Talk:John Aravosis

message: Perhaps future deletions of whole paragraphs at a time cane by accompanied by explanation? Bds yahoo 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You "have sources for all of this" yet you chose to write your wiki entry and not cite the sources.  Nice.  That's because this is a revenge post.  You continue to only present one side of a rather weak story since you were personally upset with Aravosis and now want revenge. Again, that's not the reason people edit wikis, for revenge.  It's for facts.  You claim that Aravosis doesn't support "other causes" on his blog, then you get into a dispute over word choice.  That's a non sequitor.  That blog routinely posts about women's issues (just this week about cervical cancer vaccine in trouble), about African-Americans, has been all over the Latino immigration issue (including covering the pro-Latino protests live with photos), on environmental issues, on civil rights issues across the board, against guns, against the religious right, and so on.  But because you didn't like one phrase in a title you think you can post a "criticism" accusing someone of not being good on other progressive causes - that's a lie, and you're not going to use wiki to lie in order to push your revenge.
:Excuse me, are you insane? All the sources are clearly linked every every sentence (sometimes every phrase) I wrote on the page.
:And please, follow wikipedia protocol and sign your talk page comments. Bds yahoo 23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because ppmana's most recent edits removed all of my citations (a total abuse of editing) in order to make my additions look unsourced, I am reverting to the last edit prior to his barrage of edits. I also recommend he be banned. Bds yahoo 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more unsubstantiated claims 

message: I just re-read your post, now you're asking that I be banned?  Check the history, contrary to what you're claiming, I didn't touch a single of your footnotes or your sentences or anything else you wrote - even though you'll note that a third party warned that you were creating a "weasel word" criticism about this blogger. 
As the history shows, I simply added additional paragraphs to the top of the bio, with citations, and added additional information about the incident you decided to write about.  Again, anyone reading this can check the history - your text is still in this bio, I simply added more information to balance your attack on this blogger.  There is most certainly nothing wrong with that.  You, on the other hand, deleted half the bio with footnotes.
And as for banning, you are here to launch some revenge attack on a blogger that angered you yesterday.  That's hardly an appropriate reason to add content to someone's wiki.  If you are going to post personal attacks, unsubstantiated, on here then you should expect other people to add more facts to the story.  That is not counter to Wiki's purpose, it is Wiki's purpose. PPmana 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What citations are you talking about? 

message: It is a lie to claim that criticism by Shakespeare's Sister is irrelevant because the Shakespeare's Sister blog is not "authoriatative." As this chart, courtesy Alexa, shows, Shakespeare's Sister is actually a MUCH more widely visited blog than Americablog. To claim that it is a two-days-old blog with very little traffic, even if that were enough to invalidate its criticisms (which it isn't), is simply to lie. Bds yahoo 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what you just wrote is incorrect, per Alexa itself.  You didn't use the primary URL for Americablog - blogs hosted on blogger (aka blogspot) have their primary traffic registered via that domain, not their virtual domain.  When you use the correct blogspot address for Americablog (americablog.blogspot.com) you see  the real chart which shows quite clearly that Americablog (traffic rank 11,500) getting MUCH more traffic than Shakespeare's Sister (traffic rank 175,000).  Shakespeare's Sister is not a well known blog, you might as well link to every other blog out there that has an opinion on Aravosis or Americablog. PPmana 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop Deleting External Links

message: PPmana, I have not responded because it's an insane, conspiracy-theory-minded criticism of me to say I am linking to 'friends'! I thought it was most polite to let it go. These aren't my friends. I am a regular reader of Americablog who has seen the good and bad of this blog, and seen other controversies before. This was the first one where I felt the need to take the initiative to document the controversy on Wikipedia. This was not about 'revenge', and I honestly have to wonder why you are so certain that my motivations are personal; I have never accused you of being a friend of Aravosis, though possibly you are.  As you point out, I focussed rather intently on a single incident, but that's because I don't really want to research the other incidents and am leaving it to others to add that information if they choose. The nice thing about wiki is that it's a collaborative project, and I am not responsible for perfecting this article; I can leave it to you and others to do that. 
As for the 'authoritative' criticism, that doesn't really impress me because it's the same criticism that gets levelled all the time against Wikipedia itself, as well as blogs like Americablog.  If 'authoritative' means printed on dead trees and/or centralized editorial control, then I say you are operating under a pre-wiki, pre-blog mentality that fetishizes old media. 
With that, I am going to add to the links you added the one you deleted to Shakespeare's Sister. I'll leave the other one off, since it does get very few hits, admittedly. I don't mind links to negative articles being outnumbered by links to positive articles.  But let allow readers to know these sites exist, and let them decide for themselves whether they find them authoritative. Agreed? Bds yahoo 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zpyche, can you explain given your logic why you also deleted the link from the Americablog entry? If you are not being totally disingenuous, then you will allow me to restore it to Americablog, and leave it out on John Aravosis. OK? Bds yahoo 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bds yahoo, I responded on the Americablog talk page (see 16:42, 23 May 2006) zphyche 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, phyche. PPmana, I see you have made new changes with a brand new rationale--you are really something else! Anyway I happen to agree that it's pointless to have this criticism on both pages. Besides, it will be easier for me to be vigilant about vandalism on one rather than two pages. Bds yahoo 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '"And finally, you never responded to my 'proof' that the sites you're linking to in the links section are not authoritative, and in fact you're linking to friends to help them."

message: The language in this thing makes him sound like a hero--which is possible, and yet falls out of the realm of categories articles should assert upon their subjects. 
For example:
"Aravosis launched a one-man campaign..."
"Aravosis also took on the..."
"Aravosis single-handedly came to his defense.."
etc. 
A bit much, no? russ. 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Sounds a bit like a 'puff piece' in those areas. There's surely a way to state the facts without so much butter. MrEguy 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree with this sentiment.  This article is almost of questionable relevance separate from the article Americablog and perhaps the two should be merged.  This would give a better test of the content on this page, and perhaps give editors some guidance on what is relevant about Aravosis' personal biography in Wikipedia vs. the relevance of Americablog.  As it stands, this article is a bit of a puff piece.NYDCSP 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: npov, folks

message: A Washington Post article dated February 24, 2004 notes John's age as 40 (12th paragraph, two thirds way down the page) "Aravosis, 40, is president of Wired Strategies, an Internet consulting firm" verifying his year of birth to be 1963 and current age 43.
----MrEguy 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of Birth is 1963

message: I'm going to start a thread here for some discussion from my post above under NPOV (which I forgot to sign until today, sorry).  I really think this article suffers greatly from two major problems -- number one, it reads like a puff piece, almost glorifying its subject, rather than NPOV; and secondly, there is little to nothing in this article that is separately relevant from the article Americablog.  
On the first point, it appears to have been started as a very puffy piece, and has drawn critics as a result rather than improving edits.  On the second point, reading back through to the original content, I don't see anything that ever really justified this article being made separate from Americablog, since the content of this article, as well as the subject, appear to be one and the same.  (btw, anticipating criticism: It's not "anti-blog" to argue that a one-man blog and its author are arguably one and the same, unless it is done under a 'character' pen name that deviates or is otherwise distinguished from the author's true identity and personality)
So, for the sake of editor discussion here, I'm going to propose this article be moved into Americablog and redundancies eliminated (as well as POV stylings).  Should substantial new content emerge separate from Americablog that would justify an article that is more than a stub on Mr. Aravosis, then I think we should re-mount a separate article on this subject.
I will add (given most of the discussion on this page) that I am not a reader of Americablog, nor an admirer or "hater" of the subject of this article.  I am just reading all this from the perspective of a WP editor.NYDCSP 17:28, 26 
January 2007 (UTC)
===Who Wrote this Thing???===
It's in need of some serious sourcing.  Tons of unsubstantiated stuff that simply doesn't pass the sniff test.  I counted five "single-handed" campaigns.  It may be true, but it has to be sourced by something.  It also sounds alot like an editorial more than an article. Matt Sanchez 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable relevance as a separate article

message: It's in need of some serious sourcing.  Tons of unsubstantiated stuff that simply doesn't pass the sniff test.  I counted five "single-handed" campaigns.  It may be true, but it has to be sourced by something.  It also sounds alot like an editorial more than an article. Matt Sanchez 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Wrote this Thing???

message: I removed a sentence which said that "Up until the launch of Dear Mary, the mainstream media largely refused to note that the vice president had an openly gay daughter, though after the campaign, Mary's lesbianism became widely known", because the page indicates that Dear Mary was launched in 2004. Actually, the fact that Mary Cheney is a lesbian had been mentioned in multiple mainstream news sources before 2004, including during the 2000 presidential campaign. See the New York Times, New York Daily News, USA Today, Time magazine, and San Francisco Chronicle, for example. These are not the only examples, just some of the more conveniently accessible ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable statement 

message: I'll make this simple for you Gamaliel .
Go to google " John Aravosis betrayal of transgendered community " . Find me someone who is neither a rightwing Christian or a straight looking gay man who feels that it wasn't betrayal.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=John+Aravosis+betrayal+of+transgendered+community&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Your whitewashing of what is an absolute fact  is dishonest. Aravosis is a public figure who uses his pulpit to push his POV and by excluding the response of the people he attacks there is no neutrality . Aravosis does not in any way represent the LGBT . DarlieB (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the neutrality dispute tag , you completely "altered the content " which you sad you didn't . Now I have removed the term "betrayal "  from the title so you can pretend it wasn't. I still want this arbitrated to reflect the actual facts and not your personal bias. DarlieB (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A dispute involving discussion would be welcome  , this doesn't .DarlieB (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, and for Gamaliel  , EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE ABOVE USES THE WORD "BETRAYAL" . Have a nice day.   DarlieB (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay that's quite enough of that.  Stop yelling at people until you review our policies, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL.  You are making something of an effort to make your edits more compliant, and that is important and we are grateful for that, but the rules regarding BLPs require us to remove this material until it is fully complaint.  Your version is unsourced (and that alone is unacceptable) but there are still problems regarding tone and neutrality.  At least you have backed off using the loaded word "betrayal" in the section header, though I see you haven't refrained from crowing about it here.  I don't know what kind of point you think you are making with your ALL CAPS SCREAMING immediately above, as I've explained to you multiple times about the difference between quoting someone saying "betrayal" (acceptable) and having Wikipedia declare something a "betrayal" (unacceptable).  While your efforts to improve your edits are commendable, your conduct is not, namely your incivility and your edit warring.  I must remove it again and insist that it stay removed until the problems with tone and neutrality are fixed to comply with policy fully.  I suggest you start by posting your preferred version of that section to the talk page (and NOT the article) and discuss with other editors how to improve your edits. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Tom (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring ? Tone ?  You rewrote it like Aravosis "helped the transgender community to realize how different they were from gay people "  when all he wanted was to kick them out . I altered the section on the third insertion , removed the word "betrayal" ,which apparently newspapers can use  but we cannot, removed anything that might be considered bias   and you still deleted it !  I complied.  Look , write whatever you want , you are an administrator and you can bully anyone you feel like . This section being  missing  in his biography   should have  told me  that it was useless and that no one would include it . DarlieB (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not rewrite anything, I merely reverted your edits.  If you had an issue with the existing section, you could have discussed it here.  Don't make it out like you are being bullied when you are screaming at the top of your lungs and leveling inaccurate accusations at everyone in sight. This page is for discussion, so why don't you stop complaining and start discussing the article?  Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yikes, this really is likely not that notable of an issue for this BLP, sorry DarlieB. Trans folks have been left at the curb nearly every step by nearly every LGBT group at one point or another. The ENDA was just a mess to begin with and a last ditch effort, IMHO, to get anything on the books. Why they though it would work is really beyond me but Frank is quite the genious a getting things done so I credit him for trying. I suggest working on the ENDA article itself if that's where your interest lies or pick other articles especially about people and subject you really enjoy. It will be a little bit more pleasant for you and you can get more familiar with how Wikipedia works while researching subjects that aren't as stressful.  -- Banjeboi 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Transgender comments section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Aravosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313102522/http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40643 to http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40643
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Aravosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050310100048/http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf to http://blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907162851/http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/27/16243/2951 to http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/2/27/16243/2951
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121044531/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-08.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0113-08.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified