Talk:Daniel Vovak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-03. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)