User talk:Foodtraveller

Welcome!

Hello, Foodtraveller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Please work out the pronunciation on the talk page.

Your recent editing history at Turmeric shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Thank you for the info. I haven't encountered this issue before and was not familiar with "Edit wars", nor have I previously used a "Talk" page. I will proceed as advised. Foodtraveller (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, despite Jytdog's good advice and your positive response, you went ahead and reverted twice more. For that I am blocking you, to stop this disruption, since there is no guarantee you'll stop edit warring by yourself. When the block is over you can continue discussing on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. I actually only reverted once after Jytog's advice (my first edit was only to fix a grammar error that had been introduced), and that was having done exactly as suggested and opening a discussion on the "Talk" page. Please see my reply to your blocking notification for more details.Foodtraveller (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned at 14:26. OK, you reverted "only" once, here, after that warning, but I already don't understand why you reverted one more time after being warned. Maybe your opponent should have been warned too, but that's hardly the point here, esp. since (given BRD, explained below) they essentially restored the previous version. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. I just saw your "Undo" of my edit on Turmeric Pronunciation and your note above and I am genuinely perplexed. I don't understand how one party, and not both parties, is considered to be "the edit warrior". I made a change, and someone kept undoing it. At the time I had no idea what an "edit warrior" was and that there were rules regarding these matters. This was explained to me above and I did exactly as I was asked. I made no further changes relevant to the debate after that point. I left the other editor's version in place and opened a discussion on the "Talk" page, in which I tagged the other editor. The other editor did not respond. I'm sure there are allowable timeframes for these things, but I found it strange that they did not engage, given how quickly my edits were being undone. So I chose to edit the text back to a version that incorporated inputs from both sides until we could engage in conversation. I don't know how else I can get the other editor to engage if the version they think is correct is already in place. I have made every effort to explain my edits and to engage in a civil manner and now I'm being told that *I* am the edit warrior and am somehow seeking an advantage. My only aim is to get correct information onto the site and am happy to discuss it in detail, but I'm not sure how me opening a discussion that *could potentially* be ignored by the other party serves anyone. Please help me as I am so, so confused.Foodtraveller (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read WP:BRD. You are encouraged to make bold changes, but other editors may revert you. When that happens, you don't put your own version back up, you go to the talkpage and discuss. The previous consensus remains by default until you gain consensus for a change on the talk page. Also, see WP:TIND - there's no deadline for getting your changes onto the article, and other editors aren't obliged to respond to your comments immediately. Read through the links in the Welcome message at the top of this talkpage too - there's a lot of useful stuff there. I hope this is helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, _(blether). That is useful. I'm actually very new to editing and I think it's been over a year since I made my last one. While I completely understand the need for rules, it genuinely hadn't occurred to me that I was breaking any until I got the warning above. I had never used a Talkpage before. I have since read all the pages I could find on the etiquette of warring and discussion but hadn't yet found a reference to how long an editor is allowed to respond to a discussion. I also did my best to follow the advice I was given. From my perspective, the original edit I made was new information - the only way to "revert" it was to remove it. Someone amended it. So it was not reverted to the previous consensus. Both my information and theirs was new. I am happy to discuss all variables with the other party. But I'm still not clear on why I am the "warrer" and they are not. The way that it stands, their edit is in place so there is no incentive for them to come to the table to discuss options. That being the case, I can never get my change invoked. So be it. Foodtraveller (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of rules, but there aren't rules for everything - as far as I know, there's no definition of a reasonable amount of time to respond, but I tend to wait at least a couple of days before assuming that a response isn't forthcoming. Remember, you don't know anything about other editors - they might work night shifts, or live on the other side of the world - don't assume they are intentionally ignoring you, real life gets in the way. As for why this has come down on you, not Kbb2, think of it like this: you both edit warred (it takes two to tango), but you carried it on after the warnings; I pointed out to both of you that you were already past three reverts each, but you reverted again after that - a block was inevitable at that point. It's a short one however, just 24 hours to cool down and then start discussing again. Oh, and by the way, that ping you did at the top of your comment didn't work (but I watchlisted your talkpage so saw your comment anyway). It's a quirk of the pinging system, but if you forget to put the signature the ping doesn't get sent; adding the signature afterwards doesn't send pings written in previous edits. No biggie, but one to remember for next time. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your input, _(blether). Good to know that pings don't get sent afterwards. I also completely understand that people have lives and aren't necessarily keeping an eye on changes or notifications. I guess I was frustrated that, having made such an effort to add the correct information (as I see it), it was left in a different state and I had no idea how long it would remain that way. Your suggestion to wait a few days would have been more prudent and I understand that my blocking was justified. But to the point about why *I* have been labelled as "the warrior", as per discussion on another userpage, the other editor was not warned. I acknowledge I made mistakes, but given that the other editor is experienced and I am not, I feel that was unfair. I guess that's life. Foodtraveller (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's because, from a glance at the page's history, it looks like you introduced a change, that was reverted, and which you then fought to keep reinserting. As I said earlier, per BRD, the 'default' is the old version of the page until consensus emerges for the change. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but if you glance at the history and try and put yourself in the shoes of someone who wasn't following it very closely, I think that's what it looks like. Anyway, as you say, that's life - we're all grown ups here - you've been unblocked, so just learn from it, read the links that you've been offered, and move on. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips

For why just /ˈtjuːmərɪk/ is correct, see MOS:RHOTIC and Help:IPA/English#Dialect variation. Since our IPA system for English is designed to cover all major accents of English as briefly as possible, simply /tjuː/ means "either /tjuː/, /tuː/, or /tʃuː/".

You were within your rights to go to User talk:Kbb2 (except that a new section on a talk must always be created at the bottom—see WP:TALKNEW—you'll save time by using the "New section" link next to "Edit" at the top). Whenever a dispute like this happens, you can either go directly to the other's talk page, or bring up the issue on the article's talk. Either is fine, and it's your choice. But it is a good practice to use the article's talk whenever you deem it appropriate that other people can see and possibly join the discussion. If you think it's better dealt with rather privately, go to the user's talk. Nardog (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nardog. That is very helpful. I understand the logic of minimising the number of variations that appear on a page but I'm still a bit confused by the rules for implementing this. For me, reading the pronunciation notes that appear when you point at the letters in /ˈtjuː/ and /ˈtʃuː/ gives different results. For the first, I am saying "T as in tune" followed by "OO as in goose", so that gives me "too" (regardless of where I'm from). For the second I am saying "Ch as in China" followed by "OO as in goose", which gives me "choo". If the second version is removed, there is nothing to indicate to a "lay" person (i.e., one who is not very au fait with the IPA Rules) that it could be pronounced either way. As it stands, it appears, to me at least, that "choo" is not a valid option. I don't see anything in the IPA Help notes that indicates /tjuː/ means either /tjuː/, /tuː/, or /tʃuː/. I accept that the first two are the same, but I maintain that the third is different. Maybe I'm missing something in the notes. If Merriam-Webster sees fit to distinguish three versions, I don't see why Wikipedia should be different. But I do thank you for taking the time to explain it to me in more detail. Foodtraveller (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog, thinking about this more, it might come down to differences in how the word "tune" is perceived by British English speakers. As a native British English speaker, I would see the word "tune" as being made up of t(uh)-yoon, not ch-oon. So when the pronunciation guide tells me to say "t" as it "tune", I think "tuh" and not "ch". As such, I am ending up with toon / toomeric and not choon / choomeric. I can't vouch for all native British English speakers, but I very much doubt I am the only one who sees it this way. As such, for the sake of completeness, I suggest including a pronunciation option that covers either tuh-yoon or ch-oon. (I think I had tuh-yoon originally, but perhaps a poor attempt, which I later amended to ch-oon.) Would appreciate your input. Foodtraveller (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I unblocked you since I think you understand. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Thank you. Foodtraveller (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]