Sellpink

Welcome...

Hello, Sellpink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Howicus (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Howicus (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jim O'Rear

I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no reason whatsoever to delete the second second to the talk page as factually shows that both citations for O'Rear's professed involvement in the film 'Day of The Dead' were both self penned by the entry subject himself. Either you did not read the section or you chose to ignore it. I provided specific information that both sources are not valid. Why don't you address editor about the three revert rule? I have restored the section in question to the talk page as their was no reason to be deleted in the first place. (Sellpink (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC))

WIKI POLICY POINTS ON VANDALISM STATE:

On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. SELLPINK's edits on the Jim O'Rear page and talk sections contained libelous material clearly showing malicious intent on the users part, as well as the fact that the only content he has edited on Wiki has been that particular page. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

ALLEGATIONS OF VANDALISM

WIKI POLICY POINTS ON VANDALISM STATE:

On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. SELL PINKs edits on the Jim O'Rear page and talk sections contained libelous material clearly showing malicious intent on their part, as well as the fact that the only content SELLPINK has edited on Wiki has been that particular page. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTICE OF EDIT WARRING BOARD DISCUSSION

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sellpink, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sellpink! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chic Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sellpink. You have new messages at Reddogsix's talk page.
Message added 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

reddogsix (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Streiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Russo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Streiner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Streiner 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Streiner 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. reddogsix (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I notice that

you put a citation needed tag at Wild Man Fischer. Did you try to find a citation for this, because this is how wikipedia works. I looked and found a couple in about 3 minutes. Remember (opinion) wikipedia is not "other people", it is you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! (Sellpink (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sellpink. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Gillian Anderson

Hello Sellpink. Please add to the discussion at Talk:Gillian Anderson#"American" or "American-British". Attempting to have the discussion through edit summaries is not ideal. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Revenge of Frankenstein

My apologies for the incorrect category I added. I don't actually remember adding that but it was obviously wrong. Walkingtalkingmammal (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work, especially on the Veronica Lake page.. Quis separabit? 02:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sellpink. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sellpink. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sellpink. You have new messages at FlightTime's talk page.
Message added 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- FlightTime (open channel) 10:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Child's Play (2019 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. The use of "of the same name" has already been discussed on the talk page, and consensus was against using the word "title". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The proper term in the overwhelming number of entries similar to this would be "title" not "name." Because a simple majority stated "name" was acceptable months ago you have continued to used that as justification to revert the term to "name" at every given opportunity. You need to stop edit warring and acting as if you own the page. If the term "title" is proper, correct and the much more common term in this case, what is your particular issue with it? (Sellpink (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC))

It is not "much more common", as others explained to you on the talk page. Continue the discussion there if you want, but stop the long-term stop edit warring. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Child's Play (2019 film), you may be blocked from editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Child's Play (2019 film), you may be blocked from editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sellpink, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 2601:543:4380:3A10:505B:6B5C:4112:42D8 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have another user (Wallyfromdilbert) threatening to block me from a page because he says that my changing the term "name of the movie" to "title of the movie" is "disruptive editing." He seems to be markedly obsessive-compulsive in the insistence of this and I don't believe he is able to assume good faith on my part because of this. I am requesting some clarification in the policy regarding this. He seems to make no sense and beyond claiming my edits are "disruptive" he has yet to cite any examples of what specifically was "disruptive" in "saying "title" instead of "name." Can we have some form of outside moderation and avoid an edit war? He also contends that I have multiple accounts which is not true at all, so I have ZERO clue about what he is talking about! Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

• I don't see how this requires the intervention of a single administrator. If you have a problem with Wallyfromdilbert's conduct, you can take it to WP:ANI, but your conduct will also be scrutinized.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Child's Play (2019 film), you may be blocked from editing. There is even a whole talk page discussion, in which every other participant disagreed with you. Your repeatedly changing content to your preferred version for no valid reason when every other person disagrees with you is disruptive and needs to stop. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Final warning - personal attacks

The current ANI discussion may or may not result in you being blocked for violating our policy on personal attacks. Either way, I'm writing this to let you know that if you ever attack another editor like that, especially in such blatant, unconstructive terms, your account will receive a block. The way you've interacted with that editor is extreme and not even close to acceptable. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jane Merrow

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jane Merrow, 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. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize Toddy1. I won't repost it until I source the information. Incidentally, she states that her father is a German Jewish on her official website but I will re-poat with proper sources later. (Sellpink (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC))

The page of her website that you cited is a good primary source. I did a bit of tidying up after your edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

You've been reverted. You removed sources that specifically claim he is Jewish, and entered your own opinion. That is not allowed here. See WP:OR for why. You can start a discussion on the talk page if you like, but don't remove that info again, as that would be seen as disruption, as this is already a well established fact that has already been discussed in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not enter an "opinion." Smollett is not Jewish through being born to a Jewish mother nor is there any evidence he underwent a conversion. That's not an opinion. The "source" mistakingly referred to him as Jewish and offered no further details or evidence. It was a passing comment. He would be an American of Jewish ancestry but not Jewish. He isn't Jewish by the established an accepted definition. He should not be referred to as Jewish as he is not. Sellpink (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is only a citation that his father is Jewish. There is no valid citation that he is Jewish. Outside of being noted as being of Jewish descent,the categories that refer to him as a "Jewish actor" for example should be removed as they are not factual. Are you knowledgeable about Judaism? Sellpink (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Two years after the incident that led to his conviction, the Times of Israel called him Jewish. The Times of Israel is a reliable source. A random anonymous Wikipedia editor expressing an opinion is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Randon, anonymous"??? You don't see my username? They called him that in passing. They referred to George Santos like that initially too. This is not a biographical entry. I'm sure if we scour the internet we can find all sorts of passing references to people being Jewish. (Sellpink (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC))

Since there was NO SOURCE contending that Jessie Smollet was Jewish in the first place, why were my edits removing the items reverted. That makes no sense. (Sellpink (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC))

Again, there was NO CITATION in the article that Smollett himself is Jewish. His father was Jewish and that is cited, so I obviously could not have removed sources that weren't there in the first place. Secondly, when I defined Judaism as having to be born of a Jewish mother or having a conversion you said that was my "personal opinion". So, if I said Paris is the capital of France I'm guessing you'd say that was my "opinion." There is no citation for Smollett being Jewish. Some dullard mentioned that The Times of Israel referred to him in passing as Jewish but that doesn't constitute a valid citation. Are we pretending that periodicals never make misstatements or get facts wrong? Is that what you are seriously suggesting? If he's Jewish then his mother either converted before his birth or he converted sometime in his life. There's nothing about that anywhere. So if you "know how this works" then just how is he Jewish? A number of publications at the time called him "Jewish" but, again they are merely repeating what he's self-identified as. So if he's Jewish Dennis, why don't you provide a valid citation showing that his mother converted before birth or he did later. A newspaper merely calling him Jewish briefly in passing without any explanation or context is not a valid ciation. Sellpink (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

He is Jewish by ethnicity only. Not a Jew per se(Sellpink (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC))

Reform Judaism which represents millions of Jews worldwide recognizes patrilineal descent. It is not the job of individual Wikipedia editors to determine who is and who is not a Jew. We leave that assessment solely to reliable published sources writing about the person. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a Reform Jew and you have that definition a bit mixed up and very oversimplified. If a child of a Jewish father was raised Jewish a Reform Rabbi will generally accept that. However, unless someone like Jussie had been raised Jewish, it's not an automatic thing. More than likely Jussie would have to convert unless the Rabbi decided otherwise. Just having a Jewish father isn't going to get you automatic acceptance in a community. I always find it hilarious when Gentiles try to explain our religion to us. I surmise that neither you Dennis know much or anything about Judaism. In fact, I bet you were doing a search to hope to find something to prove me wrong. Good luck with that. Stop pretending you have any knowledge on the subject. You clearly do not. (Sellpink (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC))

Let me put this delicately: We don't care. We aren't here to argue over the different types of Judaism, it doesn't matter for our purposes. We've linked the relevant policies. The SOURCES say he is, and we only echo the sources. Period. We are not interested in the Truth®, we are interested in documenting what reliable sources say about things. You sound like you have an ax to grind on who is and isn't "Jewish enough" by your standards, and friend, this is NOT a good place to be an edit warrior, as you will get blocked for it here. Once you've been reverted in good faith, you use the talk page of the article and build a consensus for your changes, or accept that the consensus is against you. You don't keep reverting back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me be equally clear! There was/is no ciation on the page at all indicating that Jussie Smollett is Jewish. There was/is no mention of him being Jewish, so my deleting those categories was perfectly permissible by Wikipedia standards. So if nobody was actually contending that he was Jewish in the first place, why did you revert my edits. I never mentioned "my standards" so stop trying to be clever. (Sellpink (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC))

If I was in any way impolite to you in our earlier interactions, I apologize. Sellpink (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, the Jerusalem Post describes Smollett as a "Black Jewish actor", and that article is cited in our article. Your definition of "Jewish" and that publication's are clearly at odds, and frankly, I have more confidence in the JP. See the warning concerning edit warring (the only one you will receive before I report you if you continue) below. General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't cited in reference to him but his father. Maybe you might want to actually read the article before you continue making mistatements. (Sellpink (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC))

You should report yourself for not knowing what you're babbling about! Sellpink (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now I'm wondering if you are just being dishonest. On my talk page, I pointed out the exact citation, the ONE YOU REMOVED, claimed he was, IN THE TITLE. That is more than enough to demonstrate they made the claim, but you went so far as to remove the very source that made the claim, that you said didn't exist. Very convenient. Now at this point, I'm done. I don't care what religion he is, I only care about people removing sources then making claims contrary. If you revert again, you will be blocked. It's that simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The article never mentions him being Jewish! Only his father. Read it! Sellpink (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's that simple as are you! Sellpink (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that Jussie Smollett is Jewish? Please point that out to me! If it's not in the body of the article, why can't those categories be removed. Please actually answer. Sellpink (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only am I a Jew who was converted by a Conservative bet din 25 years ago after several years of serious study of Judaism but I later served as the president of the board of trustees of a well-established synagogue for two years. So, your assumption of who I am and what I know is false.

But that is secondary to the main point. The Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel both call him Jewish, and the second source ran an article well over two years after the scandal started, after that paper had run several previous stories, and it was signed by two reporters. It is absolutely forbidden for an individual Wikipedia editors to reject what reliable sources say. If you can find reliable, published sources that say that he is not Jewish, then there is a basis for further discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article does it actually say Jussie Smollett is Jewish to begin with? How come you haven't answered that? My assumption that you weren't Jewish was based on your misstatement of Reform procedure, which was not accurate. The article does not even claim that Smollett was Jewish, not once and offers NO CITAION WHATSOEVER that he is, but yet categories describing him as such. Everyime I mention this, I am threatened with being thrown off or told that this is my "opinion." Sellpink (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The title of the one article clearly states this, and this is the third or fourth time I've explained this. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it has been clearly established through this discussion that there is no consensus that the categories should be removed, and there is a consensus here that they shouldn't. We don't need to prove to you that the consensus is correct, only that it exists. Stop. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post

• Empire star Jussie Smollett arrested, removed from final two episodes 24 Feb 2019 and Empire star Jussie Smollett faked attack due to dissatisfactory paycheck 24 Feb 2019
  • Picture caption: Black Jewish actor Jussie Smollett was assaulted in Chicago on Tuesday night
  • Article text: The Jewish actor apparently "took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career," according to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.
• Empire cast members call for Jussie Smollett to return for next season 26 Apr 2019
  • Picture caption: Black Jewish actor Jussie Smollett was assaulted in Chicago on Tuesday night
  • Article text: Smollett was born to a Jewish father and African-American mother.
• Jussie Smollett appears on stage days after apparent hate crime attack 24 Feb 2019
  • Picture caption: Black Jewish actor Jussie Smollett was assaulted in Chicago on Tuesday night
  • Article text: Smollet, who is black, gay and Jewish, took the stage Saturday night at the Troubadour in West Hollywood in his first public appearance since the Tuesday night attack in Chicago.
  • Article text: Smollett, the son of a Jewish father and African-American mother, was exiting a restaurant when two men approached him.
• Actor Jussie Smollett indicted on 16-count felony indictment by grand jury 9 March 2019
  • Article text: The Jewish actor apparently "took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career," according to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.

There is an argument that newspaper article titles and picture captions are not written by author of the article, and may not be a reliable source. But it is clear that at least three articles in The Jerusalem Post say that Smollett is Jewish in the article text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

These articles in Jpost on refer to Smollett as "Jewish" in passing without any further elaboration. Many of them only mention him as "Jewish" in the headline/blurb and the later articles regarding him on Jpost completely omit any mentione of his alleged Judaism and refer to him simply as "black and gay." In all likelyhood Jpost was either just copying that term from other accounts. Are we to actually believe that Jpost has some inside information about Smollett that is absent anywhere else. If the fact that he's mentioned in passing as Jewish is sufficient to cite as a source then it's very flimsy. There seems to be no account of Smollett being raised Jewish, nor any article where he claims to be Jewish. His sister did refer to herself as "Blewish: meaning black and Jewish and stated that her family celebrated Jewish and Christian holidays. Predicating the verifiability of a factual contention on passing references without further detail wouldn't be accepted in most periodicals. Nothing in these articles mention Smollett being raised Jewish nor do they feature any input or comment from him. Again, I would imagine these citations could be easily challenged. This "reliable source" seems wafer-thin. If Smollett is actually Jewish, I would think that evidence of this would be readily accessible and it isn't. Sellpink (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is a mere "passing mention" in an article that deals with his legal issues really a "reliable source"? Are we to believe that the writer(s) of the article verified that Smollett is Jewish? Who would consider this evidence of anything in any other context? Sellpink (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sellpink, there used to be a sort-of joke about the English and the tennis player Andy Murray. Essentially if Murray was doing well in big tournaments, the English said that Murray was British, and if he was getting beaten in the early rounds, the English said that Murray was Scottish. The same thing applies here: when Smollett became an embarrassment, it stopped being desirable for the Jerusalem Post to say that Smollett was a Jew. If Smollett wins an Oscar, he will become one of their own again, and they will tell readers that Smollett is a Jew.

If you want to continue to dispute that Smollett is a Jew, then you need reliable sources that explicitly say that he is not a Jew. Without such sources, you are merely banging your head against a wall. Admins may even block you - race is a sensitive topic area.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"Again"?? Well, he won't become one of us if he ever wins an Oscar (which is incredibly unlikely but who can say) because all indications are that he isn't one of us to begin with. There is absolutely no evidence that he is. If a mere passing mention of his being Jewish in an artcle otherwise unrelated to his religion is considered a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, then that's an indication that Wikipedia is fatally flawed. In no other context would this be considered proof of anything. Can the verifiability of the source be challenged under Wikipeida policy? The Jpost articles as sources are jokes. Absolute jokes! He was not raised Jewish. He did not convert. As far as can be determined he has never publicly declared himself to be Jewish but because a Jpost article about his crimes refers to him in passing it's a "reliable source"? Sellpink (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And I'm not making any further edits or revisions to his page unless and until I find verifiable information that he's not. When and if I do, I'd likely discuss it on the talk page first rather than give someone eager and excuse to block me. Sellpink (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I just found a Jpost story that refers to the Roman Catholic actress Lea Michele as a "Jewish actress." Her father is Jewish but only attends Catholic Mass and Michele has never converted, attended synagouge and was baptized a Roman Catholic. Jpost is either not engaging in due dilligence here or are referring to her (and perhaps Smollett) as "Jewish" in terms of ethnicity. Lea Michelle and Jussie Smollett are both Jewish ethnically from their father but aren't Jewish otherwise. I can't find an instance anywhere else on Wikipedia where the child of a Jewish father who did not convert or, at the very least, self declare as Jewish being catergorized as anything other than being of Jewish descent. There was NO mention of Smollett being Jewish in the text of the article until my edits and then the only citation was one of the passing mentions in an article. Now given the Lea Michele article https://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-features/lea-michele-asks-for-privacy-after-boyfriend-cory-monteiths-death-319980 It's evident that Jpost regularly refers to people who are only Jewish ethnically as "Jewish." I admit being woefully ignorant of Wiki policy and have requested help with that but I can't see reasonably how such a casual aside in an article would be viewed as a valid source, especially given that it's unclear in what context they mean "Jewish" (if they mean it as his ethnicity then that's correct. His father was verifiably Jewish but there's no truely solid sources. If the Jpost article qualifies as a valid source, it must just barely. In any other context such a casual refernce in an article unrelated to his overall biography would never be accepted as a valid citation. If the citation is valid by Wikipedia standards then so be it but it doesn't make any sense. Sellpink (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Werner Goldberg is in Category:Jewish military personnel and Category:Jewish collaborators with Nazi Germany. The latter is unfair, because it implicitly accepts the idiotic view that one cannot be Jewish and German. One meaning of the word "collaborator" is a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy, but Werner Goldberg was German; being German he served in his country's armed forces in war; he was not a traitor. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole "who is Jewish" conversation is such a complex one and almost exclusive to the diaspora. It seems like editors come into this with their preconceived notion about who or who isn't Jewish. It's such a complicated matter at times. Sellpink (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I will read the entry. Sellpink (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right, "editors come into this with their preconceived notion about who or who isn't Jewish" which is why policy forbids using our own judgement, and forces us only to consider the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Judaism is defined as having been born to a Jewish mother or having a conversion. How is that my opinion, Dennis? Sellpink (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that that is how you define Judaism. That is far from the only definition. See Who is a Jew?. General Ization ^Talk 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. It's not the only definition but it's overwhelmingly the most widely accepted definition wouldn't you agree on that? I will read the article in full. Sellpink (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I would not agree on that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You wouldn't? Then what would be the most widely accepted definition of Judaism today then Toddy? Sellpink (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The question you asked was whether other people agreed that the definition you prefer was overwhelmingly the most widely accepted definition. I answered. I hope other people will also answer. Note the word "overwhelmingly" - if 90% of people accept your definition, it is overwhelmingly, if some other definitions are nearly as popular, then it is not overwhelmingly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then I would contend that in any case it is the most widely accepted definition. Sellpink (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You might be missing the bigger point here. Whether or not Jussie is Jewish isn't actually very interesting to me. That isn't the point. The point is, we have to follow what the sources say, and if the sources say he is Jewish, then we don't proclaim him Jewish, we just echo what the sources say. THAT is what I care about, reporting what the sources say. If there are confliscting sources that say he is not Jewish, then by all means, present them on the talk page, and let a consensus form as to how to handle it. Leave it out, add a section saying sources conflict, whatever. But when the sources are all saying nothing or saying he is Jewish, policy says that is what we include in the article. Again, we don't "decide" if he is Jewish enough to be called Jewish. No encyclopedia worth it's salt does. We just summarize what secondary sources have said about him, without using any of our own "original research" or bias. We have a great number of policies AGAINST adding your own experiences, bias or research, in fact. So if you disagree with him being Jewish, fine, no problem. But it is up to YOU to find the secondary sources that support your position by explicitely saying he is NOT Jewish. Providing proof of what is and isn't Jewish and applying it to him is strickly forbidden here, under WP:SYNTH. The sources must say he is NOT Jewish. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am looking into it and if I do find anything verifiable that contends that he is not Jewish, I will note that and include the relevant links on the talk page so that consensus can develop. I appreciate your comments and that you took the time to give me some direction. Thank you. Sellpink (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Your recent editing history at Jussie Smollett 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I will not revert any content on that page. If I find evidence from a verifiable source I will post that link on the Talk Page and let the community build concencus that it's a valid source or not. Should they determine it's not valid, I will accept that obviously. Sellpink (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Sellpink. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Personal attacks such as this are unacceptable here. General Ization ^Talk 00:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're automatically assumming bad faith with me and threatening me with a block. Perhaps offering constructive criticism or guidance would have been more helpful. There were no "personal attacks." Sellpink (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not threatening you with a block for "bad faith"; I am warning you (a form of constructive criticism and guidance) that you will blocked if you again violate our policy against personal attacks directed to other editors. Saying to another editor that they are "simple" (i.e., intellectually challenged) will correctly be perceived as a personal attack. General Ization ^Talk 22:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)