do so from a neutral point of view. In other words when we edit we do so from a nuetral and logical view point not from our own personal opinions on a subject matter. Someone who has a userbox on their userpage openly saying that they are strongly in favour of gay marriage are not precluded from editing on pages which relate to gay marriage, but they do have to edit from a neutral point of view. For example, I have a personal opinion that Bill Heffernan is a complete tosser, however I will still defend the article about him from anon vandals who wish to point out to the world that he is a complete tosser because it is POV, and while I personally share that POV, I do not do so while editing here. I hope this makes it clear why people's personal view points on a republic or the royal anthem is irrelevant to the discussion. The only thing relevant is how significant (or notable) the royal anthem is to the country of Australia. It has been agreed by consensus that the royal anthem is not of much significance to Australia, particularly not high enough for it to be placed in the country's infobox. I hope this clarifies things for you. Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Anthem

I'm happy to revisit the Australia article on this. Consistency throughout our articles on Commonwealth nations is important, and IMO the push for the RA being removed from the infobox of a FA was misguided. --Pete 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DID

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. Are you aware of the Conduct arbitration goin gon with DreamGuy? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2. You may something you wish to contrbute. --DashaKat 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from archiving Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, as suggested by CloudSurfer

CloudSurfer, you suggested archiving Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. Please refrain from archiving Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, as Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 may need to refer to it, and there is a risk of losing information, if you archive Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. Thanks.

--Standardname 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've let Standardname know I disagree with his position on this. My suspision is that he doesn't understand how the archiving process works. --DashaKat 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing supporting text from article Dissociative identity disorder

CloudSurfer, you suddenly turn up at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, and suggest removing text supporting the disorder Dissociative identity disorder, and suggest adding more controversial text;

do you agree to refrain from removing ANY further text from article Dissociative identity disorder, that supports the disorder Dissociative identity disorder? DreamGuy has removed enough sourced text that supports Dissociative identity disorder;
do you agree to refrain from adding ANY more controversial text to article Dissociative identity disorder? DreamGuy reinstated enough controversial text.

--Standardname 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, and I will tell him as much. --DashaKat 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa

Hi! I didn't realise that there was a conversation on Talk:Samoa, but regarding the fact that he is known as His Highness, could just show their respect, as the Philippine President is known as Her Excellency. Hope we can hear from the Press Secretariat soon. Therequiembellishere 01:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently went to see on this also & never saw a reply back yet for the past month now. Has there been any verification come back yet on what was discussed before? thanks That-Vela-Fella 06:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again & after a year passing by, I saw no update on Talk:Samoa dealing with the issue under the topic "Parliamentary democracy vs Parliamentary republic". Until there is definitive closure on this, it'll be tagged as needing confirmation.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed references fix

Hi. Just to say that I edited your post on the Talk:Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia page to fix the PMID references up - hope you don't mind! For future reference, all you need to do is to type PMID then the number - no square brackets required. All you need to do if posting a ref from pubmed is to remember to take the colon out. Thanks! Nmg20 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoactive drug - Thoric's chart is back

Hi, once upon a time you contributed to a discussion concerning a chart on the Psychoactive drug article, which was a Venn diagram depicting a classification system for psychoactive substances created by User:Thoric. I was under the impression that the community had spoken and that the chart had been deemed original research, and indeed the chart has been absent from the article for almost a year, but it has recently re-appeared and its creator is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. I would greatly appreciate your comments in the renewed discussion. Thanks! Steve Carlson^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see another psychiatrist

Well that makes three of us on wikipedia...and all aussies. the oher is User:Anonymaus...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

major depressive disorder

G'day again - I have been working on major depressive disorder which is now at FAC - Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates/Major depressive disorder - I have been asked to get some more eyes on it, which I think is a good thing anyway, so I'd be grateful if you can see scope for improvements etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depression (mood)

Hi. I notice you were involved in structuring the Wikipedia page Depression (mood). The article, has undergone considerable change over the last 6 months or so. I am defending the present form, while advocating for an additional section on the talk page. I'm not sure how you'll respond to its present form, so please don't take this as canvassing. I'd appreciate your thoughts on its structure and content, if you have the time and interest. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mental disorders due to a general medical condition has been nominated for merging

Category:Mental disorders due to a general medical condition has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified has been nominated for merging

Category:Impulse-control disorder not elsewhere classified has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mental status examination

Mental status examination has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]