User talk:CloudSurfer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My sandbox

Archive
Archives

(Old comments have been archived.)--CloudSurfer 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Archive 2006

Contents

[edit] 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, WikiTownsvillian 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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, WikiTownsvillian 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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;

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)