User talk:D1doherty

Hi Dan. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. If you have more precise information on the Doherty Clan Association please add it, but keep in mind it needs to be notable by WP's standards. Please feel free to add to all secions of the Doherty page, and any other page! As well, you can encourage other members of the clan association to submit images (e.g. of traditional clan land holdings, the tartan, the crest/sheild) or info on the motto and a translation, etc. Also a Gaelic translation of this article would be nice. Thanks again, and good luck, contact me if you need help. Kevlar67 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble

I liked your rewording of the introduction to Lean Startup but I have a minor quibble about labeling any edits to a lead sentence as "minor" except when it's really trivial. In any case, please keep editing as you did however you label it. Joja lozzo 22:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hi D1doherty! I noticed that you have twice now changed the content at Feldenkrais Method to your preferred version. ~~reverted to restore your preferred version of Feldenkrais Method several times.~~ The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Feldenkrais Method, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of reverting any reversions. I am aware of that policy. In all cases I have invited you to Talk before making additional changes. If you see where I have reverted a reversion, please point me to it. It may have been an error as I am getting used to this interface. Thanks. D1doherty (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly making the same or similar changes (as with the short description) is a no-no. Bon courage (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion about my improvements to the Local Description in response to the Talk feedback, but if that change is a no-no, could you please specify the “several times” you claim I re-reverted. I reviewed the edit log and I don’t see any. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you remove that comment. Thanks. D1doherty (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the SD to substantially the same thing twice, against other editors. You are now aware of the policy, and have stopped - so that's good! Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adjusting the wording above. I would really appreciate if you can provide other example of me re-reverting edits. To my awareness all of my secondary edits have been with revised wording in response to discussion. D1doherty (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating an edit with a superficial change counts as the same edit. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3rd and final request: "I would really appreciate if you can provide other example of me re-reverting edits." Thanks. D1doherty (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of "other" problems, but I haven't looked in detail. Bon courage (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. D1doherty (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]