User talk:JohnAdamsSapphireOne

Welcome!
Hello, SapphireOneERP, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as SapphireOne, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — MRD2014 T C 00:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of SapphireOne


A tag has been placed on SapphireOne, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — MRD2014 T C 00:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from SapphireOne, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — MRD2014 T C 01:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sapphireone


A tag has been placed on Sapphireone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 01:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Draft:Sapphireone, and I noticed that your username, "SapphireOneERP", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. —Latchem 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SapphireOne


A tag has been placed on SapphireOne, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, JohnAdamsSapphireOne. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What the Hell
Dear, I created a page about SapphireOne. I work for SapphireOne. First I started getting complains about my username 'SapphireOneERP', then about the content which was violating wikipedia policy like COI, A7, G11, G12. Since I was getting lots of complains, I asked a third party person would they mind to write about SapphireOne. I gave them some of my written material. That person has analysed the material and has written the content from a neutral point of view. I am not paying that person anything, they have agreed to write this completely by themselves for their own personal interest of the product. If you want evidence then please provide me the wikipedia standard form or whatever form is available and I will fill in that person's information, so that you can contact them directly.

This morning I have noticed that SapphireOne has been deleted again, username blocked. G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: copy/pasted from [http://www.it1me.com/learn?s=SapphireOne, this link is taking me to a video page. Would you please provide me the content he has written, as I can not view it now as it has been deleted, as I want to check how it was violating G12. I am now quite confused why it was deleted. I await your early response. Thank You


 * Fair questions. If I was in your shoes I'd wanna know what the hell too, so I'll walk you through the process and we'll see if some good can come out of this.


 * For starters, you can reach me without using the unblock template, thats for challenging a block, not requesting how we got here, so were gonna start by moving your comments out of the unblock template and placing them here in an independent section so we can parley on matters of interest.


 * Now, on to the articles, the policies, and the block. According to the history and log pages started this mess by creating the first of two separate articles for this company. The first one was created back in January 2008, and was located at Sapphireone (note the lower case "o" in the word "one", which the Wikipedia software distinguishes between the capital "O" for article purposes). This was tagged for speedy deletion and summarily deleted on January 30, 2008. After that the account SaphireOne was blocked on username grounds. This was done in accordance with our username policy, among other things accounts active on Wikipedia can not be named for corporations. Therefore, if you have an account on here and it shares its name with article about a company (IE User:General Motors for General Motors corporation, User:NYSE for New York Stock Exchange, User:Tennessee Valley Authority for Tennessee Valley Authority, etc) then your account is going to block permanently for being in violation of the username policy. I've hammered no less than 20 accounts of this nature in my time on here, so if it makes you feel better you're in good company for making this rookie mistake, all the more so since most people only find out ex post facto that we have rules for what usernames you can and con not use here.


 * After the deletion and block, SaphireOne remained redlinked until just a few days ago, when appeared and recreated the article at SaphireOne (note the capital "O", which as I noted Wikipedia software treats differently than the little "o" for article naming purposes). The logs show that you had a small article but unfortunately chose the words in the article poorly - thats not your fault, these things happen, however when editors see words like "your" and "we" and phrases like "provides a complete solution", "integrates all aspects of your business" and "enhancing enterprise wide performance" the first thing that comes to mind isn't "wow, that must be a good company!" its "dammit, another ad agency with unadulterated BS on some god forsaken company no one cares about." As a direct result of this mindset, this version of the article was pounced on very quickly by editors who tagged the article as being eligable for speedy deletion under G11 protocol. G11 or g11 denotes an article whose primary purpose appears to be to sell us on some product or service, and articles that are tagged with a G11 CSD template are judged to be spam articles. Wikipedia has no use for spam, so it gets deleted pretty quickly.


 * Now here's where things started to take their turn for the worst. According to the log pages, you removed the speedy deletion template on this article. Thats a major no-no, if the article is tagged for speedy deletion (or regular deletion for that matter) then a third party removes the tags. This is done for several reasons, foremost among them that the administrator corp on Wikipedia needs to see if there are extenuating issues in the deletion request. Sometimes articles tagged as being deletable under one criteria are actually deletable for deletion under more relevant criteria, and in other cases certain legal considerations need to be taken into account (copyrighted material, for example needs to deleted from any article its found in, otherwise the site ends up in hot water, and copyrighted or trademarked images have to meet exacting criteria to appear on here under the fair use clause). Removing a speedy deletion is therefore one of the worst thing a new editor can do as it comes across to the community asdisrupting behavior, which can get new accounts blocked very quickly.


 * Right after this article was deleted, this account moved over to the original article at Saphireone (again, note the little "o") and recreated the article at this title, only to end up on the receiving end of another A7 template which is used for an article that is judged to lack any real explanation for what made the company notable (did you win a noble corporate award? introduce industry altering software? solve a major issue with investments?) and as a result the article was tagged for deletion on grounds that there was no explanation for why we should care about the company. This type of deletion is refereed to a7 or A7, is used to indicate that the article in question lacks any credible claim of significance (as determined by Wikipedia standards). This time, the article was also tagged with a COI template indicating that the editor believed that the person who created the article had a vested interest in the article. This was most likely added after a check of the article history, as your account includes the SaphireOne title in its name and with your edits being exclusively within the realm of this company it was likely thought that this accounts user would be hawkish and protectionistic in the edits made to the article. This happens a lot with articles here, companies want to have only the good information in the articles and create accounts to edit there own company's articles which whitewash, delete, graze over, omit, or otherwise rebuild their company's article in such a way as to promote their company's products or service. Speaking from experiences, these editors are royal pains in the butt to deal with because they refuse to work within established policies and guidelines here, and usually end up blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia because they can not or will not listen and abide by the rules.


 * After the deletion of the Saphireone article you recreated the article at SaphireOne, and as before this version ended up tagging as G11 and COI. This time though there was also a news release template, indicating that the article read like a press release (promotional material). Now here you deserve some commendation, because you did attempt to clean up the article, and you left the deletion template in place, which indicates a growing understanding of how the process works. All the same though, the article was deleted on promotional grounds.


 * As for my final deletion, that was done under G12 grounds, which indicates that the material was copied and pasted from a copyrighted source. As you noted, the source in question is no longer viewable, and here you actually do have the high ground, and as such you are owed an apology. The issue here is one of popularity: Wikipedia articles are frequently mirrored on other sites which have copyright notices. On more than one occasion, editors working on articles here have had their work deleted after an admin mistook the article as having been copied from a copyrighted website as opposed to having the material copied from Wikipedia and posted on a copyrighted website. In this case, you did nothing wrong, so the article should not have been deleted for copyright violation, it should have been deleted on advertisement grounds. For this error on my part I apologize. Understand that under the circumstances, I thought it better to delete rather than risk a DMCA notice to Wikipedia for hosting copyrighted material on the site.


 * That leads us to the most recent recreation attempt, this time bu . His (or her for all I know) attempt at recreating the article ended up being an almost verbatim copy of the earlier deleted versions, at which point two things happened that lead to the current situation we are now in: both versions of the article with the capital and lower case "o" have been deleted and protected from recreation (in Wikipedia terminology, this recreation lock is called salting), and your account and the SaphireOne account have been blocked from editing (for now, the reason is that neither one of you is using an account free of your apparent corporate name).


 * In addition to your block and the block of SaphireOne, the presence of RbABC has caused us to take a closer look at all three accounts to see if one person is masterminding them. This is cause for concern, as under Wikipedia policy each editor is allowed only one account to edit with and must declare to the community if there are other accounts he or she edits from. Undeclared accounts are considered sockpuppets, and concerned editors who believe that multiple accounts are being run by a single entity are encouraged to file a report at suspect sockpuppet investigations. If it is determined that accounts have the same master then all accounts are usually blocked and the editor in question is typically not welcome to edit on Wikipedia. Right now, all three of these accounts are being looked into at Sockpuppet investigations/JohnAdamsSapphireOne.


 * That is where we currently stand, and we got here due to a failure to communicate and being too hasty in our actions. Now that we are here, the question becomes how best to proceed. For now, the accounts must remain blocked for username violations, and the article spaces will remain on lockdown until the SPI case is concluded. (Incidentally, if Rbabc, SaphireOne, and JohnAdamsSaphireOne all share the same user, NOW is the time to declare it so you can get out ahead of the accusations of using sockpuppets). If you would like to rebuild your article, I would recommend the draft space so it can be rebuilt under the watchful eyes of the people who know what an article needs to look like in order to survive in the main space. If you would like some homework I could recommend some pages to read relevant to your situation so as to avoid these kind of issues in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me guys. This kind of personal harassment is not right. I except some good judgement from Wikipedia administrator. Thanks _ User:RbABC, 30 July 2016

Arbitrary section break

 * You're not being harassed, at least not by me. Like I noted above, we got here through no fault of your own or my own, its just bad luck and circumstances. If you want help, I am happy to offer it, and if you'd like me to leave you alone I can do that too. All I need to know is which option you'd like to see from me. Alternatively, if you would like to level charges of conduct unbecoming of an administrator, you can report me at WP:ANI for abuse of administrative privileges. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, TomStar81 Yes, I need help. I am a new user in Wikipedia and want to contribute in networking, web developing, software related article in my spare time.

I would like to talk about the final deletion which was done under G12 grounds. This is the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RbABC/sandbox That article was added by me after analysing JohnAdamSapphireOne's contents. I also searched in Internet with key words like - SapphireOne 4D accounting software, 1990's accounting software 4D, SapphireOne ERP software, software made in 1990 in 4D Language, Accounting software 4D mac OS.

You are saying ' In this case, you did nothing wrong, so the article should not have been deleted for copyright violation, it should have been deleted on advertisement grounds'.

Actually, I looked at the other accounting software wiki page like - AME Accounting Software IGG Software Cheqbook ClearBooks Few more can be found from here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Accounting_software I am following their way of writing. Just putting the information about SapphireOne.

SapphireOne Pty Ltd is the company and SapphireOne is the accounting erp software. SapphireOne Pty Ltd is a well establishment local company, lunched in 1986. It has many clients in Australia, for example - South Australia Rugby Union info link http://www.softwareshortlist.com/erp/ss-case-studies/sapphireone-erp-changes-the-game-for-south-australian-rugby/

Word 'SapphireOne', slogan - 'we have the power to back you', and logo 'S' all are trademarked. This is a 30 years old company, and main software 'SapphireOne' is written in 4D Programming Language in 1986, still working well both in Mac and Window, recent version is 15 ( from SapphireOne's website). Information from 4D website - http://www.4d.com/au/community/references/bordo.html

Not many accounting software is written in 4D Programming Language. It is very old and working well in modern system. That's why I believe SapphireOne needs to be in wikipedia. Thanks_RbABC 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll work with you and we will see about getting this article onto Wikipedia, however I make no promises. Wikipedians are schizophrenic at times with what they will and won't accept on site, so this one will have to be played by art, and the sockpuppet investigation that it still currently open won't help your case much. Still, under the doctrine of WP:AGF, I am obliged to help you out here. Since it appears no one has pounced on and deleted Draft:Sapphireone at the moment, we can work in that sandbox to build the article together. To begin with, you'll need to remove absolutely every citation that goes to the company or its website. In the mean time, I would recommend you read over WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article, its written specifically for Military history Project related articles but the information is relevant to all articles here and can help you better grasp the deletion processes that have occurred here. Also, to get my attention use the following: . This highlights a little red box in my user HUD, alerting me that someone is calling my attention to a page on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81, Thank you very much for your willingness to participate. I will remove all citation that goes to that company site. I will also read and understand the WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article After that I will ping you, probably 22 hours from now. Thanks_RbABC (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you've indicated you are in a reading move I would also recommend you read Notability (organizations and companies), as that will be the standard by which the article will be judged to remain on Wikipedia. As long as the mandates on that page are met to the communities satisfaction then Sapphireone can stay on Wikipedia...for now. Remember, this is an ever active project and things change here all the time, so whats true of article retention right now may not be true in a few years. All the same, as you are working on a business article, the information at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) will be vital part of the reconstruction effort, so it will be a good idea to familiarize yourself with them before we get started. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81, Sorry for the delay. I have tried to understand WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article and Notability (organizations and companies). After that I have realized my mistakes. I am trying to find more suitable articles now. Also thinking how can I present in an artistic way !!_ RbABC (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about about presenting in an artistic way, aim for an encyclopedic way. Also, a though occurs: there is no reason we can't communicate on your talk page if you like, as opposed to meeting each other on JohnAdam's talk page. Additionally, I would recommend that you now read through What Wikipedia is not. This page covers what an article on Wikipedia should not be, and goes over several examples of what kind of material editors and administrators frown on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)