User talk:Dougcweho

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! You may have missed the mark with some of your assumptions, but I appreciate the enthusiasm and concern you bring here, and hope that you will continue to be actively involved in never-ending effort to improve Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Don't get discouraged
It's good to see you coming at things with such enthusiasm. I'm placing a prediction here: you're going to trip over some things in your first few edits. Almost everyone does, particularly those who come ready to right an injustice. Just for example, if you were to describe an anti-same-sex-marriage group as against equal rights for LGBT individuals, you're apt to find people quickly reverting your statements as having a POV (point of view)... and they'd be right. The group can be neutrally described as against equal rights for same-sex couples, but each individual has the same right as hetero individuals: to marry an appropriately-aged non-relative of the opposite sex. Yes, to you and I this may be clearly discrimination, but that arises from us having points of view. We see the truth, but Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiable data. Now if you can find CNN and FoxNews saying that the group is against equal rights for LGBT individuals - well then you have WP:reliable sources, and there's a good chance you'll be able to get that phrasing in. That can be frustrating at first, but one thing I've come to believe in the world is that if you want ot convince people of something who are not already on your side, you don't want it to look like a biased screed. A clear, simple, factual, verifiable picture will have the impact that painting a Hitler mustache on someone will not. People are used to partisan shriekiness, and if you can show them that a clear, calm picture varies from what they've been hearing from the screech factories, they will pay attention. Of course, I could be wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi SineBot - I have been doing that, but it isn't making a link, only giving a signature and giving time/date. I may have to adjust my settings.

Welcome!
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

userboxes
Rather than me telling you how to add userboxes, the best thing for you to do is to go over to my user page and open it for editing - the user box stuff is at the very top of the page, and you can copy and paste it into your own user page. That way, you see how it's done - it's simple and obvious. And assuming that you don't share the exact same interests as I have, you should head over to WP:Userboxes where you will find lists of categories of userboxes to dive into. You might find more complicated and trickier userbox displays on other people's pages, and again, if you want to copy them, just open up their user page and copy their code. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks a million--DCX (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Maggie
I'd forgotten that Maggie Gallagher was semi-protected. What this means is that only editors with a certain amount of history (in terms of length of time on Wikipedia and number of edits) can edit her article -- this is generally done on articles that attract a lot of vandalism or aggressive editing against existing consensus (you should see what a fight we have to put up on marriage whenever the semi-protection there is dropped). As such, your options are: Obviously, the last option is the best, so go do some wikigood! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Added to note: if you want to see if you're now eligible to edit Maggie, click the My Preferences tab at the top of the page. If the list of groups that you're in includes "Autoconfirmed users", you're good to go! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I have been editing other places, notably "Macaron", "Macaroon" and "Racism in the LGBT community".--DCX (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait until June 2, when the semi-protection on that page is scheduled to be dropped, or
 * Get someone to do your edits for you, or
 * Go do some editing elsewhere. I suspect only edits in article space (i.e., not on talk pages, user pages, etc.) count. You only need to have an account for 4 days and have 10 edits to be eligible to edit semi-protected pages. If you don't have anything to edit, click the Recent Changes or Random Article links and start reading things at random; believe me, you'll quickly find grammar, spelling, or other errors, or things that could use some more wikilinks. Ten edits is the number to go for.


 * I didn't think I'd have to voice concern that you were too gentle on Maggie.... but if you're going to have a section labeled "Controversies", you ought to have some sign that the events were controversial - show some criticism, some fallout, some such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it, but want to get my facts correct, i's dotted and t's crossed before hastily posting something that could be construed a POV or was not factual with sources.--DCX (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Putnam Park
disambiguation page created. NtheP (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks again!DCX (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * my pleasure. you'll soon get the hang of it :-) NtheP (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

traditional marriage
Doug: You may want to be careful when weilding the term "traditional marriage", as it is usually POV; when used, it is generally used to invoke certain aspects of the tradition (exclusively mixed-sex, exclusively two-people -- although there is certainly reason to question the latter as tradition) and not other aspects (male ownership of woman, license to rape, female subservience). So it can be fine to describe how someone positions themselves (The candidate describes herself as being "for traditional families and against caffeinated root beer") but less as an actual descriptor of position (The candidate supports traditional marriage) and absolutely deadly in the negative (The LetLezLoveLink organization opposes traditional marriage). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

I know what you mean. Should I use "heterosexual marriage" instead? --DCX (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say "heterosexual marriage" in some cases (as something one is working to shore up), and "exclusively two-person heterosexual marriage" (as the limits one looks to set, although it actually isn't a precise banning of polygamy, it will be read as such), with phrasing to be adjusted when it's integrated. I've tried to use the term "mixed-sex marriage" (so you don't get into people reading "heterosexual marriage" as meaning "marriage of heterosexuals"), but it tends to get you weird looks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

this is a scrap heap
American

opponents of LGBT rights LINK

opponents of same sex marriage LINK

LGBT rights opposition CATEGORY

Category:Hate groups

MG views on ssm 1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way. 2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage. 3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way. 4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married). 5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

views on sodomy laws- "Decisions about how to regulate sexuality should be governed by the normal democratic process, not by the weird values of people who go to law school." the idea of criminalizing private sexual conduct “troubling,”

Your user page
Psssst.... "ideology" has no "a" in it. Also, you may want to look into WP:SUBPAGES; it's a better way to set up work-in-progress editing space than using your talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * heh, heh...lol--DCX (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My email is easy - my first name @ my last name dot com. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories and conflict
Hi Dougcweho,

I see that a category you added is being challenged. Having stepped into enough hornets' nests of late, I'm staying well clear for now of anything that exudes faint buzzing sounds. Still, I see you're new here and was wondering if you were aware of some parallel discussions that took place over the past several months—here, here, and here, for instance. There's plenty of nuance in such topics, and certainly there's room for compromise in how Wikipedia handles the controversies they inspire. Unfortunately, some editors seem intent on banishing even the hint of any potentially negative imputations, no matter how well sourced, from articles involving groups and individuals who have made public statements or pursued policies antithetical to equal rights for LGBT persons. I have found that arguing with such editors is generally futile, but I think your category could be a useful one and I wish you the best in maintaining it. Maybe something in the previous discussion could be helpful to you. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rivertorch,

Thanks for your advice and comments. I have looked at those and it is useful. I have categorized the Westboro Baptists as "Opposes LGBT Rights" which seems like a tremendous understatement. Please also note he is already categorized as "anti-Catholic" and "anti-semitic" but no mention of his views on LGBT in the category section. I totally understand your reluctance to step in and I appreciate your support. DCX--DCX (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear about Canvasing
I know you're new here and I don't think this is the result of any ill-intent but most folks just let people who were involved in the discussion on the category/page and a wikiproject or two that it is up for review. - Schrandit (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand and appreciate your message about no ill intent. --DCX (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Indentation of your comments
Hi Dougcweho,

Recently, I made a change that affected the indentation of your comments.

Generally, it is against policy (WP:TPO) for me to make a change to other user's comments, but I hope you agree that fixing indentation levels in this case is an exception. If not, you can easily undo my change by doing the following:
 * 1) Click on the link that resides behind the words, "a change", above.
 * 2) Click the (undo) button on the right side of the "Differences between revisions" page.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * no problem!--DCX (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy laws
Howdy, not trying to be provocative by including that in the list of main articles just trying to provide a link to an article with more information. If you take a peak at the page Sodomy laws it does a pretty good job of laying out how things stand legally around the world. I understand the term "sodomy" doesn't have the greatest connotations in the world and maybe it can be changed so it doesn't read that way. What are your thoughts? - Schrandit (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * there is already a link to sodomy laws about 3 sentences in so double linking seemed redundant.--DCX (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rodger, by putting it up top we would be identifying it as a place where the issue is examined in depth, and that this paragraph is just trying to provide a quick outline. I can understand just leaving it in the body of the paragraph.  Do you think Sexual orientation and military service has a place on the top of the section, as a main article? - Schrandit (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also linked in the first paragraph. The LGBT rights link already includes information about sodomy laws and military service--DCX (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see it referenced later on, I still think there might be utility in listing it up front. At present, the article explaining LGBT right, perhaps refelcting the complex nature of the issue, is bloody awful.  It is mostly an uninteligible list.  Many other sections in the Human Rights article claim most that one principle article, water rights has two, the section on cultural relativism has three and so one.  I fear if readers want to find out more regarding, say, homosexuals in the military, the article "LBGT rights" alone will leave them at a loss. - Schrandit (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sodomy Laws and Homosexuals in the military are important to the framework of the discussion, however putting them at the top of article suggests that they are the only issues of value and other issues are periphery in comparison, unless we put every single LGBT issue on the top, it seems best to leave one umbrella topic and links to the individual issues in the article.

The LGBT rights article may be confusing at first, but it is accurate and well researched and is easy to understand for someone not American or who English isn't a first language. It also shows a global perspective with most every country in the world's position.--DCX (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there in, I presume, WeHo! I missed your April messages because I wasn't hanging around Wikipedia for a bit. So I saw your request a bit late to be of any help. On the whole, I've decided not to bother too much about categories - they're not useful, and they're nothing but endless drama. I do try and see that article content is not as one-sided as it usually is, when possible! - Outerlimits (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anal sex -- Don't accuse me of anti-gay mess
Stay off my talk page if you are going to accuse me of such silliness!! One only needs to look at my many contributions to this site to see that I am far from anti-gay. And go read my latest response on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CAUSE and EFFECT - If you hadn't made such a rude comment towards me,, I would not have felt the need to. Everyone says they are not anti-gay. Maggie Gallagher, The Pope, Bryan Fischer- But while actions speak louder than words, WORDS speak as loudly sometimes.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE DON'T OBFUSCATE IT! DCX (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you take the comment that plenty of gay men are not into anal sex to be a rude comment speaks volume. Continued at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * YES, I do take the comment to be anti-gay and pejorative. You used it in a way and in a circumstance where that was your intention. You intended to be insulting. You intended to insult me, specifically for being a gay man. You further intended to make a moral judgement on me in an effort to "shut me down" by implying that I was offended that "so many gay men" were not into anal sex. Your implication was that I must be bitter from being rejected by so many gay men who rejected my advances presumably for anal sex. DCX (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FURTHER the fact that you deleted it from your talk page instead of skillfully objecting or defending your position indicates that you know I am right. I do not delete comments from my Talk Page because I am fully aware that I make mistakes and that misunderstandings occur. DCX (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all accounts. And nothing will get through to you. I deleted it from my talk page because it was silliness, pure and simple. You don't delete things from your talk page. But plenty of us Wikipedia editors do! Especially when we consider things to be complete and utter bullshit. You don't know me!! Yet you act like you do. I don't have to defend myself to you. You don't know what my damn sexual orientation is to be stating that I am anti-gay. Yeah, I am so anti-gay that I made an Anatomy and stimulation section mostly documenting pleasure during anal sex. Ooh, that's real anti-gay. But keep on assuming. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't delete your very juvenile obscenities and profanities. I dont attempt to rewrite things as seems to be the trend on Wikipedia these days. Your sexuality is not relevant. Your words are relevant.DCX (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as juvenile have been your actions toward me. I'm not sure what you mean about rewriting. All of my talk page discussions are archived. I only revert message which I consider taunting. Not actual discussions. And if my sexual orientation were irrelevant, you would not make comments such as "Ask an actual gay man." Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks - this discussion is not productive. You're not heading toward a shared understanding, you seem to be responding at this point more because responding is what one does. I suggest ending this conversation simply by not posting to it any more; it will likely add to the calmness for both of you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
Hi Doug. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Dougcweho/subpage
User:Dougcweho/subpage, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dougcweho/subpage and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Dougcweho/subpage during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021 .--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)