User talk:JellyMan9001

BLP discretionary sanctions alert
Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Religious Numbers
ok, Sir kindly allow me to edit some changes within citations in Adherence 2020 in this link which is locked, because I found some inaccuracies of other religious numbers too .https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations because there are various people in the world who do not trust an old survey of Pew Research Center's old religious demographics because of this new political changes in 2020. And in future there is gonna be lot of opposite gonna happen within this Pew's predicted Survey. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Com.1990s (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a good source, go for it. I can't tell you what to do, I'm just another guy on this site. JellyMan9001 (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, in response to your question of removal in 2070 decade, the reason why I removed it, that is due to the following reasons. I think you may kindly refer to page of 2100s. Over there I wrote this.This is because when new York times predicted that it's muslim population will surpass christian in 2100 and will equalize by 2070. In 2070 you wrote it will surpass in 2070, but as I said that due to recent political changes there are various inaccuracies in it.!-- Template:Unsigned --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Com.1990s (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When making an edit like that, you can point out the reason in the edit summary. And please make sure you have a source for something before removing it. JellyMan9001 (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, So as of now I haven't edited anything,M not able to write anything, nor typing curser is appearing in edit summary. And from where do I get notification of permission from you all to allow us edit it. in both "2070s", "2100s" and "Growth of religion".
 * - Template:Unsigned --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Com.1990s (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I am not an admin, I'm just another guy on the site. You don't need to ask me for permission to make edits, just try to make sure they abide by the policies and guidelines so they won't be reverted by other users. A good place to find those policies and guidelines at at WP:Getting Started. JellyMan9001 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Hi, I'm a little puzzled by your message on my talk page. I deleted the content about the Sobibor and Treblinka revolts from the "sonderkommando" article because neither were carried out by sonderkommando. Sonderkommando prisoners were kept in strict isolation from the others and therefore couldn't be involved in the revolts. (See for instance Schelvis 2014, p. 153). I could be wrong, but I think this should have been clear from my edit summary "neither reinhard revolt was sonderkommando". Botterweg14 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry. JellyMan9001 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Economy of Wales
Hi - I removed factually incorrect information that was using a nationalist blog site as a source. This is wildly incorrect. The sources quoted are not economic resources but rather a blog site 'state of Wales' and The Nation, again a bias reporting source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpoth33 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nation.Cymru is not a blog. It is a publicly funded news organization. If you have issues with the claim, please take it to the talk page of the article. Merely stating "this source is biased" with no additional explanation happens every day on this site, and most people won't consider it a valid reason to remove sourced content. JellyMan9001 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi - the nation is a known nationalist site that consistently reports from a bias viewpoint. It is not a valid source. Honestly this is exasperating. The whole page is full of factual errors I corrected and now that you have removed. So please, stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpoth33 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Here this 'source' is someones opinion blog post: https://nation.cymru/opinion/wales-is-not-a-global-anomaly-it-can-be-independent-just-like-every-other-nation/

Yet its been used as a factual source on the page even thought it contains numerous incorrect statements such as "putting Wales amongst the richest 25% of countries in the world.", so I updated and removed and then you undid my edits. So please, stop it.

Also there are sources from Mark Barry - a local Cardiff scammer who's been used as an economic expert source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpoth33 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I also made a number of updates and sourced unbiased material that were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpoth33 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. The information is backed up by a reliable public news source. As I said before, the next step is to discuss this matter in the talk page, and gain some consensus, not to edit war. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi
There are two COI spammers: Check both, they are both indeffed. The content I removed was written by these two users:,.
 * I'm all for that content being removed, let's just not throw the baby out with the bathwater. JellyMan9001 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

your message on my talk page
This is the second time I've had benign yet factual additions I've made to my high school's page removed or questioned for improper referencing. I'll read the instructions again but is there a "Wikipedia Referencing for Dummies" type article you know about? I'll probably just give up and stop trying to contribute if it's going to be that difficult to figure out. Thanks, Tom (Comprador2017)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comprador2017 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't get discouraged, everybody makes mistakes when they first start out editing. The information you need is at Help:Referencing for beginners. JellyMan9001 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcoming me to Wikipedia
Thank you for bringing this up in a kind manner. I guess I'll have to study more about editing rules. (I removed a speedy deletion tag from Estelito Mendoza.) Thank you again JellyMan9001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sablemason (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Correcting my Edit
Hey! I wasn't sure how adding sources worked, but on the page you talked to me about, I have just added the published work that I got the information from. Did I get it all squared away or is there something else I should be looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culvez (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The best place to get started with learning the ins and out of referencing is at Help:Referencing for beginners. JellyMan9001 (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Roberta Flack "Critical Reputation" Section Edits
The "Critical Reputation" section of Roberta Flack's page is completely biased to the negative only. Also, the first sentence says "was seen by a number of critics", without any explanation of who "a number" refers to. Where is the vast number of critics who praise Ms. Flack? Who is Mr. Christgau, and why would he garner the only critique of Ms. Flack here? His critique is from 50 years ago. To be fair, the criticism of her music catalog needs to show some perspective, i.e., quote more than one obscure music critic. Where are the vast legions of music critics critiques? Why are they not quoted? This whole section sounds like someone with a vendetta to slander Ms. Flack since it is obviously one-sided.

Because of this GIANT flaw, I deleted the sentences that were completely biased since they were totally irrelevant to the entire article without putting the balanced perspective of positive reviews Ms. Flack has received over the decades, as well. The vast majority of critics hold Ms. Flack in very high regard, and this negative, mean-spirited section "as is" has no business being part of a supposedly unbiased, fact-based encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.165.126 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The information seems backed up by some reliable sources. I recommend starting a discussion on the article's talk page. JellyMan9001 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Epoch Times
Hello what page can we discuss the article on the Epoch Times. I am still new to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFerrell007 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)