User talk:Oz1981

Welcome!

Hi Oz1981! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Fahads1982 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A tip...

Hello, I'm Serge, an admin here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your interest and efforts to add to Wikipedia. That said, I've noticed you've been making some unnecessary edits, and want to explain things to you so you're not wasting your time.

You keep adding sources for release dates that already have a source. Please look over WP:LEAD. Because article intro paragraphs are supposed to summarize what is later covered and expanded upon in the body of the article, references don't need to be present in the intro when they're already present in the body. So, you'll want to check the article body - often "release" or similarly named sections - to see if it's already sourced. If it is, you don't need to be adding it to the intros.

Hopefully that makes sense. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I'll make sure not to make the mistake again.. 169.197.146.214 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Good intention but bad execution

I recently reversed your recent edit to the LGBT rights in the State of Palestine page. It put undue influence on the HRW (the same link is cited twice), and some random UN document (the link doesn't even work). The problem with citing the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights is that it is an abstract of this 49 page report. It would be better to cite that report, using Template:Cite report, rather than the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights. The Forbes article is by a Senior Contributor and as it says on WP:RSPSOURCES, "Most content on Forbes.com is written by Senior Contributors or Contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable," so using that link is not helpful, especially since it is only citing the view of ONE person (Asher Fergusson) for its information on its list (besides which, listicles are usually terrible and worthless articles, and this is no exception to that).

There are other word additions such as "it should be noted that sentiment towards LGBTQ in the Muslim world is largely negative" and "but isn't enforced in the west bank", among other changes, which aren't either in-line with the sources, or are unhelpful. Surely, there is negative sentiment toward LGBTQ people in the Muslim world as polls (if they can be fully believed) e and is indicated in the article already with the line "public opinion polls indicating low tolerance for homosexuality."

Furthermore, adding the words "This confusion can be demonstrated by the inconsistency in reporting on this subject" is a sentence contradicted by your addition "On the other hand, homosexuality was noted to be illegal, with a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment" (citing, again, sources which do NOT help in showing the lack of consensus over whether these laws apply, including an opinion piece (not helpful as a source), a Human Dignity Trust page already cited on the existing page, and a HRW page (I just added a better version of this content to the page, a HRW annex describing the organization's view of the law being in-force).

Your addition of lines like "in the past Israel did not allow work permits for these refugees, but this was changed in 2022 and today homosexual Palestinian refuges are allowed to work in Israel" sounds a lot like pinkwashing, which doesn't help users, especially since the Boxerman article is already cited, as is the O'Connor one, while the i24 news one has dubious notability. Adding the words "The Palestinian police has threatened to arrest anyone involved in the gathering, but following" doesn't help either.

Just thought I'd explain my reversal here in order to avoid a possible edit war. I would support adding the 49 page report as a source to the "Civil rights and government action" section. Historyday01 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your comments, I am still new so I appreciate the detailed letter.

I will improve the sources and the way they are cited. A few questions/notes:

1. Why is it bad to cite the same reference twice? Couldn't it be relevant for more then one point?
2. I did find contradictions regarding the laws regarding LGBT, but understand they way I bring it up was unnecessary confusing.
3. I don't understand your use of "pinkwashing". The article currently states "fled to Israel because of the hostility they face in Palestine, they are subject to house arrest, or deportation, by Israeli authorities on account of the in-applicability of the law of asylum to areas or nations in which Israel is in conflict." This may have been true in the past, but as my sources showed, is not the case today. Why are you leaving in something that's wrong? The Boxerman reference is mentioned in a different part of the page, as if unconnected to this issue..
4. Also, if the page mentions this shouldn't it mention other countries (including the neighboring ones) don't accept LGBT refugees?
5. What do you mean when you write " Adding the words "The Palestinian police has threatened to arrest anyone involved in the gathering, but following" doesn't help either." doesn't help with what? I read about the threats of arrest in many sources, how can it not be relevant for a page one LGBT rights?
6. I understand regarding the Forbes article, and appreciate the explanation, but isn't references 39 also problematic, as it is an opinion piece ("voices") in the Independent?

Thank you again for your comments, I will use them to do a better job in my future editing! Oz1981 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of #1, it isn't bad to cite a reference twice, it just has to be done the right way, by adding a "ref name". Like take the Primos (TV series) page as an example. The Deadline.com series announcement is cited many times, but to cite it that many times, a "ref name" is used --> [<]ref name="Announcement">Cordero, Rosy (November 3, 2021). "Disney Greenlights Animated Family Comedy 'Primos' From Natasha Kline". Deadline. Archived from the original on January 1, 2022. Retrieved November 3, 2021.</ref> I put the brackets around the first "<" to give an example here.

In terms of contradictions around laws, for #2, surely there are a lot when it comes to Palestine, but it needs to be done in a way that prevents confusion.

In terms of the Boxerman article (and #3), it is already cited, but in terms of the line "in the past Israel did not allow work permits for these refugees, but this was changed in 2022 and today homosexual Palestinian refuges are allowed to work in Israel", I think it would need to be re-written to make it more neutral, as people could easily takeaway from it that Israel now favors gay Palestinian refugees, and we should celebrate. From my understanding, the refugees have trouble. But, if I have time, I may try to incorporate it somehow, perhaps at the end of the "Civil rights and government action" section.

In terms of #4, I don't see an issue with mentioning other countries as a comparison, as long as it is put into the appropriate context.

In terms of #5, I think there is a lot about Palestinian police crackdowns already (so I just thought that the words "The Palestinian police has threatened to arrest anyone involved in the gathering, but following") would muddle what is going on too much, and I want to make this article as clear as possible.

In terms of #6, that makes more sense as it is a sentence about views of Palestinian activists (one of whom is part of Al Qaws), whereas the Forbes article was reportedly stating facts and only relying on the views of one person, from what I could tell.

I hope this helps. Happy editing! Historyday01 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Everyone here is really supportive :)

I took your comments into account, looked for more sources, re-read the ones on the page, and decided to move slower, editing only the "Civil rights and government action" section.

I think the legal issues require more research from me if I want to write about it without making it confusing..

Thank you again! Oz1981 (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. I did some editing on the page myself too. The legal issues are a bit confusing, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

My apology. When I saw the word "misspelled" it totally slipped my mind that it could be just a national difference in English. I will try to always make sure this is not the case before changing such a word again!

Thank you for letting me know! Oz1981 (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Happy editing, DMacks (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect (and check first!)

See my reversion explanation. Kingsif (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologizes, I didn't see that the info was already there. Seems weird to me the chronologically first screening is the last to be mentioned. I suppose maybe its because Japan is not considered as important a market for western films?

At any rate, I should have seen it was there, thank you for the correction! Oz1981 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The screening in Japan was not chronologically first. Kingsif (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I now realize my mistake.. not a smart one, but it happens..

Thank you for noticing and correcting me! Oz1981 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Oz1981. Thank you for your work on Chrysalis (band). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Where the Body Was has been accepted

Where the Body Was, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)