Talk:Daniel Vovak

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-03. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Position quotes

I've added position quotes to give readers a quick feel for the spirit of Vovak's campaign. All are quoted from the "Campaign Issues" section of his campaign website [1].

Think carefully about this article. Who is this person? What does he have to contribute beyond being an intermittently entertaining "character?" Does his having run for office actually make him a politician? What has the length of his personal journal to do with his status as a "prolific writer?" Just wondering. He's certainly free to advertise himself as he wishes. More power to him.

I guess.

12.161.34.172 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Self Created, Edited

This article was created and is continually edited by the subject, which is discouraged. Please see Wikipedia's autobiographical policy WP:Auto before editing pages, in order to conform to Wiki's WP:NPOV policy, a pillar of Wikipedia. (Keycap (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)).

This is an unsupported allegation. I live in NH and I wrote most of the article, and I'm certainly NOT the wig man. Suggest you go spend your time on dictionary.com learning how to spell "Pillar" rather than fabricating reasons to delete articles on people you are politically opposed to.... 75.67.83.165 (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no political feelings about Mr. Vovak one way or another, but considering that the page was created by a user named DanielVovak and has been continually edited with non-cited info that is of a personal nature, it was safe to guess that DanielVovak was actually the subject Daniel Vovak. I did not delete the article, and only removed the NPOV and information that did not seem relevant to the subject or that did not contain a reference. Also, forgive the typo, I copy and pasted the comment from another article that had an autobiography issue (since I didn't know what the proper tag was) and didn't properly proof the statement.(Keycap (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Keycap: Are you the man I met in Palm Beach, Florida who told people at our dinner table a story about when a seagull dropped its feces on your head? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be fair and don't appreciate the veiled insult. I have never met you nor have I voted for (or against you). I am just intersted in getting a fair article and have tried to show good faith regarding edits.Keycap (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Something must have motivated you to passionately make so many changes. Is it your friend (or associate) I speak of? I doubt it is a coincidence that I met a Kentucky horse breeder a couple days earlier and that your interests overlap.

No, I am just a political wonk who is also intersted in horse racing. I didn't passionately make changes, I removed what I believed were non-neutral or uncited references. I'm willing to take a break from editing to see what others think. I'm really trying to be fair here and have no agenda one-way-or another. (Keycap (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Your statement is not believable to not know the man I speak of, especially since you are in Kentucky horse breeding and he breeds horses in Kentucky. A fan of horses, you surely know how tight Kentucky is on that subject. A Wiki Editor kindly removed your Auto tag and allowed it even after my additional references. Regardless of your claim, I do thank you for inspiring me to find additional references to my background. As a "political wonk," maybe you are inspired. Daniel_Vovak —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very unproductive line of discussion, in fact, Wikipedia policy specifically asks that you do not out other editors should they have chosen not to reveal their real life information. When resolving issues, it helps to discuss the content you have a concern with instead of the contributors. The dispute resolution page goes in to detail about how to resolve issues on Wikipedia and might help with some suggestions if there are still concerns. Shell ^babelfish 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is taken and agreed. I am still rather new at Wikipedia, especially in regards to conflict resolution. Thank you for your advice. Daniel Vovak

I have never claimed to be (nor am I) a horse breeder. I do not own any horses, and I don't know where you got that idea. The point is that I have no agenda in this matter -- I am just interested in editing the content to make it a balanced article with relevant and sourced information. Wiki discourages sources to edit work that is about them (see WP:Auto).Keycap (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Further article cleanup

There are several sections that are referenced to vovak.politicalgateway.com; all of the links given there are dead and I was unable to find any reference to Vovak on the site or find these pages in the internet archive. These either need to be turned in to proper references or the material from it will need to be deleted.

Also, there is a section referenced to the Baltimore Sun with a dead link. Again, unless we can find the date, title etc, the information needs to be removed. It looks like that reference may be to a column-piece which is generally not considered to be a very reliable reference. Shell ^babelfish 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job with most of the changes, especially the rearrangement of references. However, the article in 3PNC cites Jesse Johnson, Gardner Goldsmith, and Linda LaMarche by name. In addition, other parties are mentioned, too: Mountain Party, Green Party, and Libertarian Party. Thus, shouldn't they all be included, else it seems there is political bias against smaller political parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be more appropriate if the article was on the 3PNC, but as a biography, it should limit itself to discussions of the subject. Shell ^babelfish 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense.Daniel_Vovak 3 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com link

Looking at the references linked to Daniel Vovak, it is quickly apparent that a high threshold is met. Recently, there has been a thorough vetting of this website. I welcome fact checking and referencing, though it does seem there has been a higher scrutiny of this page than many others on Wikipedia. Hopefully that begins a trend for other pages to also have more references. My link to Amazon.com was purely to prove that the book "Will You Run for President?" exists, and not to sell books through this page.DanielVovak (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my edit summary seemed like I felt you were trying to sell books; what I meant was that as a rule, Wikipedia guidelines prohibit linking to commercial sites. As far as proof of the book goes, there is no requirement that sources be online; for example, you can simply insert the full citation for the book as proof -- from there, any editor wishing to verify can use a site like amazon (or whatever their choice is) to verify the information.

All articles on Wikipedia should be held to these same types of standards and our many volunteers work to clean up any problems they encounter. There are still more problems than volunteers though, so there templates and categories that track articles which may need review and cleanup (for a quick view of some of these see User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary).Shell ^babelfish 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference linked to Amazon has text verifying Vovak is author. This is not a self-published book, as was stated in a note.

Sourcing

This article's sources are problematic, and the article makes several claims that are not backed up by the citations. Here are a few.

Source one from paste magazine backs up the claim that Vovak is an executive producer and ghostwriter. However, the article states "In his own words (and according to the Wikipedia page that is suspiciously similar to his own profile), Daniel Vovak is a successful ghostwriter and prolific non-ghostwriter. Among his other accomplishments: a book, movies in development, a run for the presidency… " The article is citing this page as its source! This is clearly a circular reference and needs to go.

How about the claim that he is the "ghostwriter of "Terror Within."[6]. Source 6 is a link back to the book, but the book does not list him as a co-writer, see here.

Source 9 claims to be from Time magazine but is acutally an unrelated weblog at blogspot Oh I see, it and source 10 are reversed. Doesnt matter, weblogs are not reliable sources so the Time magazine can stay but the weblog has to go.

Source 11: "Clinton movie script being shopped". United Press International. 2008-01-31. [2] links back to a short blurb about the movie, most of which is apparently gained from an interview with Mr. Vovak. In any event, it does not confirm any of the claims that "Dave Clark will play Linda Tripp. Scott duPont will play Izzy (Michael Isikoff). Monica Lewinsky will be played by Ashley-Rebekah Faulkner.[11][12]" Source 12 in that line is a link back to the movie's website.

Source 13 is from prnewswire "Script about Bill, Monica, and Elvis circulates around Hollywood". Greenwich Creations. 2008-01-30. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-30-2008/0004746281&EDATE=." a wp:SPS.

Im going to remove those and keep looking at the sourcing. Bonewah (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It was easy to find this link which has moved: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/image_86c0a022-d496-519e-8960-738152e0b8f5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but what does that citation add to the article? Bonewah (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A sentence about being Bush's only Republican challenger in Iowa in 2004 belongs in this article, especially since it is verified by one of Iowa's largest daily newspapers. By the way, the print article was the major story on the page, trumping Howard Dean's rally the same day: http://bluedressmovie.com/about/ (Click pictures to show actual size). I welcome you making the page better, but don't keep eliminating valid (and major) sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

First sentence in print version (which you can read through BlueDressMovie.com/about link also verifies historical importance of story. DanielVovak (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, see the only thing the article says is that you claimed to be Bush's only challenger, it does not confirm that fact. If you can find a legit citation to that fact, then I see no problem adding it back in, but if the only thing you have is a citation that simply reprints what you said to them, then that isnt verifiable. I dont know if the article itself claims it, I cant read it in the scan you provided.

If you are in the mood to recover sources, try finding this one. Its dead now, too.

Found lost link from WBAL.DanielVovak (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, be sure to sign your posts to talk pages (not articles) with four tildes like this ~~~~. That will add your sigline and timestamp. Bonewah (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This his article is HEAVILY referenced, more than most articles of its size on Wikipedia, with many references being from major U.S. sources. Left out reference to contest won by Randy Cauthron. As I spoke with Cauthron today, he said he will work to provide additional proof of his state-wide award in Iowa. Text related to college bloggers should really not be left in to trump veteran journalists. Left in much of material except a goofy word like "goofy," which is just a college blogger's opinion. Campaign manager's statement of "goof" really is overly biased and purely opinionated, plus not verified by a journalist. Added many references to major sources like Washington Post (2 links), Life Magazine, Sioux City Journal, Baltimore Sun (2 links), Washington Times, etc. Removed tag to state that Vovak wrote much of the material, because many have written the material and it remains neutral. Added additional political opinions of Vovak since another user wanted them listed. Believe Governor's quote at state-wide press conference adds credibility and color to story, and used language of a journalist instead of my own. In addition, please do not make this article so dry that it lacks any flavor, since latest users are over-editing more than they are writing good content. Long quote on wig is added by DiStaso because the wig is in most stories about Vovak, so a longer explanation seems appropriate. Added "small ideas for America" slogan and "Air Ford One" reference because campaigns are about stuff, not just merely running for office. In addition, "small ideas" and Air Ford One" appear in some headlines, revealing their importance. Linked to Maryland State Board of Elections data ranking Vovak as 4th of 10, showing that 6 candidates on primary ballot placed lower than he did (some much lower).DanielVovak (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ballot?

Did Vovak appear on any of the ballots of these races? --AW (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Vovak ran in the Iowa caucus, which does not have a ballot.DanielVovak (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How about the other ones? --AW (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand the irony, but what makes my run for President historical is because I ran before the age of 35, listed in the U.S. Constitution. No Republican or Democrat in U.S. history has ever even tried that, until I did. They won't even let you on a ballot. Iowa has no ballot, which is why I ran there. No one could stop me from appearing on a ballot that did not exist. Did you review the coverage of my campaign, though? DanielVovak (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing the Lead

Per the guidelines to the wp:lead, it should "explain why the subject is interesting or notable". It seems fairly obvious that the only reason the subject has obtained any sort of notability is because of his political experiences. Why is not that reflected in the lead? If no one objects, I plan on changing the lead to reflect this..perhaps also include something about the planned movie, though that is debatable since it hasn't even been made yet, and it seems that the only reason that has gained any coverage from sources is because of his runs for office. Everything else about ghostwriting, his degree in college, etc. should not be in the lead. Thank you --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vovak listed in Washington Post next to Obama & Palin and before Reagan

Vovak's listing in The Washington Post Magazine is worthy of being in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062302343.html. It is agreed to Vovak's methods of gaining near-celebrity status are unique (or unusual), though that does not mean they should be deleted. This listing in The Washington Post was the jump from the cover story in the nation's capital on a Sunday in mid-Summer 2009. Wikipedia searches for a balance between reliable sourcing and noteworthy stories. Vovak's sourcing is obviously not a problem, which aims the issue at noteworthy stories. Yes, some people are famous for being famous. Perhaps, for instance, Palin is famous for being a beauty runner-up. Further, Joe the Plumber is famous for making a logical argument to then-Senator Obama. The importance of this list in The Washington Post is the idealism at the core of the story. Jimmy Stewart embodied those principals in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and so does Vovak. In this political era where politicians lie all the time, the people in that story embody truth. If anything is to be deleted, that specific article should be kept on Vovak's page and everything else should be removed, for Vovak's mention in that article embodies why "The Wig Man" fits in America and why the major newspaper in our nation's capital deems him worthy of such a status.DanielVovak (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)