User talk:OrangeLeanVoice

Welcome!

Hello, OrangeLeanVoice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Kanban have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014 - November 2017

No worries Ronz, but it seems you and others also deleted all content outside of Lean Kanban's narrow view of what Kanban is. The whole entry now reads like a big ad from Lean Kanban University, especially the overview where all people who are not with LKU have been conveniently deleted.

Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that without any independent sources independent, we've no justification for even mentioning them. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, sources that meet WP:N, but that's more restrictive than what we need. Minimally, they need to be reliable as well as secondary or independent. Content-wise, they should demonstrate it's worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Blogs and GitHub are unlikely to be enough. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ronz as I wrote on your Talk, I do plan to do what you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLeanVoice (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 May 2014‎

September 2014

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz adding Open Kanban to the Kanban Development page is informational, not promotional. WIkipedia is built on Open Source. Open Kanban is open source, it deserves to at least be mentioned and documented. The other method mentioned on the same page is fully commercial and advertised heavily by Lean Kanban University, just read a little about it. A simple google search would lead you to this: http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/why-i-am-no-longer-lean-kanban-university and much more.

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Kanban (development)

Hello OrangeLeanVoice, thank you for your efforts to improve this article. However, I believe that the mere listing of publications and short snippets without additional context and details goes into the wrong direction. Such a general "overview" section would be clearer in continuous prose focussing only on the most relevant facts and developments, omitting minor and secondary publications. Also, some of the edits seem a bit biased towards one view (Agile and Lean movement). The article should cover all viewpoints in a fair and balanced manner - whether we agree with these viewpoints or not. As I am not a topic expert, I can't fix these flaws myself, but I have posted a few general suggestions and concerns on the article's talkpage. I hope, these suggestions and constructive criticism are helpful to improve the article. On a quick additional note: please do not use raw external links within the article's main text (see WP:EL for more information). If these links are valid references, they should be used as inline-references with ref tags. I have fixed the recent changes accordingly. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--> My Response GermanJoe thanks for the feedback. I do know the topic very well, but I do not know Wikipedia's standards that well. Let me see what can I do to improve the links and overall tone. I did try hard to keep it encyclopedic and neutral. The previous version was very messy, and not neutral.