User talk:Fabiorahamim

Speedy deletion nomination of קניון פולוס
Hello Fabiorahamim,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged קניון פולוס for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ireneshih (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to OWASP ZAP, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OWASP ZAP
Your edit removed citations and you added information without any sources. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Your edits have been saved in the wp:page history, but you need to add sources when you restore the content.

Also, please use wp:edit summaries Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CyberProof
Hello, Fabiorahamim

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged CyberProof for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CyberProof&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Johand 199 (Talk • Contribs)  21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Fabiorahamim, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created 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! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:43, 5 March 2020 (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

Please read the guidance below:
 * 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 the 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 must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * 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.

Although you appear to be a good faith editor, your software articles are not providing evidence as to how the product meets the notability criteria linked above. It's not enough that the product exists, it must be notable. Your sources are not all RS, and in one case you just used the company's own website. You also seem to be taking what the company says as fact rather than a claim, making your text promotional in tone, since you just tell us what it's claimed to do, not a notability criterion.

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?  06:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply
Burp Suite needs a lot of work to show notability and make it more than a list of what it's claimed to do, so make sure you understand my posting above. I'll shortly restore at User:Fabiorahamim/sandbox Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cyberproof
I saw your request at, and I'd refer you to the guidance I posted higher up this page. As is usual with this sort of promo, all we get is a bit of history and a long bullet list of supposed "Awards and recognition", none of which are linked to Wikipedia articles so are presumably not notable. You are supposed to be showing how it meets The notability guidelines for organisations and companies. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. There is little to suggest that your company, as opposed to its parent, meets our notability guidelines. I'd also be interested to know why you think blog.cyberproof.com is an independent third-party source, same with www.calcalistech.com, where you have a company press release and interview with the boss as a supposed independent source Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

February 2022
Your recent editing history at AccessiBe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You appear to have been adding overly-detailed content to this article which have been repeatedly removed. Do not repeat this, and you are required to discuss any future changes on the article's talk page, or face being blocked for disruption.'' Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Further to this, I'd recommend you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on editing while logged out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello Fabiorahamim. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to AccessiBe, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Fabiorahamim. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message.  scope_creep Talk  15:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No, Its not on paid edits.
 * I am edit them because its an Israeli company and I am not working with them or getting payment from them. Fabiorahamim (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What has AccessiBe being an Israeli company got to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)