Hello Jellypeeler. The nature of your edits 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 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 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:Jellypeeler. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jellypeeler|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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.
S0091 (
talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I have not been paid to edit on Wikipedia. Is there a specific article you are referring too? Jellypeeler ( talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Art in Exile moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Art in Exile. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haim Bresheeth-Zabner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Art in Exile.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to
The Big Cases has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's
copyright policy. —
Diannaa (
talk) 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Jellypeeler ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I want to clear up some misunderstandings regarding my recent block on Wikipedia for alleged sockpuppetry. I've been accused wrongly based on an edit I made to the " Sufra (charity)" page, where I actually removed promotional content. This was done to improve the article's neutrality, not to promote any agenda. You can check the edit here: [1]. I was questioned by user S0091 ( talk · contribs) about possibly being paid for my edits, which is completely untrue and I tried to communicate with him over this on my talk page but received no reply from him. I want to clarify that I've never received any payment or compensation for my work on Wikipedia. Most of my contributions focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict and those advocating for UK-based subjects, ensuring that the articles I've created are unbiased and informative, and due to the controversy of the subject, I understand why some editors would be against it being published even if it meets Wikipedia criteria. Additionally, I feel it's important to share that my primary motivation for editing Wikipedia has always been to help people access well-researched and comprehensive information on a variety of subjects, all in one place. The prospect of contributing to a platform that serves as a global repository of knowledge has been incredibly rewarding. I have spent countless hours, if not days, meticulously editing and improving articles to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards and can be a valuable resource for anyone seeking information. Seeing articles I've passionately worked on get deleted is disheartening. Each article represents a significant investment of time and effort, not for personal gain, but for the collective benefit of the Wikipedia community and its users worldwide. My aim has always been to enrich Wikipedia with informative content that adheres to its guidelines and policies, hoping to make a positive impact. It's with this spirit of contribution and community service that I appeal for the reconsideration of my block. I deeply value the opportunity to be part of Wikipedia's mission to disseminate free knowledge, and I am committed to resolving any issues in line with Wikipedia's principles and expectations.Thank you once again for taking the time to consider my appeal and understanding the dedication behind my contributions. I hope this misunderstanding can be resolved, and I'm open to any necessary discussions or processes to clarify this issue. Thank you for considering my appeal. Jellypeeler ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Almost none of this is relevant to your block. You are blocked for violating
WP:SOCK. That and only that is relevant. I see 
Confirmed sock,
Mr.riba, which I'll go block directly.
Yamla (
talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jellypeeler ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ Yamla: Thank you for addressing my previous appeal. I understand the issue is my alleged violation of WP:SOCK through the use of the Mr.riba account. I wish to clarify and rectify this misunderstanding promptly. I used the account Mr.riba ( talk · contribs) exclusively on Wikimedia Commons for uploading images, as I saw I realised I already had uploaded an image on that account before, and I decided to use that account to upload another image, unaware that this could be seen as violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry guidelines. This account, to my knowledge and during the time I've been using this account, has never been used for editing Wikipedia articles. My intention was never to circumvent Wikipedia's policies but to contribute positively to the community. I apologize for any confusion caused and assure you of my commitment to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. If using a separate account for Commons and Wikipedia is against the rules, I will discontinue using Mr.riba immediately. I request a reconsideration of my block, offering my sincere commitment to rectify any misunderstandings and comply with Wikipedia's policies fully. I understand that there is a high chance this may not be considered so soon, but I am willing to take any steps needed if you are willing to provide me any guidance to ensure that I follow Wikipedia guidelines when, in the future, I am unblocked. Following concerns raised by S0091 ( talk · contribs), I would like to add in relation to the appeal to my block, regarding a potential connection between my edits and those of TwinTurbo ( talk · contribs). My intention with this message is to clarify the situation and demonstrate that the block may have resulted from a misunderstanding. It's important to note that my contribution did not introduce new content per se but involved the removal of what I perceived to be promotional material, I only provided a mere update to the article in terms of a new logo for the organisation (which I have done for other existing Wikipedia pages as well) and also adds to the confusion as S0091 assumed there was WP:UPE's involved which he highlights in his reason for an investigation. Removing promotional content is in line with Wikipedia's standards against promotional content, reflecting my commitment to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. It seems that S0091 ( talk · contribs) might have interpreted my deletion of certain content as a continuation of previous promotional edits attributed to the page by other users, potentially leading to the mistaken identification of my account with that of TwinTurbo. Please refer to the edit history of Sufra to better understand the context and nature of my contributions. I want to assure you that my edits were made in good faith, with the aim of enhancing the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. I understand the importance of Wikipedia's rules against undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry, and I fully support these guidelines. I admit the use of another account Mr.Riba has been used by me to upload images to commons, but I want to clarify that I have never used that account to edit on Wikipedia and if this against guidelines, I will cease to use that account. The confusion regarding my edits and the association with TwinTurbo appears to be a case of mistaken identity, and I am eager to resolve this misunderstanding. Thank you for considering my appeal. Jellypeeler ( talk) 12:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you were blocked as the result of a sockpuppet investigation, I'm pretty sure our policies prohibit you from being unblocked, except by the blocking administrator or by a discussion involving lots of people. I'll ask the blocking administrator to review your request. Nyttend ( talk) 10:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- @ Nyttend: Thanks for attending my unblock request, I appreciate you looking into this further with the blocking administrator. I have had a read of WP:SOCKBLOCK and understand the difficulties of trusting someone accused of sockpuppetry and that it does seem that even guilty sockpuppets have a chance of being unblocked considering an appeal. As I stated earlier in my appeal, I am willing to take any steps or precautions needed which will enable my unblocking in the future. Thank you. Jellypeeler ( talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Jellypeeler. The nature of your edits 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 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 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:Jellypeeler. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jellypeeler|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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.
S0091 (
talk) 21:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I have not been paid to edit on Wikipedia. Is there a specific article you are referring too? Jellypeeler ( talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Art in Exile moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Art in Exile. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haim Bresheeth-Zabner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Art in Exile.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to
The Big Cases has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's
copyright policy. —
Diannaa (
talk) 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Jellypeeler ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I want to clear up some misunderstandings regarding my recent block on Wikipedia for alleged sockpuppetry. I've been accused wrongly based on an edit I made to the " Sufra (charity)" page, where I actually removed promotional content. This was done to improve the article's neutrality, not to promote any agenda. You can check the edit here: [1]. I was questioned by user S0091 ( talk · contribs) about possibly being paid for my edits, which is completely untrue and I tried to communicate with him over this on my talk page but received no reply from him. I want to clarify that I've never received any payment or compensation for my work on Wikipedia. Most of my contributions focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict and those advocating for UK-based subjects, ensuring that the articles I've created are unbiased and informative, and due to the controversy of the subject, I understand why some editors would be against it being published even if it meets Wikipedia criteria. Additionally, I feel it's important to share that my primary motivation for editing Wikipedia has always been to help people access well-researched and comprehensive information on a variety of subjects, all in one place. The prospect of contributing to a platform that serves as a global repository of knowledge has been incredibly rewarding. I have spent countless hours, if not days, meticulously editing and improving articles to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards and can be a valuable resource for anyone seeking information. Seeing articles I've passionately worked on get deleted is disheartening. Each article represents a significant investment of time and effort, not for personal gain, but for the collective benefit of the Wikipedia community and its users worldwide. My aim has always been to enrich Wikipedia with informative content that adheres to its guidelines and policies, hoping to make a positive impact. It's with this spirit of contribution and community service that I appeal for the reconsideration of my block. I deeply value the opportunity to be part of Wikipedia's mission to disseminate free knowledge, and I am committed to resolving any issues in line with Wikipedia's principles and expectations.Thank you once again for taking the time to consider my appeal and understanding the dedication behind my contributions. I hope this misunderstanding can be resolved, and I'm open to any necessary discussions or processes to clarify this issue. Thank you for considering my appeal. Jellypeeler ( talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Almost none of this is relevant to your block. You are blocked for violating
WP:SOCK. That and only that is relevant. I see Confirmed sock,
Mr.riba, which I'll go block directly.
Yamla (
talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jellypeeler ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@ Yamla: Thank you for addressing my previous appeal. I understand the issue is my alleged violation of WP:SOCK through the use of the Mr.riba account. I wish to clarify and rectify this misunderstanding promptly. I used the account Mr.riba ( talk · contribs) exclusively on Wikimedia Commons for uploading images, as I saw I realised I already had uploaded an image on that account before, and I decided to use that account to upload another image, unaware that this could be seen as violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry guidelines. This account, to my knowledge and during the time I've been using this account, has never been used for editing Wikipedia articles. My intention was never to circumvent Wikipedia's policies but to contribute positively to the community. I apologize for any confusion caused and assure you of my commitment to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines moving forward. If using a separate account for Commons and Wikipedia is against the rules, I will discontinue using Mr.riba immediately. I request a reconsideration of my block, offering my sincere commitment to rectify any misunderstandings and comply with Wikipedia's policies fully. I understand that there is a high chance this may not be considered so soon, but I am willing to take any steps needed if you are willing to provide me any guidance to ensure that I follow Wikipedia guidelines when, in the future, I am unblocked. Following concerns raised by S0091 ( talk · contribs), I would like to add in relation to the appeal to my block, regarding a potential connection between my edits and those of TwinTurbo ( talk · contribs). My intention with this message is to clarify the situation and demonstrate that the block may have resulted from a misunderstanding. It's important to note that my contribution did not introduce new content per se but involved the removal of what I perceived to be promotional material, I only provided a mere update to the article in terms of a new logo for the organisation (which I have done for other existing Wikipedia pages as well) and also adds to the confusion as S0091 assumed there was WP:UPE's involved which he highlights in his reason for an investigation. Removing promotional content is in line with Wikipedia's standards against promotional content, reflecting my commitment to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. It seems that S0091 ( talk · contribs) might have interpreted my deletion of certain content as a continuation of previous promotional edits attributed to the page by other users, potentially leading to the mistaken identification of my account with that of TwinTurbo. Please refer to the edit history of Sufra to better understand the context and nature of my contributions. I want to assure you that my edits were made in good faith, with the aim of enhancing the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. I understand the importance of Wikipedia's rules against undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry, and I fully support these guidelines. I admit the use of another account Mr.Riba has been used by me to upload images to commons, but I want to clarify that I have never used that account to edit on Wikipedia and if this against guidelines, I will cease to use that account. The confusion regarding my edits and the association with TwinTurbo appears to be a case of mistaken identity, and I am eager to resolve this misunderstanding. Thank you for considering my appeal. Jellypeeler ( talk) 12:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you were blocked as the result of a sockpuppet investigation, I'm pretty sure our policies prohibit you from being unblocked, except by the blocking administrator or by a discussion involving lots of people. I'll ask the blocking administrator to review your request. Nyttend ( talk) 10:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- @ Nyttend: Thanks for attending my unblock request, I appreciate you looking into this further with the blocking administrator. I have had a read of WP:SOCKBLOCK and understand the difficulties of trusting someone accused of sockpuppetry and that it does seem that even guilty sockpuppets have a chance of being unblocked considering an appeal. As I stated earlier in my appeal, I am willing to take any steps or precautions needed which will enable my unblocking in the future. Thank you. Jellypeeler ( talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)