Talk:Daniel Vovak

message: 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 .
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)
thread_title:  Position quotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That makes sense.Daniel_Vovak 3 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further article cleanup 

message: Did Vovak appear on any of the ballots of these races? --AW (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vovak ran in the Iowa caucus, which does not have a ballot.DanielVovak (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. How about the other ones? --AW (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I realize that, but in the other non-Presidential campaigns mentioned on this page, just saying you are running doesn't actually mean you're running. --AW (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballot? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed the lede. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Lead 

message: I think the template messages on this page are well-founded - the article has a good deal of trivial, unencyclopedic or seemingly self-promotional material that needs to be pared down or removed altogether.  I'll make a few passes at it and encourage comments from other editors, particularly disinterested ones.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out a lot of cruft and bloat, tried to confine the article's coverage to what the subject appears to be notable for, reorganized it and did a bit of copyediting.  I think it's a fairly neutral statement of things now, fairly reflecting the coverage this person has received.  The article could certainly be better - the activity & spoofs section still reads a bit like a laundry list - but I don't think the remaining problems are sufficiently severe to warrant the templates any more.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! I've been converted from ghostwriter to comedian! Plus, with no sources in Washington Post or Washington Times. Be proud or yourselves! DanielVovak (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  And spoof? This is sophomoric. DanielVovak (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any reliable secondary source for Vovak being a ghostwriter?   Will Beback  talk   01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington Post has already been deleted from all sources, though it confirms it. Plus, RedMaryland, GreenwichCreations.com, On Tap Magazine, Monoblogue.com, DCFilmSociety.org, SalisburyNews.com, PasteMagazine.com, PhillyChitChat.com, Examiner.com. Yet I'm sure the sources for me being a comedian are everywhere. DanielVovak (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want help please don't make me dig through many revisions. What is the best, most reliable secondary source for being a ghostwriter?   Will Beback  talk   01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003017.html and http://www.dcfilmsociety.org/storyboard0808.htm and http://www.phillychitchat.com/2008/12/why-gpfo-tax-credit-is-important-to.html and http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/09/midterm_roundup_61.php and http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/12/29/daily14.html DanielVovak (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  It would also be nice to be re-listed on the ghostwriter page category, though others want to strip my credibility and even pretend I don't have 4 brothers Ghostwriter category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ghostwriters DanielVovak (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that Wapo article is sufficient. I'll add "ghostwriter" with it as a source.   Will Beback  talk   02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: A category is best applied to an entry when it is a significant part of the subject's notability. See WP:Categorization While Vovak may make a living as a ghostwriter, that is not relevant to his notability. Compare to [[Donald Bain (writer)]. Vovak might also play tennis and the violin, but we wouldn't add those categories either.   Will Beback  talk   02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the reintroduction of "ghostwriter".  It's sourced, after all, and there's no particular reason to doubt it.  It just struck me as altogether beside the point.  After all, were it not for the wig and the goofball campaigns, a Daniel Vovak page wouldn't very likely withstand proposed deletion for lack of notability.  We have a nice compromise here I think, which is to mention it and then say no more about it.   Thanks for giving my revisions a look.  JohnInDC (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing to add, Greenwich Creations and DC Film Society are both things that Vovak runs himself, so I wouldn't count them as a reliable source. --AW (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously, you are doing anything you can to try to damage my credibility. The above statement is false. DC Film Society has a board of directors: http://www.dcfilmsociety.org/credits.htm DanielVovak (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what qualifies DC Film Society as a reliable source for biographical material no matter who runs it (particularly since the "fact" for which it would be cited is offered in passing and was in all likelihood supplied by the subject himself).  I am quite comfortable not citing to it in this context.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are also comfortable calling me a "comedian" without a single reference anywhere saying that. The proper term is satirist. It should be in the lead about me. DanielVovak (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better word, thanks.  I'll make that change.  (And please, going forward, try to assume good faith.  Your accusations are trying.)  JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, I posted the same thing on your talk page: While you're right that you do not run the film society organization, using a website of an organization you work with (as you noted here ) as a source of information about you does not jive with Wikipedia guidelines. It says that exact thing on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which a few of us have suggested you read. Please take a look at that page. We're all suggesting these pages to you because we want you to get a better idea of how to write articles. I'm not trying to undermine you or attack you or anything. As JohnInDC suggested, please assume good faith. I just want this to be a fair and properly written and sourced article. --AW (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daniel Vovak. 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/20080208042157/http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com:80/media/storage/paper873/news/2006/01/26/NewsonCampus/Candidate.Wigs.Out.University.Leaders-2323937.shtml to http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2006/01/26/NewsonCampus/Candidate.Wigs.Out.University.Leaders-2323937.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2.4489/wig-man-running-in-2004-1.1112353
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033451/http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9997416&BRD=1842&PAG=461&dept_id=335645&rfi=8 to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9997416&BRD=1842&PAG=461&dept_id=335645&rfi=8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811162517/http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com:80/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/11/13/TopStories/wig-Man.Running.In.2004-556656.shtml to http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/11/13/TopStories/wig-Man.Running.In.2004-556656.shtml
*Added  tag to http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2006/09/midterm_roundup_61.php
*Added  tag to http://www.thewbalchannel.com/video/9804435
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Daniel Vovak. 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/20110714060149/http://mcgop.com/page.aspx?id=194&uid=64 to http://mcgop.com/page.aspx?id=194&uid=64
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2006/01/26/NewsonCampus/Candidate.Wigs.Out.University.Leaders-2323937.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/11/13/TopStories/wig-Man.Running.In.2004-556656.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051015%2FNEWS01%2F110150129
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) 09:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified