User talk:Kudpung/Archive Mar 2010

IPA

(Transferred from special page)

Wikipedia:IPA for English (hereafter IPAEN) is phonemic, not phonetic. If you look at a standard pronouncing dictionary such as Wells's Longman Pronouncing Dictionary, you find two duplicate entries for most words, one for RP and one for GenAm. We could have taken this route in Wikipedia, but instead it was decided to take the equally legitimate route of using an "archiphonemic" scheme that shows both distinctions that only occur in RP, and distinctions that only occur in GenAm. Thus, for example, IPAEN differentiates between the vowels of LOT and of PALM as /ɒ/ vs. /ɑ:/ even though almost all Americans and Canadians merge the vowels. Equally, IPAEN differentiates between the final syllables of lettER and commA as /ər/ vs. /ə/ even though most English and almost all southern hemisphere accents merge them. It is nevertheless easy to recover the GenAm or RP pronunciation from the IPAEN version.

Local pronunciations, which frequently differ from both RP and GenAm, may always be added. For example, the Birmingham page indicates the distinctive retention of /ŋg/ in the regional accent. I have been frequently surprised at how ignorant many (presumably) British contributors have been about their own local accents. For example, the pronunciation of Oxford has been a frequent target of revert wars, even though a traditional Oxfordshire accent retains rhoticity. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly throughout the entire debate, the point I keep making, and which at least one contributor constantly pretends not to undrestand, is that many people are claiming a pronunciation that is not their local 30-mile radius accent, but the pronunciation that is most widely recognised in their and would be used in reasonably educated speech and clearly understood throughout the land. This would also give non-,native English speaker whop use the en Wikipedia (and there a re more of these than most people think) a reasonably accurate indication of the pronunciation. However, i'm obviously bashing my head against a wall, a garden wall of Wikipedia IPAists ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grover, it's interesting that you cite Birmingham, because although it's only 29 miles from Worcester (without a final r), the local Brummie accent has a greater difference from Worcester than US American across the entire 4,000 miles of the country. Regional accents in England are confined to a very small area before they change - often quite abruptly. The typical Brummie accent extends probably no more than about 10 to 12 miles from the city centre, after which it changes for Black Country in the west, Warwickshire/Worcestershire in the southeast and south, and begins to adopt a slightly more northern twang in Staffs. Hence the reason why I keep advocating using neither the local accent in the IPA, nor an Americanised rhotic pronunciation, and insist that what I and many other editors would like to see, is an accurate representation of the general way British places are pronounced in the Kingdom. I'm surprised that this request meets with so much stone walling and lack of GF to entertain the idea. --Kudpung (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that a Birmingham accent differs more from a Worcester one than, say, a Boston accent does from a southern California accent? I'm afraid that's just objectively false as a matter of phonology. And it's not only "Americanised" accents that are rhotic: so are Canadian, Scottish, Irish some Caribbean, and West Country English accents (and of course historically _all_ English was rhotic). And you surely know that there is no one way that British place-names are pronounced in "The Kingdom" -- which, if you think about it, includes those awful rhotic pronounciations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the West of England as well as non-rhotic ones. If you don't want to be "stone walled" then you need to be more reasonable in your requests. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may ring less objective to you personally. However, I was brought up within 15 miles of both cities. and in spite of the need to prove everything we write in the articles here, I can assure you that a Brummie accent and a Worcs accent have much less less in common than Boston and S. Cal. I'll repeat yet once again and for the last time, the issue that you are constantly evading: what is being asked for is a representation of the most commonly used, reasonably educated, most widespread pronunciation. is that really so difficult to understand?
No answer needed, the rhetoric will not be a perfumed garden. Discussion closed. - I'm really fed up now with the bullying.--Kudpung (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I grew up _in_ Birmingham (England) and I now live in California. You say above that Birmingham and Worcester accents are non-rhotic (which is probably mostly true for the town of Worcester itself, although there are probably some enclaves of rhoticity in the Western rural parts of the county). Well, a Boston accent is non-rhotic, while a southern California definitely is rhotic. That alone is enough to make the two accents far more distinct phonologically than Birmingham v. Worcester. You say that you want "a representation of the most commonly used, reasonably educated, most widespread pronunciation". Are you talking about "in the city", "in the county", "in the country", "in the UK", or "in the English-speaking world"? Each pronunciation would likely be different. You complain about being "bullied", but quite frankly I don't see any bullying: you just seem to get very offended when people who perhaps have a more worldwide perspective on phonology discuss these matters with you. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I really grew up in Birlmingham without the underscores, and Worcester and I have now lived in Asia for over ten years after spending 16 years in Germany, 12 years in France, and long periods in other parts of the world. So what? I get offended by fllibustering, railroading, and a general refusal to accept that the issue is not mine personally, but represents the views of several editors. I get opffended when people tell me I don't know anything about my Stirchley accent, my Worcester City accent, my Worcester County accent, and my (rather posh) RP accent, my absolutely flawless native several German and several French accents. I get offended when questions such as "in the city", "in the county", "in the country", "in the UK", get repeatedly asked, when they have been repeatedly answered already. I get genuinely annoyed when sysops and veteran editors can't respect perfectly reasonable wishes and when it affects me directly, and when it forces me to fake civility when there is no reason to AGF on their words/actions. actions. And finally, I get offended when my wishes to be left out of further discussion on IPA are not respected. The next step is ANI or Arbcom. Thank you, expat Brummie.--Kudpung (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the way to go. They won't have the patience with you we have had: You'll either have to actually explain yourself, without ducking responsibility for making yourself understood or calling people "bullies" for expecting answers to simple questions, and engage in dialogue rather than exchanges of monologue, or they'll dismiss your complaint as frivolous.
BTW, we've had another complaint from another editor that "paradigm" should be transcribed with the MERRY vowel rather than the MARRY vowel, because that's the general English (read: American, the numerically dominant) pronunciation. Now that would be an imposition of American English, and I won't allow that (as long as I have a choice) any more than an imposition of RP. kwami (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not mine personally, but represents the views of several editors, as you have been told many times before and refuse to accknowledge. I have asked you now several times to keep off my talk page. Any furthjer incursions here are clear attempts at a flame war.--Kudpung (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP debate

Thanks for your kind thoughts. I am considering. Maurreen (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided the page and the situation are too messy for me right now. Not good for me.
But I appreciate your kind words. Maurreen (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as high as you are on the list of commenters. On the main page, as I have accused, so many of my comments have been moved, hidden or deleted that I don't make the list--but I've been there. My opinions are quite clear and you probably don't agree with them. But feel to add me to the Task Forces.Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TRackinfo, I think in fact that my edit count comes from formatting the threads more than anything else!. Whether I agree with you or not is not my issue. The debate is such a mess I am simply trying to encourage participants such as yourself to support a move to split this whole fiasco up into its four major components and treat them separately. Most of us - and I think you too - are hopelessly confused among all the so-called consensuses of consensuses and sub-polls, and I would welcome any messages of support on those pages for the split into task forces. maybe this will get some intelligent good faith contributors who have left already to come back.--Kudpung (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sticky Prod workshop

Kudpung, thanks for your note and all your work. More to come. Maurreen (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for being so level-headed. We need more level-headedness. Maurreen (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP special

Please see this. It's especially timely. Maurreen (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the message

Thank you for taking the time to personally message me. Okip 17:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indents

Kudpung, please don't change thread indent levels on comments like you keep doing

here. This is only done where it's clear and unambiguous one comment directly replies to another plus the different indenting used by the poster wasn't intentional. Your edits changed who replied to whom on threads, albeit well intentionally.

I tried multiple times to Undo just the edit that altered other's indenting, as the least intrusive option, but kept getting edit conflicts as you posted successive messages further altering the threading so had to revert instead. Therefore you may need to re-add some of your recent comments, but please preserve the original comment threading if you do. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Much of the problem and confusion on the BLP discussion were the long threads where contributors had used a complete mixture of indentations, identation types, paragraphing, and to crown it all, occasionally not signing. Without some regular format it was sometimes impossible to see clearly who was saying what to whom. Even some veteran editors and admins forget to correctly implement the talk page format for clarity--Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: From WP:TPO - 'Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:'
  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or RfCs, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
  • Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc
We can all help here.--Kudpung (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Kudpung. I didn't see your 2nd reply before. You're right that it's sometimes appropriate and encouraged to edit others' comments.
The thing about the original edits was that they introduced a logical sequence that wasn't present. For example, User:Okip replies to me, I respond to his reply; User:Maureen replies to his reply (but not mine) at the same indentation level as mine, somebody replies to her comment, etc. Each toplevel comment can intentionally have more than one thread, and occasionally people outdent again. My original note to you, as well as letting you know of some material by you that may've been lost, was more to say: these are some pitfalls worth keeping an eye out for when you are doing this good work that improves readability for everybody. ...work, which is appreciated. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop subpage

I'm open to that, but who knows how the group will react. I suggested a vote, but that got shot down. Maurreen (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. yes We must keep all incomming information organized" or we will be right back where we just left !Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also

I suggest moving this to the project page. Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

But it's better for me to discuss all this at the workshop, not personal talk pages. Maurreen (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the ArbCom case goes the wrong way, I expect to run away. Maurreen (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you - my first barnstar! It's been a pleasure working with you on the Malvern pages. But Worcs isn't finished yet, so we should keep up the collaboration. I also noticed we've picked up a couple of new members. Shall we try to have a concerted push at Worcester, and see if we can get that one up to scratch? I see you're currently deep in Wikipolitics (good luck, it's an unforgiving job!) - let me know when you have time, and we'll make a start. GyroMagician (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

Thanks for your note. For various reasons, I am taking an indefinite break from the workshop. Maurreen (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional help? :) -- You might be interested in my questions at Med Cabal. Maurreen (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, but I'm afraid I didn't really understand much. I know you have been teetering on the brink of decision for some while and I hope it was not my efforts at helping you to keep the PROD wksp on track that caused your final decision. I suppose even when we get a final draft for the template & all its functions, and the policy for its use, it will all have to go through the tedium of further straw polls, debates, and further discussion and consensus gathering before it can really be used, and I'm not sure I want to be bothered with that either.--Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you and I disagree about methods, but I do appreciate your efforts and level-headedness.
Any housekeeping seems like, damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
One thing I had thought of some days ago, I didn't pursue it then but you might consider, was the idea of splitting up housekeeping somehow. The housekeeping and such need to be done, but it can be a big load.
An ArbCom member recently commented about whether anyone was moving the discussion along.
But about the workshop itself, I am hopeful that regardless of whatever individuals are involved, it will turn out something reasonable -- as long as it stays within its mandated scope of unsourced new BLPs.
Something I hadn't realized -- that anyone can propose a motion for ArbCom. I might work on that next. I am much more concerned with out-of-process deletions than with details of templates and such.
Or I might take a nap and turn my attention to the many things I should be doing in real life. :)
Good luck. Maurreen (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neverending BLP mess

Thank you for your support. Maurreen (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump

I'm confused.

But I don't think you're stalking me. Maurreen (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that elsewhere when I sojourn in the distant corners of Wikipedia other than some projects we have worked on together, I keep coming across your name and I occasionally leave a comment in those threads. I know how some people might think that it's more than coincidence, and are senstitive to being stalked. I just wanted to warn you that it is conincidence :) --Kudpung (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good to see a familiar, friendly face in another part of town. :) Maurreen (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Kudpung, I don't know what prompted the snarky response on my talk page. I'm very familiar with V because I helped to write and maintain it. My question is: if a PROD tag is added to an unsourced BLP, and the point is to get someone to add a source before they remove the tag, are they simply meant to stick in one source for any of the points; source everything; or source anything that someone might regard as contentious? That is, what will be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the legitimate removal of the tag? I'd appreciate a reply, but it would make more sense on whichever page I originally raised it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by 'snarky'. FYI, I don't do snarky , it was a perfectly polite suggestion - you'd be surprised how many people round here don't actually know all the rules. Even some admins don't even know proper talk page format, or how to remain civil. Great if you wrote the policy, so why are you asking? Even, better would be if you were to read up on the now closed RfC like I had to when I gate crashed the party. I warn you though, it will take three hours. And if you follow the threads and the detailed answers I already put on your talk page some hours ago, you'll have known without putting biting notes on my talk page. And then you might like to help.--Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, this is an example of snark: "I don't want to sound ungracious, but I would have thought that you, as an admin of some five years standing, would be familiar with the Wikipeda policies regarding the arguments for the inclusion of any article in the encyclopedia. If you are not sure, perhaps this will help: WP:V." :)
I've tried to read the RfCs and the workshop page, and I'm not finding the answer to my question. The reason I'm asking it is precisely because I do know the policy, and so I'm asking whether the proposed PROD tag could only be removed once the BLP is policy compliant; or whether some lesser state would be acceptable too. If you know the answer to that, or where that point specifically is being discussed, can't you just direct me to it? The impression I'm getting here is of a lot of talk and no one quite certain of what's going on, and therefore more talk, and more. But nothing actually happening. A discussion that takes three hours to understand is one that isn't working. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It takes three hours because there are about eighty pages of it, contributed to by around 400 editors. In all due respect, I've got better things to do than reopen a mamoth RfC to explain the policy to you, and then be accused of incivility - and why me anyway? Why keep picking on me? I've tried hard enough to respond to your request where nobody else thought it necessary because the answers are all in the text. You're talking as if I have some obligation while I am certainly neither the creator nor the owner of this policy. It does not breed GF, and if you had really read it all you will see that I'm just the janitor who keeps the thread indentations in keeping with MOS. FYI, and it isn't hard to understand, the PROD is STICKY, and if your were to take a look at the workshop, you'll see that the whole thing is in full action. So where's the real problem? Goodness, I'd help if I understood - I hate arguments.--Kudpung (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't picked on you at all. You left a note on my talk page, and I'm just responding to it. :) My apologies for the misunderstanding. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK Slim, apology accepted. I left the note on your page deliberately to avoid unceccessarily cluttering an old RfC, and the work on the workshop page. The template development and its associated functions and bots is near complete, but I expect there will be the usual monotony of debates of over the final syntax of the ten words of text on it. What we do need, is input on WT:STICKY POLICY in the vote on timeframes before deletion. There seems to be a consensus forming, but the more comments the merrier, because it looks as if I'm going to be the one to declare it closed sooner or later. Perhaps you could chime in there, because what will happen otherwise is there will be a debate on whether to close it, and a debate on whether to have a debate to close it... --Kudpung (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I haven't had any trout slaps yet... :P --Jubilee♫clipman 14:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Motion

Kudpung, I've proposed a motion to ArbCom. It is intended to get the most acceptance by the most people.

ArbCom member Carcharoth has asked me to "ask those involved in these discussions (apparently the sticky prod) to comment on whether they think a motion such as you have proposed is needed."

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure which Arbcom you mean. Have you launched a new one? If you mean the original one, I left a comment in it a while ago, but in hindsight, it might have been off-topic because no one ever referred to it and it was left ignored. I found the arbcom to be a bit above my head so I gave up trying to follow it really. The last I saw was that one of the arbs said something about letting natural leaders emerge from the workshop, to which I replied something about a group of four not needing a leader. That too went ignored. I think someone believes that the Wikipedia is a corporate weekend think-tank seminar on management skills.--Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The motion is part of the same thing I filed earlier.
It is intended to:
  • Make a clear declaration against out-of-process deletions.
  • Gain the most acceptance by the most people.

Sticky prod janitoring

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, but do you think it would be useful to if someone from the Med Cabal might help? Maurreen (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what or where the Med Cabal is and I couldn't find a link to it. I neither claim ownership nor leadership of the BLP workshop and I don't care who comes and helps move it along, if it means that I can soon start implementing the template and clean up some BLPs by either rescuing them or getting deleted. In the meantime I'm quite happy to continue straightening the desks and chairs, cleaning the whiteboard, and bouncing the messages on that got screwed up and dropped on the floor. I would prefer however, that people would not keep pestering you and me to do their homework for them.--Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Cabal is here. My intention was that if you were interested in help, that might be an option.
I do agree about the homework point.
Take care, and thanks. Maurreen (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have some synchronicity. We left messages for each other at the same time. Another time, you were writing to me, and I didn't realize I had an edit confllict because I was writing to you. :) Maurreen (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky prod help

Do you mean the edits of 22 March 2010 by Chzz, Fox, PeterSymonds, and Shirik? All of them appear to be established contributors with no problems; Fox and Peter both have multiple FAs. I expect that it's a coincidence.

Just curious, by the way; why did you decide to ask me? I'm not unhappy; it's just that I was surprised. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. Thanks for your quick reply. You're a sysop and have the tools and know how to quickly investigate any cases of socks, and you're unbiased because you are not involved in the discussion. You've been in communication with someone who is, and whose opinions on BLP matters I appreciate (although I may not always agree with them). Nevertheless, technically, I found those postings, almost within seconds of each other, after several days of no movement on the section, to be quite a remarkable coincidence, and it looked very much like a concentrated attempt to sway consensus. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#Length of time before deletion

It is very odd. But I don't know what, if anything, can or should be done about it. Maurreen (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for the comment on my talk page! I have tried to address the things you brought up in the RfA, for example as I said I have changed my preferences in order to increase my edit summary usage, and I have started participating in more areas of the project. However, I am confused by some of the points you raised. For example, I don't agree with your assertion that I count redirects in my total of created articles as the Articles Created counter shows that I have over 1300 without counting redirects. Also, I can't see what gives you the impression that I misunderstand the difference between Start and Stub class articles. Cheers again for the encouragement, I do hope to back at RfA some time in the future. -- BigDom 09:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Thailand

Sorry if my comment bothered you. It was intended more as humor since this is a scholarly subject. Since it is a very old article, this was the first time I took time to read it, and was rather surprised that many potential corrections had slipped by our collegues. Of course, we are sharing our efforts, and I am sure as we work togehter this and other Thailand articles can be improved and be of real benefit to the readers. Keep up ypur good work! Kind regards, รัก-ไทย (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I have been in Thailand a very long time and I welcome any serious efforts to clean up the Thailand pages, including those to which I am/was the major author. I especially appreciate your work on Pattaya. --Kudpung (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hope you had a good trip. Maurreen (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Old Malvernians

Hi Kudpung. I'm not going to be able to meet you on your U.K. trip, but I hope it is going well.

I've been pre-occupied for the past few weeks, but have read your comment about Harvard format for Betts references for old Malvernians. The format looks okay to me as a reader, so I'm not too sure what you are looking for, unless it's already been taken care of. The only thing I'd change would be to name the full title in the first reference, then reduce the full referencing to Betts after the first mention. Following the isbn link shows the full title thus:

England player by player: a compilation of every player ever to have played for England

The only changes I can see would therefore read thus:

B

F

G

P

S

References

  1. ^ Betts, Graham (2006). England player by player: a compilation of every player ever to have played for England. Green Umbrella Publishing. p. 54. ISBN 1-905009-63-1.
  2. ^ Betts, Graham (2006) p.102
  3. ^ Betts, Graham (2006) p.114
  4. ^ Betts, Graham (2006) p.193
  5. ^ Betts, Graham (2006) p.231

If that's what you are looking for, I'll go ahead and do it. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's precisely what I'm looking for. It would be great if you could do that. There's no hurry but it would certainly make the page a lot tidier. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thought I'd put the magic tick there. Obviously didn't save it. D'oh! Wotnow (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I think Maurreen and you have misunderstood how policy is developed on WP, Kudpung. You can't exclude people, especially not people who spend a lot of their time on WP writing policy. Best to discuss it on that page, where others have tried to explain the same thing to Maurreen. SlimVirgin talk contribs 09:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is practicing exclusion, nor do contributors to policy enjoy any special status in the Wikipedia hierarchy. We have all tried to explain the reasons for this new policy. It has also been explained to you that those who have devoted time and effort to it, cannot be responsible for the lack of understanding of it by those who chose not to participate until after the project discussions were closed. In the meantime, several active participants feel that now is the time to help implement this policy, rather than findng new reasons to slow down its making by simply reverting the GF efforts of others.
User issues should be discussed on user talk pages and not on project or article talk pages. This kind of dramatization in the middle of project discussions would detract from reaching consensus. Many valued participants have left the sticky prod project already because of attitudes displayed by newcomers.--Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]