User talk:Cgrupp55

NJD-DE:

I'm very frustrated by your handling of this situation. I'm simply posting that there are multiple variants of Scrum that support scaling Scrum concepts across large products teams and on an enterprise scale. Yes, I did initially try to list my book as a reference source - which is a scholarly work of 609 pages, and published by PACKT Publishing- a very large book publisher that specializes in books for IT specialists.

But, even when I took my book out as a qualified reference source, you still deleted my post that was simply commenting about modern Scrum scaling methodologies. Then, instead of giving my advice on how to better frame my edits, you threaten to block me.

I'm done. I feel that you are very prejudiced against my posts. I really have lost a lost of respect for Wikipedia through this process.

cgrup55— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4103:df30:2428:a4e0:5f5c:ecaf (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry to hear that you are disappointed. However, another editor and I saw the situation differently, as it was not a case of simply posting content. An overview of the edits:

1. Special:Diff/1006406156: Reference of book added by IP; Reverted
2. Special:Diff/1006409403: Reference of book added by IP; Reverted:Rm apparent refspam
3. Special:Diff/1006410518/1006427139: Reference of book added and new section citing the book; Reverted: Using Wikipedia for advertising and/or promotion is not permitted. + talk page message
4. Special:Diff/1006429927: New section without sources; Reverted: This isn't a place for you to promote
5. Special:Diff/1006439023: Reference of book; Reverted: unclear what should be referenced here; oh and we're still not going to use WP to promote books + talk page message

The references contained a link to amazon and edits did not have edit summaries. There was no reaction on the revert summaries or on talk page messages here. A user warning with a note about the block policy is not a threat, but usual behavior when disruptively editing articles and not reacting on communication.

You are still invited to contribute here if you remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. NJD-DE (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

NJD-DE:

Even after I took the book reference out, you still reverted the post. That makes no sense to me as I was trying to make the point there are several scaled scrum strategies that people should be aware of. At the end of the day, your comments were not helpful in helping me resolve the issues. Hopefully the Teahouse folks can help me out.

cgrupp55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4103:DF30:C1ED:1A4E:52DF:310F (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Njd-de. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scrum (software development) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. NJD-DE (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Scrum (software development), you may be blocked from editing. NJD-DE (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Cgrupp55, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cgrupp55! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)