Talk:Daniel Vovak

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

Position quotes[edit]

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)[reply]

Article Self Created, Edited[edit]

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)).[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further article cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Amazon.com link[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference linked to Amazon has text verifying Vovak is author. This is not a self-published book, as was stated in a note.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielVovak (talk • contribs)

That link doesnt work unless you have an Amazon account. At least, it didnt work for me. Bonewah (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Amazon sells (or at least lists; most of them never sell) tons of self-published books; so that link proved nothing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though Roger Marshall did not self-publish the book, I understand your point, Orange, though my opinion is that published books should be listed. For instance, if a person self-published 100 books, is that worthy of mention? DanielVovak (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Lots of hacks could match that, if they had a bit of money. It's like band articles that say, "available on iTunes"; anybody could do that, if they bothered. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ballot?[edit]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing the Lead[edit]

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)[reply]

Fixed the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

One sentence about how the Post compared him to Mr. Smith (and leaving it at that) works for me . --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.DanielVovak (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its an editorial, merely being mentioned in passing in an editorial hardly warrants mention. Maybe a link in 'see also' or 'further reading' is ok, but actually spelling it out in the article seems overboard to me. Bonewah (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are improperly using the word editorial, as this is a major magazine cover feature article. If it was an editorial then your point is valid. In the print version, the feature article spans 11 pages. It obviously belongs in the story and does not deserve a near-hidden status.DanielVovak (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its still an editorial, and you are mentioned a whopping one time. So what? Why does passing mention in an editorial (or even an article, as if that makes any difference) "obviously belongs in the story"? What do we know about Vovak that we didnt without the inclusion of this article? That one person thinks he is sort of a Mr. Smith type character? Thats just an opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you read the story. You have stated that it is a "passing" mention, which is false because the picture's placement says a thousands words. For instance, Ned Lamont, Mike Ditka, and Al Gore, Jr. are definitely mentioned in that story in "passing." There have also been headlines about Vovak in print newspapers comparing him to Mr. Smith. You are strong on your opinion on this topic, though realize you are challenging the credibility of The Washington Post and Liz Mundy at the same time. That is a difficult belief to have, especially compared with the strength of that story and how it nicely nestles into this article. This is a point I am not going to surrender, because it makes sense. DanielVovak (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of one of those headlines: http://bluedressmovie.com/images/wigman/2004Oct17.JPG Vovak was almost the nominee to run against Obama, being the major news maker in Illinois until Keyes came in out of thin air DanielVovak (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonewah's point is just because you're mentioned in an editorial, doesn't mean it's important. Also, why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person? --AW (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about Vovak, with only some listed on Wikipedia, as it should be. Third person is used on this page because it's easier to be objective about Vovak when I think of him as an article rather than about myself. Today I did an interview on Sirius radio. Next week I will be aired on Comcast. There are some interviews that embody an article's spirit, like this one in The Washington Post. After the movie is made, an article like this one makes even more sense. The people pictured in that article are never going away. It's one of those defining moments, making that article historic in the people in mentions and in the ideological point it conveys. DanielVovak (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of nonsense is why we so vehemently discourage people from editing articles about themselves. You are so caught up in your own ego trip that you fail to perceive your own lack of the mandatory neutral point of view required of Wikipedia editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the personal attack, especially from a Democrat. You're attacking the Washington Post for goodness sake, not just me. Grow up and accept that Republicans are allowed to have positive stories about them listed on Wikipedia, too. Your attack is just sick and shows your orange maturity!DanielVovak (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking the Washington Post, whatever that means. What we are doing is questioning that article's importance to your biography, and your importance in that article (having been mentioned only once in same). And Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with it, this is simply about what is best for Wikipedia.

You show signs that you might become a useful wiki editor, so I strongly urge you to stop with the endless self promotion and go find something on wiki that isnt self aggrandizing and work on that. You toured all over Iowa in your presidential bid, perhaps you could improve the Hawkeye State's coverage in Wikipedia? Or perhaps films? Something besides this cynical glory-hounding that you are currently doing. Bonewah (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, this is the first time you all made me laugh. Obviously, this page is no longer mine, so I am done with this and somewhat retiring. Seriously, I went to 96 counties in Iowa out of 99, and met most journalists in the State. Editors, I just ask that you be fair and wig out, laughing as you edit edit edit edit edit! There's a ton of material out there about me for use another time. If I knew you all better, I'd send you all wigs and introduce you to some actresses I know, but those are for future days. DanielVovak (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--outdent: The article was never "yours" in the first place. – ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nice work. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And spoof? This is sophomoric. DanielVovak (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any reliable secondary source for Vovak being a ghostwriter? Will Beback talk 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, that Wapo article is sufficient. I'll add "ghostwriter" with it as a source. Will Beback talk 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3]) 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]