User talk:KanbanUser

Welcome!

Hi KanbanUser! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanban

Please stop adding duplicate material to this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not adding duplicate material. I am correcting material that is incorrect and adding correct citations/references (as is evidenced by my edits) KanbanUser (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this last edit you created a duplicate of all of the material in the article starting from "Kanban boards" to the end. I am assuming this is a mistake, but it is one you have made multiple times now. Please edit more carefully. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that must have been an artifact of you undoing my changes. I've gone in and removed all duplicates. The page now looks as it should. Thank you. KanbanUser (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you see any problems with duplicate information as you noted earlier? If so, could you please point them out and I will fix them? Thank you. KanbanUser (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy welcome

Hi KanbanUser. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your note. It is exactly the points that you mention above that I was trying to fix. The Kanban article as stated before my edits most definitely "promoted an entity or viewpoint over others" and "appeared to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles"--which by your own admission is incorrect (these are your words, not mine). The edits I have made, rather, correctly references the community development of Kanban and gives proper citations to support what is widely known and accepted by Kanban practitioners. Also, the metrics as stated this article were incorrect (again, given the references that were already used--I did not include any new citations for the metrics but simply used what was there) and so I fixed those to be more inline with published/accepted definitions. Thank you. KanbanUser (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Please explain on the article talk page in the discussion I've started there.

I'll follow up further, and get some help. --Hipal (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion. I'll add an explanation to the article talk page tomorrow. KanbanUser (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss rather than revert

Your recent editing history at KanbanUser shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Hipal (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did respond to the earlier author and told him I had fixed the duplicate information that he pointed out. I have even since reached out to ask if there are other problems with my edits. I'm not sure if you can see, but he has not responded to me but simply keeps reverting my work. As he has not responded to me nor pointed out specific problems my edits, then I don't see why my contributions should not stand. What are my options if the other author does not engage? Thank you. KanbanUser (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume I am the other author to whom you refer. I had logged off of Wikipedia and did not see your inquiries. It appears that you did, at last, address all of the content duplication issues. However, there is still the matter of changing the POV of the article, including changes to the basic history of the Kanban concept. I do not know if your changes are correct or not, as I am no expert in Kanban, but fundamental changes like that should be discussed before implementation. I'm glad there is now a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page to hash out the issues. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]