Talk:Scrum (software development)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Scrum (software development). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Buzzwords & promotion

I guess that as with all management fads this comes with its truckload of buzzwords. But Wikipedia articles should not be written {{in universe}}. Basically this article consists largely of a long list of (re)definitions of usual, plain language terms into scrum lingo. There's not much in the way of explanation why you'd even want to bother with this... Also the article is devoid of any critical appraisals of this methodology; only primary sources promoting it are cited. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as it exists now, the article does not seem too buzzwordy to me; perhaps it has been improved. It does define a lot of vocabulary words which are legitimately used in practice. I removed the buzzword tag; if there are still areas of concern, feel free to re-add and point out some examples and we can take a look. I do agree a critical viewpoint is needed; I started an empty "Criticism" section and tagged it for expansion. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ScrumMaster vs Scrum Master

I've just replaced all instances of "Scrum Master" in the article with "ScrumMaster". I've a few reasons for the change:

Inconsistency within the article is a Bad Thing™, so the change makes the article self-consistent, and the choice between with/without space was fairly irrelevant.
The article previously had ten instances of "ScrumMaster", and five of "Scrum Master", so I've picked the most popular version within the article.
Google tells me there's such a thing as a "Certified ScrumMaster". Just like that, without the spaces.

I also capped up one version that was merely "scrum master" to match the rest of the article, for largely similar reasons.

—me_and 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up

OK, I started cleaning up the Scrum page. It is starting to make more sense, but definitely needs additional work. rnd 12:38 AM 7/01/07

Videos

The Videos section seems to violate WP:LAYOUT. I've moved the section to what I consider a more appropriate part of the article based on WP:FURTHER. However, I think the links in there really belong in the External Links section rather than having their own section. Even better, relevant information would be placed in the article and the videos used as references, with less substantial videos simply removed.

Reference on JIRA + GreenHopper

A late addition to this conversation

It has been six months since the below argument flared up. I propose deleting it, as it doesn't add much to the discussion and basically degenerates into name calling. Can the next person who reads this take action? Either delete my comment here or the whole section. Craigwbrown (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

back to the argument...

I recognize this is a primary source, however any of the other tool entries in the list would have to be referenced to primary sources (since we're already passing judgement on their appropriateness by including them), or deleted altogether for lack thereof. It was also my intention to illustrate the difference between adding an inline link without contextual value and a proper reference. And yes, I missed a space :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to have primary sources, no. A secondary source could write about the same material. It would also confer notability. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it was a primary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ya, but I couldn't find one. There was the one guy who apparently promised to write a whole series of articles about the topic and never actually did :\ §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I was surprised to see VS isn't on that list, MS have a plugin for Scrum, although I've never used it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That was just recently removed, or changed to Team Foundation Server by user:Jeffnailen. Feel free to add it back in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it’s more accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems

TFS is the more accurate analog to the other tools listed here in the agile and scrum literature. Context, context, context.

And yes, please feel free to revert backwards to the older less accurate form if the MO here is power and control rather than the accuracy of the actual content for readers. Jeff Nailen 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No one suggested that a revert is in order. I chose my words very carefully and wrote "add it back in" since it may have simply been an oversight on your part to have removed it or replaced it with Team Foundation Server.

Also Jeff, please sign your posts correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"since it may have simply been an oversight on your part to have removed it or replaced it" another faulty assumption similar to your wrong assumption about the spelling of a proper name on which you based a revert of a spelling correction back to the misspelled form? It will save everyone time and your edits will more likely be contributions when they are based on easily confirmable facts rather than assumptions.

Also Walter, please stop deleting entire conversations from talk pages because they might be embarrassing to you. They provide context and a record for conversations on article talk pages. Jeff Nailen (Talk 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I'm misrepresenting your edits. What I did was not a faulty assumption, it was WP:assuming good faith, which happens to be a pillar of Wikipedia. When you removed the product, you didn't explain why and so I assumed that you were actually making a good change. FreeRangeFrog didn't know that you had removed what he feels is a valid product. You still haven't explained why it was removed. So if you want to avoid assuming good faith, you can explain your edits in more detail in the edit summary.

Also Jeffnailen, WP:TPO#owntalk states in part: "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." I removed it because I don't care about your misrepresentation of the facts and the lack of acknowledgement of the real problem: you don't know how to edit correctly. I have no intention of teaching you how to edit correctly, thanks. I also have no need to discuss that with you on my talk page. However, if you'd like to talk about calling me a Wikipedia Nazi (which is actually incorrect, and should have probably been a Wikipedia Gestapo, but it's a common error and so I understand) we can do that here as well or at WP:ANI, but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about policy on making personal attacks.

The fact is that I did revert your entire edit because of your incorrect addition of external links in-line, which you have been informed is not acceptable. Your one correct portion was, unfortunately, a casualty of those reverts. If you think that's embarrassing for me, you're wrong. The fact that both lead to the same results in any search engine make the difference moot.

In short, your edits were not 100% good and as I stated on my talk page, once I recognized that you were getting upset about the small portion that was good, I didn't revert the edit any longer and simply removed the parts manually.

Back to the original point, the GreenHopper item is using a primary source, but that isn't the end of the world, but Wikipedia does prefer secondary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you deleted it once again, I'll place it here because it has direct bearing on the content of the article:

"While I understand that you can use external links in article spaces, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking frowns on it in prose.

And tildes go after the prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)"

That's fine, but in the future it may be more constructive to edit a contribution if the form doesn't fit your style preferences rather than deleting all of the substance/content. This back and forth wasted a lot of time and may discourage people from contributing content. Jeffnailen (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no way to save the material as we don't include items that don't have articles on that article so I can't remove the link and leave bare text. It makes no sense. What would be more constructive is reading the edit history to determine why the material keeps disappearing rather than editing it back time and time again. It will save you time and won't discourage you since that's the easy way of communicating. I suppose after you reinstated it, I should have discussed with you on your talk page at that point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you meant in your early edits where you were turning Green Hopper into a compound word in camel case, in that case, I didn't catch that subtle change, which is why I made the changes manually afterward. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The name of their product is: GreenHopper, one word. It makes a difference when a reader searches for the term: if their search term is 'GreenHopper' they'll likely find the product page. I also took the time to add a link to it to save a shopper time which you deleted and misspelled the name of the product using two words. If a searcher searches for: Green Hopper, they're likely to find pages of info. on grasshoppers, not very useful.

Edit, don't delete. Editing is constructive. Deleting other peoples' content is destructive.Jeff Nailen 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't make a difference because if I google for "green hopper", the first thing that is returned is a link to GreenHopper. I didn't delete what you wrote. It's still there in the archive. I reverted your edits because they weren't constructive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so it should be reverted back to the misspelled version, yeah that's constructive. Form over substance? Formal rules can always be cited to rationalize anything when ego is at stake. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy:

“Thanks. By the way, what is Wikipedia policy regarding content not in alignment with the style manual? When encountering content, like a new contribution, that does not conform to the style manual what is Wikipedia policy for how to deal with it? Should all of the new content be deleted or should it be edited to conform to the style manual? Thanks. Jeff Nailen 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case it should be rewritten to conform the Manual of Style. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten rather than deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffnailen (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 February 2013

Yes. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)...

Thanks. Yes, I know he was right about the link, my question is not about who's right or wrong. My question is about Wikipedia policy regarding best practices when someone encounters a contribution with such a mistake. Should the entire contribution from the writer be repeatedly deleted without explanation or should that mistake be edited/corrected to preserve the content? Which is a more constructive response, deleting or editing?... Jeff Nailen | Talk 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said partly. He should have corrected it, and not wholesale remove it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)” Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have the right to delete it.

You do not have the right to restore material to my talk page.

You also don't have the right to reproduce it here.

I have every right to remove the in-line external links and Green Hopper will return the same first result on Google as GreenHopper will so the point is still horribly moot.

The fact that you removed a product without explaining and still haven't restored it after having been told about it makes you an unconstructive editor, now with an WP:AXE to grind related to something that I have corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: "However, if you'd like to talk about calling me a Wikipedia Nazi (which is actually incorrect, and should have probably been a Wikipedia Gestapo, but it's a common error and so I understand) we can do that here as well or at WP:ANI, but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about policy on making personal attacks."

You know this is a disingenuous distraction. Here is what was said in context which can be seen on my talk page:

"Ah, you must be a Wikipedia Nazi. ;-)

Thanks for starting my user page."

Emoticons such as the wink emoticon: ;-) are used to indicate a light-hearted joke. Context, context, context. I think you know that because you didn't say anything about it at the time. You're taking it out of context and putting it here on this page out of context in hopes that readers of this page won't realize the context in which it was written in order to make a false charge to distract from the actual content/substance of the article which is what anyone cares about.

I didn't mention your violation of the three-revert rule because it doesn't really have bearing on the actual content/substance of the article which is what anyone cares about, I just assumed good faith rather than intentional violation of the three-revert rule.

Of course you have the right to do this or that. It's not about your rights Walter. There is a larger context beyond your rights and my rights, your ego and mine: the actual content/substance of articles for readers. That should be the focus and the reason we're here, yes? Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Please follow the link to see where you called me that outright without any sort of commentary to mitigate the statement. Thanks for not pointing-out that I us broke WP:3RR, not that it matters. The larger context here is that the problem I created has been resolved and the one you did still hasn't been. So it's time to drop your WP:AXE and fix what you broke. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, again:

"Ah, you must be a Wikipedia Nazi. ;-)

Thanks for starting my user page."

If you really feel that joke was an attack just file a complaint and we'll see what others have to say. But I think you know it's a distraction from the issue which is the actual content/substance of the article.

Context Walter. There is no reason to feel threatened by others' contributions. This is the nature of a public wiki which harnesses collective intelligence through network effects. This is not your little playground.

The larger context is that if someone makes a contribution that is not "100% good" as you say, then edit/correct that part of it which you believe to be "bad" instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not all or nothing: 100% in Walter's eyes or 0%. That's black and white thinking, the fallacy of false dilemma. We don't always get what we want. But by correcting those parts that you believe to be "bad" then errors get corrected and the content of the article improves over time with more perspectives added.

But that gradual building upon others' contributions found in collective intelligence cannot occur if there is no contribution to build upon because someone has deleted the entire contribution because it is not "100% good," as you say, according to one perspective. That's my point, that editing is more constructive than deleting.

"Yeah, that's why I said partly. He should have corrected it, and not wholesale remove it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)”

Jeff Nailen (Talk 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No again, you didn't click on the link provided above and again here: "I've encountered a Wikipedia nazi who insists on deleting an entire contribution I made to an article based on one little technicality." Your edit really didn't merit building on, which is why I removed it. Green Hopper yields the same search results. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You know very well that that was not the only contribution I made. See above: Updated section by correcting spelling mistakes, updating links, and adding newer tools to section, as well as added a section on an emerging feature that several of the tools are recently integrating into their feature set. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the article before I contributed and after, which can easily be seen in the archive, I corrected a spelling mistake (GreenHopper), added a link to that product, fixed a dead/incorrect link to one of the other tools listed, updated one of the existing tools to the more accurate Team Foundation Server, added four tools to the list that were not there previously to the existing eight, bringing the total number to twelve increasing the list of tools by 50%, added a section about an important feature which has emerged in the industry with the integration of Scrum and Kanban regarding horizontal 'swimlanes' or 'pipelines' and listed the four products that have this new feature with links to the sites.

Your contribution: reverting back to the misspelling, taking away the link to GreenHopper, taking away the new feature category, etc. You didn't add any content. And all on the grounds that I didn't do the link properly. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply correct the link, or asking me to do so which I would have gladly done, than to go through all of this??

Your contribution is that you have wasted a lot of peoples' time. I don't see how you have added any value to that article. This is ridiculous and it's why Wikipedia has such a bad rep. My experience with you confirms many of the criticisms of Wikipedia as found on Wikipedia's own article about itself, altho others have been helpful. Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So you refuse to admit the personal attack. Fine.

I couldn't agree more that your bad edits are the reason that Wikipedia has such a bad rep. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, relax. It was obviously a joke when I first wrote it as indicated by the emoticon. But you're doing a really good job convincing me that my joke may actually have some truth to it.

I suggest that if you don't want to be called that then don't be one. Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Three things.

You didn't write it with any emoticons here, so please stop trying to minimize the insult.
I am calm. When I mentioned it above, I also wrote "but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about". Now that you've repeated it by saying "don't be one" I will be forced to tag you with an official warning. Why don't you just shut up when you're given the chance?
You're the editor making a big deal out of something that has been corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG what did your parents do to you? Are you a teen? Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm going to ask you to stop this. disruptive editing and personal attacks are only going to end up with you being blocked from editing. It has been made abundantly clear to you why your initial contributions were inappropriate, both via OTRS and here by Walter, and you were told how to fix them. Please contribute, or just stop editing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is truly about content rather than control, and the changes I made were not a contribution, then why does someone not revert the article back to the original state in order to preserve the misspellings, broken links, smaller narrower list of tools, less accurate names, drop the new feature added, and fewer links? Go ahead and revert it back if its prior pre-corrected state is better. Jeff Nailen (Talk 03:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the sum of the difference from before your first edit until after I applied my last edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scrum_%28development%29&diff=540379303&oldid=540238986

A phrase was added at the start, which isn't necessarily required or referenced.
You linked to codeBeamer. Thanks.
You corrected the spelling of GreenHopper.
You added a link to Pivotal Tracker, which redirects to Pivotal Labs. Not helpful, but not terrible.
You removed a longstanding phrase, which was tagged and added a new subcategory with prose, which isn't required or referenced.
You then added WP:REPEATLINKs to items in the first part of the list.
I restored the longstanding phrase after re-wording it.

Thanks for your additions. No need to revert and of it. But you should 1) stop beating the dead horse related to me removing the inline links you added to codeBeamer, GreenHopper, Pivotal Tracker and Scrumwise and 2) admit that I eventually just reverted your inline links. Your edit summary that you were "making link corrections" was incorrect and that you were fixing dead links was simply incorrect.

And it is about control. You are trying to control us. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your list is incomplete.

For the record, this is how it was before:

Some leading tools that support scrum:

Agilo for Trac
Assembla
IBM Rational Team Concert
JIRA using Green Hopper plugin
OnTime, by Axosoft
Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)
Microsoft Team Foundation Server 2010/2012
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

This is how it is after my contribution:

Some leading tools that support scrum:

Agilo for Trac
Assembla
codeBeamer
IBM Rational Team Concert
JIRA using GreenHopper plugin[29]
Mingle
OnTime, by Axosoft
Pivotal Tracker
Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)
Microsoft Team Foundation Server 2010/2012
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

Among these, the following also offer optional horizontal 'swimlanes' or 'pipelines' across the vertical columns of the board for different dimensions of work, like subprojects or features, allowing the scrum/kanban board to be a two-dimensional matrix:

JIRA using GreenHopper plugin
Mingle
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

I not only added links to, I also added codeBeamer, Mingle, Pivotal Tracker, and Scrumwise to the list. These are important highly respected tools in the industry, esp. Mingle and Pivotal Tracker.

They were not there before.

Before there were only 8 tools listed. I added 4 to the list to make 12. I also added links to their product pages and corrected one that was pointed at the wrong page.

Not only did I correct the misspelling of GreenHopper, I also added a link to the GreenHopper plug-in which you deleted as well as reverting it back to its misspelled state based on your assumption rather than an easily confirmed fact.

Scrumwise had a red link, as you pointed out, which I ended up deleting because of the red link even though leaving it in would have provided more information to readers though it was not “100% correct” as you insisted that it be, so I deleted it rather than fighting it.

And then froggy added the very important footnote citing a company’s press release about its own product to the GreenHopper plugin, which does not now have a link to the product page because you removed it for whatever reason.

I then added this section which is a hot feature in these tools:

Among these, the following also offer optional horizontal 'swimlanes' or 'pipelines' across the vertical columns of the board for different dimensions of work, like subprojects or features, allowing the scrum/kanban board to be a two-dimensional matrix:

JIRA using GreenHopper plugin
Mingle
Scrumwise
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

Ask anyone in this field and they will confirm that this is much more useful information about this class of tools for readers of this article which is supposed to be the reason we are here.

As I said, wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply correct the link you had a beef about, or ask me to do so which I would have gladly done, than to violate the three-revert rule and revert everything backwards to its narrower, smaller pre-corrected state??

You’re avoiding the main issue regarding deleting/reverting vs. editing/building.

This is much more useful:

Some leading tools that support scrum:

Agilo for Trac
Assembla
codeBeamer
IBM Rational Team Concert
JIRA using GreenHopper plugin[29]
Mingle
OnTime, by Axosoft
Pivotal Tracker
Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)
Microsoft Team Foundation Server 2010/2012
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

Among these, the following also offer optional horizontal 'swimlanes' or 'pipelines' across the vertical columns of the board for different dimensions of work, like subprojects or features, allowing the scrum/kanban board to be a two-dimensional matrix:

JIRA using GreenHopper plugin
Mingle
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

Than this smaller narrower list lacking the newer tools and features which also contained misspellings, broken links, and a less accurate name (TFS):

Agilo for Trac
Assembla
IBM Rational Team Concert
JIRA using Green Hopper plugin
OnTime, by Axosoft
Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)
Microsoft Team Foundation Server 2010/2012
YouTrack, by Jetbrains

Some leading tools that support scrum:

Thinking *before* deleting repeatedly in violation of the three revert rule based on assumptions rather than easily confirmable facts would be so much more constructive than merely thinking to rationalize your edit afterwords in long debate.

The more you keep extending this debate and adding drama to it the more this is evident as it dwarfs the actual content/substance of the article text in question which is why we’re supposedly here. The control issues dwarf the actual content issues which again indicates this is more about control than content.

Your statements asking me to ‘admit’ certain things you assume and your statements such as, “Why don't you just shut up when you're given the chance?” are very interesting and provide a clue to your thinking.

I have struck a nerve in a part of the Wikipedia subculture that is lampooned for exactly that. It appears that this nerve needs to be struck. Jeff Nailen (Talk 06:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You're absolutely wrong about what you included. You don't seem to know how to click on links. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scrum_%28development%29&diff=540379303&oldid=540238986 . These are the changes from your first edit and my last fix after you stopped.

As for your assertions, you're a also wrong. I'm through with your inaccurate claims and tendentious editing. You're being disruptive to make a point, a point that is wildly incorrect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct because I forgot to point out another thing that I added that you repeatedly reverted out: in several cases I also added, where known for a fact, the underlying code language in which the tools are written in parentheses after the name of the tool, such as: (Ruby on Rails).

This information useful to readers was also wiped out by your repeated reverts with no explanation for why this information should be deleted or excluded. This too is not shown in your link because I forgot to login before starting my edit, I logged in somewhere in the midst of it. If someone can roll back the content to what it was before this list was changed and compare it to now it will support all that I’ve said.

If you had edited/corrected rather than deleted/reverted, then all the good information I added could have been preserved for the benefit of readers and the bad information I added, my mistaken/faulty links, could have been corrected, again for the benefit of readers which is why we’re supposedly here. Deleting all the additions and content and quality corrections and substance because the form is not ‘100%’ correct, as you say, is a blunt instrument. Cheers. Jeff Nailen (Talk 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "your repeated reverts with no explanation" (emphasis mine):

So I'm sorry, it was explained. Clearly explained. Better than nearly half of th If your "link corrections" were actually correct...

Should I have gone to your talk page and explained what the proper way of linking is? Sure. It would have saved me a lot more time.

Should you make an effort and stop expecting people to bow in your presence and explain everything a dozen times? YES! Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You're quoting out of context once again. The whole sentence is: "This information useful to readers was also wiped out by your repeated reverts with no explanation for why this information should be deleted or excluded." referring to the immediately preceding, "the underlying code language in which the tools are written in parentheses after the name of the tool, such as: (Ruby on Rails)"

You did not explain why that information should be excluded or deleted and still have not.

Does the rule on personal attacks apply only to newbies or does this rule apply to everyone? Jeff Nailen (Talk 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No sir. There is quote out of context. There is a direct link to each of my revisions and what I wrote is presented there. The material of yours that I quoted was in context. The phrase, "with no explanation", may stand alone. I simply proved that part of what you were saying was false. I have no issue with the rest as it falls apart just as easily.

I did explain why it should be excluded above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scrum_%28development%29&diff=541154269&oldid=541129031 among other places.

I made no personal attack. While I direct a comment towards you and you may be offended by what I wrote, none of it falls into WP:NPA. If you find something, address it and I will gladly strike it or take it up at the appropriate location as described on the policy page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That link said nothing about why my addition of the underlying code that the tools are written in was deleted by you. The four links above have to do with those links you keep going back to repeatedly, beating a dead horse that I’ve always admitted was my mistake and which I immediately corrected when it was pointed out.

You did not explain why that information on the underlying code the tools are written in, such as: (Ruby on Rails) should be excluded or deleted and still have not. None of the links you provided explain your behavior regarding what I actually stated in context.

Regarding all the personal drama and shouting you added after the strawman, I thought we were supposed to stick to the content and not get personal. Is that not the intent of the rules on personal attacks and what all the warnings are about? Jeff Nailen (Talk 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I corrected it.

Wikipedia:Inline citation.

Mu. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I checked the link you corrected and you still did not explain why that information on the underlying code the tools are written in, such as: (Ruby on Rails), should be excluded or deleted and still have not. None of the links you provided explain your behavior regarding what I actually stated in context. Your little list is incomplete and full of errors as I have pointed out. Repeating it doesn't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffnailen (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I explained above, two or three times. Jeff Nailen (Talk 21:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that, but based on the edit history of the article, you made no such edits. Please link to the exact edits in the article's history. Start by opening the edit history. Open a link comparing the change to the previous edit by clicking on the "prev" in the associated "(cur | prev)" item to the left of the edit. Copy the URL from the address bar. Paste it here. No further formatting required.

Again, I've looked at all of your edits and none of them seem to contain a technology next to the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG, you are so dead wrong on your facts once again:

[restore this version]

Revision as of 23:22, 24 February 2013 (edit)

65.19.59.55 (talk) [welcome]

(→‎Project management tools that support scrum)

← Previous edit

[restore this version]

Revision as of 00:14, 25 February 2013 (edit) (undo)

65.19.59.55 (talk) [welcome]

(→‎Project management tools that support scrum)

Next edit →

Line 194: Line 194:

IBM Rational Team Concert

IBM Rational Team Concert

JIRA using Green Hopper plugin

JIRA using Green Hopper plugin

−

Mingle

+

Mingle (Ruby on Rails)

OnTime, by Axosoft

OnTime, by Axosoft

Pivotal Tracker (Ruby on Rails)

Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)

Redmine and ChiliProject, with a plug-in (several are available)

Scrumwise

Scrumwise

Now please stop telling bald face lies. The edit history is there for anyone to examine. If anyone does, they will find that it supports everything I've said and it will make your statements to the contrary look very weak indeed.

All of this is in black and white in the edit history of this article. Your arguments and rationalizations here on the talk page do not change any of these facts that anyone can examine for themselves Walter.

You have been caught in several lies and have violated several Wikipedia rules. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scrum_(development)&diff=540162146&oldid=540155153

Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm supposed to know that you and an anonymous editor who made changes 12 hours prior to the ones you made are the same person? I went as far back as William Avery's edits and couldn't find what you were talking about. So now, if you don't mind striking where you called me a liar we'll be done with this farce of a discussion. I'm not a mind reader nor do I intend to invest time in becoming one.

As for the development platform I'll state that unless it somehow adds to the encyclopedic information of the article, I can't see them being a useful inclusion. Also, do other articles that have similar lists include the development languages? I haven't seen any. They do list the platforms on which they run, but only if there are a number of products. Also, the platform would probably need its own reference and most of the items there don't have references that they support scrum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

From above:

"Yes, you are correct because I forgot to point out another thing that I added that you repeatedly reverted out: in several cases I also added, where known for a fact, the underlying code language in which the tools are written in parentheses after the name of the tool, such as: (Ruby on Rails). This information useful to readers was also wiped out by your repeated reverts with no explanation for why this information should be deleted or excluded. This too is not shown in your link because I forgot to login before starting my edit, I logged in somewhere in the midst of it. If someone can roll back the content to what it was before this list was changed and compare it to now it will support all that I’ve said.

If you had edited/corrected rather than deleted/reverted, then all the good information I added could have been preserved for the benefit of readers and the bad information I added, my mistaken/faulty links, could have been corrected, again for the benefit of readers which is why we’re supposedly here. Deleting all the additions and content and quality corrections and substance because the form is not ‘100%’ correct, as you say, is a blunt instrument. Cheers. Jeff Nailen (Talk 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Get your facts straight before misrepresenting what I did and didn't do. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing Jeff. I misrepresented nothing. You were not signed-in and made the same bad edits as an anon editor. Had you communicated effectively by supplying the link you made as the anon this could have been resolved long ago. Now that it is, good bye Jeff. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And admitting that anon and you were the same editor makes you a violator of WP:3RR yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying good bye and that you're finished but you keep coming back to make more misrepresentations, accusations about bad edits, intent, formal process and rules, and to play the blame game; all distractions from the actual content/substance of the article on scrum we are supposed to be focusing on for the benefit of readers. When will it end Walter?

"Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing." I like that rule, it's a good rule similar to the Golden Rule. Jeff Nailen (Talk 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's remove the tools section

The Scrum framework is tool agnostic. It doesn't require any of these tools to make it work and in fact it's authors and early adopters argued strongly against the use of electronic tools.

I am deleting the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigwbrown (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets remove User Stories, Epics and Themes

User Stories, Epics and Themes are conflated with scrum. Having them included in the Terminology section of this page contributes to a common misunderstanding.

Handily the author's guide to scrum is in the references and a quick check assures me these terms are not in there.

I am deleting this terms from an already overloaded page.

Craigwbrown (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing Story points from Terminology section

Story points are not a definitive part of scrum, but are often conflated with scrum core practices. Let's not encourage this misconception. Let's also simplify this article. I am deleting it. Craigwbrown (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On a second pass I also swapped Story Points for Product Backlog item per the Scrum author's terminology where it made sense. Still needs more simplification and corrections.

Backlog refinement (Grooming) section

I rewrote this section using plan language (I hope) and also referencing the practice, as it isn't core to the scrum practice but is widely adopted. Craigwbrown (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rob Betcher

Hello Walter,

The young lady who handles my Webinars made me aware that you have some choice words to discuss.

I was not aware that you decided who was and who was not able to offer the SCRUM community information and experience.

Please feel free to contact me directly on the number on my site about this matter.

Rob Betcher, CSM, PMP Published Author and Ezines Expert Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.22 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with you as an individual. It's just your publication, which was removed by more editors than just me, is not encyclopedic, it's the slides that you would display while giving a presentation on the subject. The real content is most likely the presentation itself. Also, I googled you and you're not a sufficiently recognizable expert to be considered reliable.

If you want to publish this in a magazine and then post that magazine article here, it would likely be peer reviewed and have a higher threshold for inclusion. As it stands, it's against a number of guidelines for inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate clarification on what does and does not constitute a valuable resource for the wiki page.

I would like to believe that SCRUM is based on the opinion of the entire team not a choice few. With that in mind, articles or documentation with a track record of providing value, should not be removed without the consensus of the masses.

In regards, to my being googled, there are numerous articles, presentations, webinars and books published by myself and my group. This includes articles published online and in newspapers; newspapers with over 250K readership. If this and 20+ years of software development experience (10 of which has been spent in project management) does not constitute some form of qualifications to post, then I am just not sure what constitutes an individual qualified.

In the end, the documentation that was linked provides value and clarity on the SCRUM process. If anyone feels that it is not providing value, then I believe it needs to be provided where it is not adding value. There have been numerous views of this presentation from individuals at the Executive level down to SCRUM team members who felt it added great value, this seems to completely contradict the "Consensus".

Thank you for taking the time to review my post, and if I could get more clarity that make sense on this subject, I will request my Marketing team stop all posts. 172.56.28.18 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I restored your original comment and my response. It's not acceptable to remove the material.

I'm sorry. I didn't see anything when I Googled your name. https://www.google.com/search?q=Rob+Betcher . I gave up after I saw "Why Does He Cheat? (The Woman's Guide to Guarding Her Heart ..." and immediately after it: "Betcher Consulting - WE CAN FIX IT!"

Wikipedia:External links discusses what is and what isn't acceptable as an external link, you might want to focus on What can normally be linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Walter, the same occurred when I searched your name. The only information I found on yourself was on Wiki: To learn more about me, please see the following, which often appears if you type in Robert Betcher, the formal spelling of my name: --ezinearticles.com/?expert=Rob_Betcher --youtube.com/watch?v=Fb6ztbK8lqM --youtube.com/watch?v=Nr6wvUtbNL0 --youtube.com/watch?v=Onvtj7xjP6o --youtube.com/watch?v=0dOLUtVLyVs You will also find that I was a columnist for the Fort Walton Sun Newspaper with almost 20 years of software development experience.

Could you please send the requirements that have been outlined by yourself and the group? I think that would be very helpful in ensuring that these misunderstandings do not continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1400:20:4D24:AB4B:E269:1539 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the owner of this or any article. I already showed you that Wikipedia:External links are the "requirements". And I'm not sure why it matters what Google has to say about me as I'm not trying to increase my SEO rankings by linking my articles to this or any other article on Wikipedia.

Linking to EzineArticles.com isn't a glowing report since we see that there are many other non-luminaries listed at ezinearticles.com/?type=experts and it appears that anyone can publish an article there, so essentially, it's a form of a blog. I see nothing at ezinearticles.com/about.html that indicates that these articles are peer reviewed or vetted in any way. Correct me if I'm wrong. At most we can determine that you have published five articles on this site that anyone can publish an article to. That extends to the YouTube videos.

An interesting thing happened when I tried to save these comments: I was prevented. Why? "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ezinearticles.com" So it seems that EzineArticles is not welcome on Wikipedi for some reason. It's most likely due to the low quality of the contents, so I don't think that pointing to those as credentials is a glowing report.

The other issue, as I initially stated, is not just the author, but the contents of the material. It's a pdf of a slides as part of a presentation. http://www.betcherconsulting.com/downloads/SCRUMRight.pdf That's what I see as unacceptable. If it were an article it might be different. A self-published pdf of presentation slides isn't particularly appropriate.

We should let some other editors weigh-in though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only really add "Well put, Walter." And Wikipedia is not a collection of links. William Avery (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Walter and Avery, I am not sure where the idea that a presentation is not considered valid reference material had been decided. Could you please point me to where this is dictated on the web or on wiki?

It appears that both of you feel that you are considering yourself experts in the field, so if you could point me to both of your publications, I may be able to get a better understanding of where the bar has been set.

As an author and columnist, I have found presentations offer an excellent pictorial/ textual overview on many topics that have been used in conveying the ideas of individuals, since the dawn of time. Presentations are efficient and effective, and isn’t that one of the main points of SCRUM?

It appears that a group of individuals have made themselves the voice of the entire SCRUM community, which sounds more like a dictatorship and not a collaborative effort. Is this the standard that Daily Standups, Sprint Planning and Retrospectives should now follow?

I thank you for your opinions and would like to learn more about you both including your publications, the charities you support, and the organizations that you work for or with in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betch777 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Did we state that we were experts? I didn't see that anywhere. I can look at the credentials you present and quite easily determine if you are considered an expert in this field, and oddly enough, I don't have to be an expert in the field to do so.

The issues are simple:

This presentation is self-published. That's a big red flag. In other articles we have references by Cem Kaner and others in the software development field that are hosted on their websites, but they were also published in magazines first and there is a pay wall to get at those articles now. And besides, Kaner had been the author of several books on software testing and has been interviewed for national media on topics related to software testing. That's an expert. Neither is the case here. Both Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH and Wikipedia:SELFPUB discusses more around this issue, but since this self-published, and from what I can see, not peer-reviewed presentation is discussing another topic, it's not a good source. To elaborate on what I said earlier, do you think you could get this published in an industry magazine like this? The fact that your publications are also self-published and that site is banned from Wikipedia doesn't help. You also stated that you have written for a local paper, but from the self-published articles, it's not clear if they're part of your PMP activities or your love of animals. In short, what trade magazines have you been published in and who reviewed that work?
The presentation is in point form. I've already explained that and you seem to have ignored that. Your discussion (hopefully) elaborates on it, but there's nothing that provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it became a featured article. (I modified that from WP:ELNO). Do you see anything in your presentation that isn't already discussed in this article? To revisit a statement I made in the last point, is there any chance that this presentation would be published in a trade magazine? If it's not something you would consider submitting for publication, why is that? I suspect it's because there's not enough material in the presentation slides that a publication could use. If you were to convert your actual presentation into an article or a series of articles, we might have reason to consider referencing or including that.
All editors on Wikipedia are volunteers. We attempt to reach consensus on what is included and what should be excluded. The guidelines I've already pointed you to (Venerability, Reliable Sources and External Links) explain this, but in short, I don't believe you to be a recognized authority on the subject and the presentation is lacking in substance. While you may find such useful, I don't believe that most readers would.

Finally, and this is not a point as to why it's not a good idea to include, I'm concerned that it you are using Wikipedia to promote your website and the services you offer there. I understand how SEO works and so in the development projects, we are very leery of self published sources on consultant websites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Free SCRUM Reference Material to help the community

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As an Author, Columnist and IT professional with nearly 20 years of experience, I would like to post this document to help other IT professionals expand their knowledge on the topic, from the perspective of an experienced professional, willing to offer a wealth of free resources. For more information on these work, please visit www.betcherconsulting.com Thank you for the consideration.

A great deal of time and expense has been invested to offer the SCRUM community this material that would be very helpful in offering further clarification on SCRUM software development processes.

Betch777 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done because it's self-published and both does not provide a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it became a featured article, and the subject is not clearly a recognized expert in this field. Also, this is being discussed above and will not be done until consensus is reached there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)