DanielVovak

Welcome!

Hello DanielVovak, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

float

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox 10:27, 04 July '06

Notability of Car liver

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Car liver) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Hatch68 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:DanielVovak.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:DanielVovak.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket you listed in the image has nothing to do with the license of the image. Further, having permission from the photographer to post on Wikipedia is not sufficient for uploading/using an image on Wikipedia. We require a free license which allows use and reuse by us and other including commercial uses. Please see WP:COPYREQ for more on how to request permission. Thank you for understanding. MECU≈talk

I just emailed the AP, asking them about what you have discussed. If they comply to those rules, do you then want to email Marcia? [Daniel Vovak]

The Blue Dress

Wikipedia is not a platform to promote our projects. Once 'The Blue Dress' is "in the can" and a distributor has been found, then it may be time to start adding references to it. But since it is a low-budget film that has only just started casting it is premature to mention it now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow there will be articles in The Washington Post and in The Baltimore Sun. There is definitely a difference between self-promotion and between valid news. This story is definitely the latter. By contrast, should Wiki mention nothing about a movie that is all over Washington, especially the only one to ever appear about a popular U.S. President? DanielVovak (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The movie doesn't exist yet. Discussions of plans for the movie are covered in great depth in Daniel Vovak. A brief mention is also in Lewinsky scandal. Until the movie actually gets made, that's probably enough. Since it appears that you are Daniel Vovak, the writer and producer, then promoting the project is essentially self-promotion. Please read WP:COI, which also concerns editing your biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it appears on the Lewinsky scandal page, then that's fair. I will read the page your reference later. My point is that there will be several items in the news about this soon and to not include it anywhere will seem like bias. Since I have been on Wikipedia for years, I am careful to only include articles that are referenced, which is why I've been working on the movie for over a year now and only linked it today. DanielVovak (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a bias against promoting future projects. WP:CRYSTAL. No offense, but I live in Southern California and I know how many great-sounding film projects never get finished. I wish you the best of luck! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Daniel Vovak, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lewinsky scandal, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations on Daniel Vovak

Hi, there are some problems identified with citations 16 and 17 on that article, can you take a look? --AW (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

9, 10, and 11 also -- there needs to be a source that says you are the youngest ever. --AW (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. Sadly, other users have deleted many credible sources.DanielVovak (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources too, just because it's written somewhere, it doesn't necessarily mean the source is reliable. --AW (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I will review the page you suggested. However, deleted links include Washington Post, Politico, Sioux City Journal, NBC Washington, Paste Magazine, etc. Are those credible?DanielVovak (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, is this link in the Washington Post credible? They list me after President Obama and Governor Palin. I am also humbly listed before President Reagan and Ross Perot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062302343.htmlDanielVovak (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be the links in that case, it may be the content. Let's continue this on the article's talk page. --AW (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example of this is that you cited DC Film Society and Greenwich Creations as things that back up certain facts about you. Since both of those are run by you, they are not reliable sources in most cases. Again, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm trying to help you out. --AW (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you read the websites you mock (and try to discredit) before you purposely post false information. DC Film Society has a board of directors: http://www.dcfilmsociety.org/credits.htm DanielVovak (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Billy related to Ann? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly Daniel, I'm trying to help you here. I'm not mocking you and I'm not trying to discredit you or anything, please Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. A website of an organization that you are involved with (as you noted here [3]), however it is organized, is not a reliable source for information about you. It says so on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which a few of us have suggested you read. Please take a look. --AW (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. DanielVovak (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --AW (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Vovak, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of

Here's an article you may find helpful. An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article in The Washington Post, not an editorial. Being listed in a long, ideological article about political candidates after Obama and Palin and before Reagan and Perot is newsworthy and deserving of mention in a Wikipedia biography.

I didn't remove it. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, can you please put it back? As you can see, I'm not fighting you on your love for "goof," so let's be fair.DanielVovak (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest bringing up the matter on the article's talk page. I believe it should be in there, but trimmed (remove the "other" comparisons"). See how the user who removed it feels about it. I'll state my opinion there. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)