Talk:SWOT analysis/Archives/2015

Kuru: "a four month old proxied domain that provides no actual reference is simply not acceptable"

Hello Kuru, I had in fact already given you a citation: "Handling disputes and abuse: Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object" -- straight from the WikiPedia book of Wikiquette.

Perhaps you can provide a reference for your citation: "a four month old proxied domain that provides no actual reference is simply not acceptable. Use the article's talk page before re-inserting your link"? Or is that simply a statement of opinion by someone whose self-awarded role is to police WikiPedia without any regard for WikiPedia's rules?

BTW, I am confused by the idea that SWOT Analysis is a perfectly straightforward tool, but the idea that several SWOT Analyses can be performed in parallel comes straight from the world of science fiction, and will first need to be proven by the scientists at CERN before it is something that can be legitimately discussed on WikiPedia... ISWOT (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I'm asking for a reliable, third-party source for the material/text that you are adding to the article. You can find our guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable source at WP:RS. All material must be sourced - no, this is not a place for your musings or observations. There is no reason to link to your tool; it adds no value to the article and does not support the text you are adding. This is not a place to promote your site. Kuru (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Kuru, and yes, I am a little confused. The WikiRules state: "Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object". I am confused therefore as to why you are exempt from this rule of Wikiquette? I am however not in any way confused as to why you failed to address this point in your post above.

And yes, obviously you caught me. 'Comparative SWOT Analysis' is my idea, and I developed a website over the course of 3-4 days to PROVE that it is entirely possible -> not very difficult to do in fact. If you bothered to spend 5 minutes on the tool provided (rather than the same 5 minutes simply trashing the content of others, whilst not "explaining which of their edits you object to and why"), you will yourself see that the concept works -> again, not a very difficult concept actually. Given this, rather than spending 5 minutes on the tool, you would rather just come out with the empty words: "There is no reason to link to your tool; it ... does not support the text you are adding". You are a very particular individual to be able to come out with this statement, given the evidence to the contrary (www.MindFraming.org). It a shame that the world appointed you as the zealous guardian of this page. Or did it? ISWOT (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I object to your additions and why. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Kuru. Yes, I am well aware of your stated objection, and even cited it in my last comment: "There is no reason to link to your tool; it ... does not support the text you are adding". Let's us assume therefore -- as good Wikiquette dictates -- that you genuinely believe that objection. In return, I ask you to provide me with 2-3 SWOT examples, and I will add those to the tool, in parallel, in order to demonstrate objectively and without any doubts, that Comparative SWOT Analysis is an entirely straight-forward concept whose tenets need not be challenged.

You stated: "a four month old proxied domain that provides no actual reference is simply not acceptable", as well as "All material must be sourced - no, this is not a place for your musings or observations". In fact, this is entirely wrong and your own musings would make Wikipedia entirely unworkable if they were to be actual guidelines. This is the obvious logic for: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged...". Your "All material must be sourced" musing is entirely false, and is only applicable to edits that can be challenged. You have made several challenges to the content I added, but none on the actual content !!!

"When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally." I have offered to demonstrate to you rationally why your objections are baseless, will you respond politely ? ISWOT (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you been able to locate a reliable source to support your addition? Kuru (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kuru, do you have one leg or two? We all know that legs exist, but if you do indeed claim to have two legs -- in parallel -- then we are indeed at the frontiers of logic, and as such, can you please provide some evidence proving that your claim has been verified in a lab? Or, you might prefer to wait for someone at Harvard to write a book on the subject of your legs, so that you can cite a (infallible) reference proving that you indeed have two... 78.250.91.241 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 business plan: other methods than SWOT?

Hi Guys! As I learned via Wikipedia, one section should contain a SWOT analysis. So I had a look about my Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Ending up in a conflict with myself because I don't know how to address all the different views like B2B, B2C, B2x... for my situation. So I was searching for an alternative method and I've found NABC (need, approach, benefits, competition) which looks similar. So I wonder what the main differences of these methods are, besides that I know SWOT from waterfall projects and NABC was only mentioned in agile projects. Open for other views/methods, thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article should contain a SWOT matrix for SWOT analysis

I think this is absolutely imperative. How else will readers know if SWOT is the analysis method for them? I'm certainly confused and I'm sure other people are too. TheWisestOfFools (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

suggest moving SWOT in Social Work to its own page

SWOT in Social Work is a good idea and no doubt a good practice and I like the content but having a major section here gives a disproportionate impression of the importance of SWOT in Social Work and of the importance of Social Work in SWOT.Wooverine (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)