User talk:Sshs007

July 2022
Hello, I'm ZimZalaBim. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to IPhone 6S have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Zim Zala Bim talk 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * hi there, what do you mean by the link was removed "because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia" ? Can you please elaborate. Thanks Sshs007 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see our links and spam policies. The page you linked to was a random help/forum page that wasn't relevant at all to the article. Please don't insert it again. Thx. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2023
Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Homeschooling, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please add reference rather than external link - see referencing for beginners. Tacyarg (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I need to re-add the citation but the information I provided is well researched though. I'll look into how to create a proper citation and re-add the table as it provides more dimensions & depth to the topic of "Motivations for Homeschooling" Sshs007 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-doing - agree this is useful. Tacyarg (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings.  MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Aoidh (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sshs007 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Aoidh, as far as I am concerned, the indefinite block is something I can't wrap my head around.
 * Let me explain why.
 * The last edit I made was quoted by moderator Tacyarg "Thanks for re-doing, agree this is useful", then why all of a sudden it is reverted? Blocked after I made another very insightful edit? Doesn't make sense at all.
 * When you refer "self-promotion", there are literally thousands of websites (with multiple links/edits) like these but they all provide, relevant & in-depth analysis, just like what I did with both of my edits (You can go through them thoroughly & let me know).
 * Self promotion is blatant editing & placing of links without providing valuable insights.
 * I would like you to go through my edits & tell me if they are not providing valuable insights to readers & isn't relevant at all. That's exactly why Wikipedia exists!
 * And of course, when anyone does research and provide valuable content, they will eventually cite it in some form or other.
 * In addition, all of these links are no-follow, so there's no benefit at all when ranking on Search Engines like Google are concerned. So even If I end up creating multiple edits/links it wouldn't make any difference in my rankings at all. Google Algorithm's are above & beyond of these links from Wikipedia & others sources now.
 * Lastly, I don't even have ads or sell any products on my web resource. If that's spam, then I don't know what isn't.
 * All in all, my sincere intentions are to provide value in terms of any kind of content I edit here on Wikipedia. Over the years I have learned a lot from here.
 * You guys have my utmost respect for work you do. Highly appreciate it!
 * So, it's my humble request to consider my appeal to un-block my account & revert my edits, as I think they deserve to be there. Sshs007 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the first two edits (which isn't to say those weren't possibly promotional as well), every edit you have made on this account has been to promote the two websites ohmyclassroom.com and mytechissolved.com. The websites do not have to sell products or have ads in order for their inclusion on Wikipedia to be promotional in nature. As far as Self promotion is blatant editing & placing of links without providing valuable insights adding what you believe to be valuable insight does not render the edits non-promotional, and a self-published blog is not a reliable source regardless. - Aoidh (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you are a moderator here and you have every right to block someone's account or revert edits.
 * But let me give you an example of a self-published blog (while I know several others) being cited here on Wikipedia:
 * example : The costs of child care has increased over the years, and putting a "tremendous strain" on household budgets, in particularly for those with two children or more. citation from : https://singlemotherguide.com/cost-of-child-care/
 * Is this also considered spam, promotion?
 * There are several self-published blogs like these who have edits/links back to their website.
 * My plea here is simple, you can keep my account blocked for indefinite period, that's your right as an administrator/moderator.
 * But it's a humble request to let my last two edits live here on Wikipedia, which I have put hours of research on.
 * Because that's not my thinking of a valuable resource, that's hard data gathered from governmental sources like https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/topics/featured-childcare, https://www.childcareaware.org/child-care-data-center/, https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/data etc.
 * I won't edit or try to edit anything further here, you can keep my account blocked, but I repeat it's a humble request to let me research alive (last two edits that I made). As anyone who carries out research has a right to get published & get referenced.
 * I rest my case here and I leave it up to you to decide what's fair. Thanks.
 * Regards
 * Sohaib Hasan Sshs007 (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've had another look at your edit which I had thought was helpful. Although the stats appear to be valid and from a reliable government source, I agree that your link is to them in a blog which is not a reliable source, and looks as if it may be something you wrote yourself - see WP:SELFCITE. You should not do this as Aoidh has said. Apologies for causing confusion. Tacyarg (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well this is more confusing to me now. One one hand you state that the research done is credible but citing back to where it originally came from isn't?
 * I mean how does this add up?
 * When anyone carries out an in-depth research he/she gets credit right? Be it a blog, book or an empirical research article. That's an absolute right in my opinion of the original researcher.
 * Here's a link to my empirical research article published on academia.edu : https://www.academia.edu/106067314/Unawareness_and_Selective_Disclosure_The_Effect_of_School_Quality_Information_on_Property_Prices as example of my other research work I perform.
 * The two edits I made here, are researched facts and not based of my own thinking or knowledge.
 * The only problem here I guess is when I cite it back to my blog, somehow you guys think I am spamming.
 * Anyways, as I stated earlier, I rest my case with you guys now. I am not or will from now on edit anything, but I want a chance for my original research to be seen. That's all
 * And thanks once again, for atleast giving me chance to explain myself, highly appreciate it.
 * Regards
 * Sohaib Hasan Sshs007 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't use self published materials, such as blogs or academia.edu postings, as sources. When someone inserts their blog across multiple pages (which you have definitely done in more than 'two edits'), we consider that to be spamming. Wikipedia is not a venue to publicize your original research. MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I stated this example above :
 * example : The costs of child care has increased over the years, and putting a "tremendous strain" on household budgets, in particularly for those with two children or more. citation from : https://singlemotherguide.com/cost-of-child-care/
 * There are thousands, in-fact hundred of thousands links like these on Wikipedia which are spam according to what you guys are saying.
 * I think it would be fair to remove all of these edits, otherwise that's a clear cut case of personal bias for no valid reason! Sshs007 (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress and volunteer time is limited. That we have not yet removed all spam everywhere is not a reason for you to make the problem worse by adding more. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the workload you guys have, but my work is not spam. You can't actually prove it and repeating the same thing over & over again won't make it true either.
 * Anyways, thank you for your time and farewell to free encylopedia that anyone can edit! Sshs007 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)