User talk:Madppiper

Welcome!
Hello, Madppiper, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Scipio ERP, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

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).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Scipio ERP for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scipio ERP is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Scipio ERP until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Re-created article
Hello Madppiper, as already requested above, please clarify and disclose a possible conflict of interest regarding Scipio ERP (see WP:COI and WP:PAID). COI editing without such a disclosure violates Wikipedia's guidelines, and in case of paid editing also WMF's Terms of Use for this website.

Regarding your recent re-creation of this article, I appreciate that you added 2 additional sources. But one of them is a self-written article (not independent), the other one a relatively brief mention. Multiple basic sources for a notable topic must be independent (self-written articles and PR publications do not count), so the topic is still not notable with the current sourcing. Also, articles written with a possible conflict of interest should go through an "Articles for creations" volunteer review - I will move the article to draft, but of course you are welcome to improve it and request a formal AfC review later (just add on top of it when you are ready). If you have any questions about the linked guidelines, please feel free to ask or post for advice at WP:Teahouse. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Joe, with regards to your recent reversal of the "scipio erp" page: It is true, I am one of the core developers behind the project. I was unaware that this would require any additional citation, but that is my fault really. Would it help if I added this to the page itself, or perhaps one of the previous edits?


 * With regards to sources: unfortunately, our project is a a really niche topic and most often used as a business application framework by larger corporations, meaning that they build their own software on top of ours. As we provide the software as an open source template under Apache License 2.0 the software is rarely mentioned publicly (regardless of how often it is being used). Or to put it in other words: after adoption, companies usually see it as "their" software and do not credit the original creators.  We try to change that, but it being a niche topic, it will take time to create online sources like you are requesting.Other projects, like the framework we forked from, Apache OFBiz, also suffer from this issue (as you can see by the citation info box on top of the page). You can find additional references on our company website, but that too would count as promotional. Therefore I restrained from using those in the article.


 * We tried not to make this a promotional page and I welcome you to read it again so that it remains objective. Otherwise I would really be interested in your support on the subject matter.


 * Thanks & Regards, Madppiper (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I believe it is better to keep the conversation in one place and have taken the liberty to merge both threads here. This way other editors looking into this question will find all information in one spot. If you want to notify other editors about an ongoing discussion or a new answer, you can "ping" them: just add in a message before you save it. Regarding your question about disclosure: you'll find a "how to" guide at WP:DISCLOSE, please add the example templates from the linked guide (with specific parameters replaced) to the draft's talkpage and your user page respectively.


 * Regarding sources: 2-3 independent sources with some significant coverage about your software are the bare minimum requirement for a successful software article (see WP:GNG). I appreciate that this can be difficult for niche topics, but there is really no way around it (a lot of "old" articles have simply not been properly reviewed yet - too few editors try to maintain 5+ million articles). While older articles have often slipped through in the past, new articles based on mostly self-published or PR sources will almost certainly get rejected. But of course you are welcome to continue working on the draft, if you see any chance for new independent sources in the near future. The draft also contains a few minor subjective buzzwords but that would be easily fixable - the main issue at the moment is sourcing. GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joe, thanks for the feedback. But that begs the question: even without the github source and opensource.com article (which was heavily edited by the RedHat prior to publication), there are plenty of references by the Bitcoin community over the articles posted. Granted, they focus on the topic that is of greater interest to them, but why would that matter? Would any of the following resources be of help: Review by Finances Online, ERP Focus, CNet Profile Madppiper (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * These sites accept company information, list vendors and products for promotional purposes, and actively support vendors to sell their products (some of them atleast). While such PR platforms can be occasionally used for really uncontroversial details, they are not independent for Wikipedia's purpose as source and usually don't help to establish notability. "Independent" means: no affiliation or commercial connection to the presented topic. Content in independent sources must also be based on independent research and not simply repeat the company's own product information. So any site that re-publishes your press releases or product infos without independent review and research won't count as "independent" either. Also, "reviews" must be performed by acknowledged experts, excluding simple user reviews or customer popularity polls. A lot of sites that are used by PR departments to increase product sales and public visibility are problematic for the very same reason: their primary promotional purpose and connections to the topic. Please make sure to read WP:GNG for a - somewhat simplified - overview of this point. GermanJoe (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry, but some of what you wrote is your own interpretation of the sources. Out of the sources listed, only 1 was written by myself (the open-source.com article) and that went through a lengthy validation process by RedHat. I also want to point out again that only 3 out 18 of the other articles of similar open source projects can pass the test. These should fail according to the guidelines:  Adaxa (no references), Adempiere (only self-referential and primary sources), Apache OFBiz (no references), Compiere (no references), Dolibarr (out of 12 references only 1 non primary), ERPNext (out of 20 references only 3 are non self referential, those are by Capterra, Software Advice and Opensource.com), HeliumV (only self-referential), InoERP (no references), IntarS (no references), Kuali (only 4 sources, out of those only 1 meets the criteria), LedgerSMB (all but 1 sourceforge.net or self referential), Metafresh (no references), Odoo (primary sources), Postbooks (2 references, out of those 1 a message citing their domain change), Tryton (only self referential). I don't put any blame on them, like mentioned earlier, it is common for open source erp frameworks to lack proper references due to the nature of the topic and license. That alone doesn't make them less relevant. Madppiper (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I already explained that "a lot of 'old' articles have simply not been properly reviewed yet". Your listing of such articles does not change anything, and does not justify the addition of more similarly-flawed articles (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I have tried in good faith to explain some of Wikipedia's basic content guidelines, but I believe repeating these arguments won't be constructive. Frankly you seem to ignore most of my points and/or haven't taken the time to actually read the linked guidelines. Anyway, of course you have 2 alternatives to proceed: please ask at WP:Teahouse or a similar venue for more uninvolved opinions, or submit the draft for a formal "Articles for Creation" review (simply add on top of it).
 * I am sorry, but at this point I don't think I can be of further help and won't be responding to further messages and questions. Please use one of the 2 approaches mentioned above if you'd like to pursue this issue with other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, no harm done. Regardless of how it may sound, I do appreciate your input. You are right, however, that I should focus on the appropriate process for this rather than falling into debates with individuals. Madppiper (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Scipio ERP


Hello, Madppiper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scipio ERP".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 06:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Scipio ERP


Hello, Madppiper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scipio ERP".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)