User talk:Cliffberg

COI

I see that you are using your user page to promote yourself and your books. That is not permitted, the page is for you to tell us about your activities on Wikipedia.

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you have a financial interest in a topic, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you do, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at Cliffberg. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cliffberg|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to an organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

You had no references of any kind. Note also that your own writings are obviously not independent sources.
there is absolutely nothing to show how this meets the notability criteria linked above, it's just you writing about your own stuff, nothing to indicate why the rest of the world should take note.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

promotion doesn't have to involve financial gain, although linking to your book is clearly intended to do that.The whole page is promoting you, your ideas, your book and your website. And we have self praise like guidance on how to conduct collective human endeavors. It seeks to improve on the values and principles originally stated by the Manifesto for Agile Software Development - aka the “Agile Manifesto”... Agile had come to be applied in almost every collective human endeavor

There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.

You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I didn't check because the text dump was so non-compliant any way, but the complete absence of references and wikilinks in the text is concerning.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC) You have a conflict of interest, you must disclose the nature of that COI.[reply]

Hi Jim.

Thanks for this detailed feedback. It is really helpful. I have never written a Wikipedia page before.

Conflict of interest:

Thanks for bringing this requirement to my attention. I will note the conflict of interest.

One point of note: Agile 2 is not my work. It was created by this team (I am one of the team, and I set up the team): https://agile2.net/about/

I personally contributed about 2% to the actual content of Agile 2.

The book "Agile 2" was authored by seven people: https://www.amazon.com/Agile-2-Next-Iteration-ebook/dp/B08TPJWLHC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=Q02QHID6MPH1&keywords=agile+2&qid=1706194938&sprefix=agile+2%2Caps%2C120&sr=8-1#books-entity-teaser

Importantly, Agile 2 is entirely non-commercial. It is not a company. There is no Agile 2 certification. My own company (Agile 2 Academy) is a separate entity, and offers no Agile 2 certification or "Agile 2 services". I am not being paid to post the page any more than the authors of the Agile Manifesto are being paid to maintain the page at Agile software development. Also, what about Jim Highsmith's page about his book? Agile Project Management (book)

Non-promotional tone:

I thought that the tone was non-promotional. The page describes the history and motivation. That is promotional only in that it provides the arguments in favor of Agile 2. But the page also has a Criticism section.

Copyrighted text:

The page includes text copied from the agile2.net website, which is published Creative Commons Attribution 4. I will amend the Wikipedia page to note that.

Where to work on the draft?

Where can I resurrect the page as a draft that can be worked on?

Very best,

Cliff Cliffberg (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't see messages here unless you start them with my user name Jimfbleak and sign the message in the same edit, that will send me an alert

You have a financial interest because of your book, you must make the paid declaration as above. Because of your involvement, you have a COI irrespective of whether Agile is commercial or not.

In terms of promotion, I've seen worse, but you haven't addressed the issues of whether you can find independent third-party sources and show how it meets the notability criteria. It's good that the website is CC4, but it's obviously not an independent source, and while you can quote from it, it's not suitable as a reference otherwise.

As it stands, the text appears to be just a text dump from the site, with your own commentary and criticisms, we need to know what independent sources say.

I can restore the text, but the COI issue must be addressed, and i need to be clear that we are going to get an article properly referenced to independent sources, instead of more of the same Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak "You have a financial interest because of your book"

Ah, okay. That makes sense. Although I will point out that books of this kind earn very little. And this one has seven authors. My first book, Advanced Java Development, was a bestseller, and I calculated that I earned about 50 cents an hour on it for the effort to write it. But I will annotate about the Agile 2 book - thanks for explaining that!

"find independent third-party sources and show how it meets the notability criteria"

Would articles from others in the field meet that criteria?

"the text appears to be just a text dump from the site"

There is a section that contains the principles from the site. Should I remove that, and merely mention the site?

"I can restore the text, but the COI issue must be addressed"

I would rather wait until you feel that the article meets all the criteria properly. I appreciate your guidance in this. I want to do it right. There is no rush. And Agile 2 had been gaining a lot of interest lately - I think that a page is needed.

Thanks again!

Cliff

~~~ Cliffberg (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the site is Creative Commons Attribution 4, you can quote the principles, but that does nothing to establish notability. Would articles from others in the field meet that criteria If you are talking about journal articles, that's questionable. Ideally we want secondary sources such as books unassociated with the project or coverage in national or international media or specialist publications. I think your structure is questionable too. Your History section begins: Almost since the beginning of the Agile movement, there has been discontent with the movement. I'd expect it to start with a date and indication of how the approach was conceived, rather that diving in with criticism that would be better elsewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]