User talk:Kevdo

Welcome!
Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

Here is a few handy tips for newcomers:


 * A few basic rules: Try to write from a neutral point of view, be bold in editing pages, and use Wikiquette.


 * A good intro page is the welcome page. The Wikipedia tutorial also gives a lot of basic info that will help get you oriented on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or Where to ask a question.


 * When you post something on a talk/discussion page, you can sign your name by using three tildes ( " ") for your username and four (" ~ ") for your username and a timestamp.


 * Remember to provide an edit summary when editing.


 * If you ever find yourself with nothing to do on Wikipedia, have a look at the Community Portal, you'll find that there's always something happening.

If you ever have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Happy editing and have a great day! :-) Akamad 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

AMA request
See here for a response to your request. User:Pedant 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me know if this is over so I can close out the case... or let me know if you need more help, too. Thanks. User:Pedant 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(any help... just drop me a note on my talk page if you can't find what you need, or want any advice) User:Pedant\n*There were no objections so I removed the note. Thanks so much for your help.Kevdo 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Frat Pack
Stop adding your own website to this article. It is a conflict of interest and it doesn't belong there. It is already in the reference list and need not be plastered all over wikipedia. I have already removed the link from the various other articles you have spammed it into. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Last warning. Stop spamming your website. IrishGuy talk 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the Frat Pack talk page it is even brought up that your site is an unreliable source (here) and you defend the site making no mention at all that it is yours. You even state that the site is ...unlike anything out there (that I've seen). Very disingenuous since you built and own the website. As for your adding another of your websites to Lip balm, another editor on the talk page agrees that it doesn't belong there. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own websites. IrishGuy talk 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a reference to the Frat Pack Circle of Trust, which is a feature of the Frat Pack Tribute site. The Circle IS unlike anything out there, which is a rebuttal to the original poster's argument that it was similar to other articles out there. . And while you are indeed correct that I didn't SAY that I owned the site, I didn't say I didn't either. The fact that I named the (at the time) unnamed author (who's name was on the Circle image from day one, mind you) should be an indication that I was taking implied ownership with my statment.  If you'll note the thread when named attribution was added I noted it back in the thread.  I was not trying to hide anything or be disengenious.Kevin Crossman 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're not happy with me, but I cannot tell you how furious I am with the fact that you are not addressing my central rebuttal to your removal of the links (most of which I DID NOT ADD MYSELF). And that is the issue of relevance. Would you please address this for God's sake?Kevin Crossman 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI
I see you've be warned about this above by another administrator already - and been given a last warning. I suggest you carefully read WP:COI, and take note that you've now been warned by two administrators to stop spamming your site. Glen 08:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between adding something first and undeleting something. The issue of the link was discussed so according to COI and participating in edits for pages with potential COI (where edits are "discouraged" but not banned): "Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages." Inclusion of the quote that I undeleted WAS discussed. All I did was undelete it.Kevin Crossman 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the quote is important (IMHO, and to the person who originally added it, evidently) because there is a difference between a "frat pack" film (e.g. a farce) and a movie that happens to include two Frat Pack actors (e.g. a drama like Permanent Midnight).Kevin Crossman 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:COI is that wherever there's a conflict of interest the person involved should step back from the situation. Understand that I am a completely independant third party here. I literally read the article, saw that we were quoting a fan site, and thought to myself 'this is completely out of place, out of policy and shouldn't be here.' So I removed it. I (at that time) knew nothing of you, or the prior disagreements in this regard.
 * It wasn't until an anon (presumably you) readded it that I read the talk history. Your argument that it was not you who added it originally is completely redundant because the person who added it initially did it incorrectly. Others have noticed it since, and removed it and yet it has been you that has continued to add it over and over again. Glen 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the Sept 8th change by 72.198.117.114, no that wasn't me. There's recent discussion by 2agilbert and See me let go defending use of the quote (and since it's my quote, to attribute it), and others in the Archive. Those weren't me either.Kevin Crossman 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of the page you will see I've not added a lot to the page, but I have cleaned up a lot of vandalism, etc. While I don't expect a pat on the back, I'd at least hope for some acknowledgment that I've done more than just "spam" the site.Kevin Crossman 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I understand your POV about fan sites. But I wish there was a clear Wikipedia policy about them as it relates to pop culture topics. I see several references to the OfficeTally fansite in The Office article, for example. If the basis of "scholarly" work for the Frat Pack comes from the seminal article from USA Today, I would think that the fact they I was interviewed for their follow-up article and coauthored a sidebar article for them would put me into "reliable source" territory, at least on this particular pop culture topic. The fact that we have had interviews with filmmakers such as Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, etc. would (I think) lend credence. Are we a "fansite" rather than the online arm a newspaper? Sure. But within our world we're not much different than OfficeTally. I know I'm biased, but it sure seems to me that there's a difference between "Joe's Frat Pack Fansite" and an online reference site that's been around for three years amd was the first (and only...) source to "define" what a Frat Pack movie is. Our authors are varied and attributed, and the editors are clearly attributed on the site as well.Kevin Crossman 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. I do understand your situation but WP policy is pretty clear:
 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications...
 * Could you perhaps cite USA Today, rather than your website? Surely if you've been quoted in that publication we could simply reference that from the USA Today website? Glen 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy
you seem to be engaged in WP:POINT activity on Irishguy's page - why do you need his imput about star wars fansites? answer you don't - and I notice from your contributions you followed him to the tron page. If you want to remove them - do so or discuss it with the editors on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * a) I don't delete (some) fansites because I think they are a worthwhile addition to the external links. Kevin Crossman 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * b) I wanted IrishGuy to tell me why those fansites were acceptable while mine was not. So far, he has not replied -- not helping me understand how this policy should be consistently applied.Kevin Crossman 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see his reply now, did not see it when I wrote above.Kevin Crossman 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I looked at the dispute policies and it recommends trying to engage in a discussion before doing anything else, which is what I was trying to do (on a number of occasions, actually) but all I hear from IrishGuy is "stop spamming." Kevin Crossman 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Will-talladega.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Will-talladega.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Meatpuppets
If you continue to ask others to spam on your behalf they will all be blocked as meatpuppets as will you for disruption. IrishGuy talk 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That message was written when I thought it was "vandalism" rather than an admin/editor enforcing the Wikipedia no-fansite rules. All I've asked people since I have learned about what you were doing was to add discussion to Talk pages. Both publicly and privately. Kevin Crossman 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Will-talladega-uk-premiere.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to describe the nature of the "dispute." The meta info for the photo clearly defines the photographer and owner of the photo. What else do you need?Kevin Crossman (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you lodged a permission with the relevant people in Wikimedia, or amended your site to make the licensing more explicit. Putting a (C) message without aadditonal information as to CC or GFDL status, normally means 'all rights reserved' Which is obviously NOT what you intend. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tribute website does list CC - Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States. As for wikimedia, what relevant people. You're the one who is claiming there is a copyright problem, are you not?Kevin Crossman (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Please may you except my appologies for the way i behaved towards you such as deleting what you had done on the frat pack page and replacing it with my own work etc. I just hope that you will forgive me for this as it was a long time ago Harry weasley (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

The Big Year and Nathan Passmore
Thanks for asking. They looked like dubious edits, with no sources, and no links to legitimate wiki articles. Films that have articles are easy to verify they meet the criteria for "Frat Pack" movie, films that aren't notable enough for a wiki article may need to have a source. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)