Talk:The Frosties Kid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 28 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. We're all here to make the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen, and that's best done by presenting your arguements in a clear presentation.

All Editors have different opionions and that is the beauty of WikiPedia

[edit] Archived Posts

Archive for topics Redundant/Ephemeral

Sandbox for new versions of the article

Problems with the article and what is varifiable

Afd Disscussions 25/07-02/08 06

[edit] Name of the Frosties Boys is Uknown

His Name I would say this is the primary task. More to add soon. Jum4 09:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Contact Frosties, they could reveal his name Bababoum 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Dont think they would be authorised to give out the info?

EDIT: His first name has been discovered, but to protect the kid, that's all the information they're giving. Really doubt we're going to discover his last name until he makes another TV appearence.

The Sunday Times (South Africa) named him as 15yr old Sven Ruygrok, who attends exclusive Beaulieu College. Mike33

[edit] Kellogs Statement

The current advertisement has been well received by the vast majority of our customers. We would also like to take this opportunity to confirm that the lead boy within the advertisement is well and continues to live in his native South Africa.

really don't see how there is room to argue this one.. unless you believe the BBC broadcasted a false statement... 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

There seems to be a lot of disagreement over the content and sourcing of this article. I've protected the article. Please discuss changes here. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As a note to others, Tony and I ovrelapped as we both became aware of issues over this page at the same time. --AlisonW 12:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony the tiger!! what irony. Anyhows I believe this is an open and close case, the info is verifiable whats more to discuss.

--80.169.25.68 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] snopes

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/frosties.asp new article, can this be referenced? The fact that is has arrived on Snopes shows there is interest and intrigue on the subject. This article also references the Guardian article I mentioned above. Please can we sort this out and remove the block on the article. --Jum4 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good find! Yes, this will definately help show notability and be a good external link --mboverload@ 09:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(orphoned paragraph - although feelings are mine) is lossed or missed Mike33 13:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Wikipediatix is a very useful source of information and when i have any doubts, trust and and am happy to be corrected by her. I think Wikipediatix' goldern rule is be BOLD when editing - if you want to write here be aware that other editors will remove uncited or unfactual or unencyclopedic material - but everything is always open to discussion. Slagging off any editor is uncool and not in the spirit of Wiki. Mike33 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to everyone concerning topic deletion

It has come to my attention that I accidentally deleted several sections. This is because of my use of the Google Toolbar, which cuts off the text of the edit box, as you can see in that diff. I am SO sorry, I totally didn't realize, and I offer my sincerest apologies. --mboverload@ 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)--mboverload@ 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight from Jimbo Wales' mouth:

Jimbo Wales, May 2006: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1] wikipediatrix 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure how this is relevant to the The Frosties Kid article. We have now established references for the majority of statments which you disputed. Furthermore I have no idea who or what JimboWales is. Could you enlighten me! --Jum4 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment

Jum4 keeps posting to me and asking me to stay in this discussion. As I keep saying, I have no interest in entering a conversation with someone who uses language like "that does not give you the authority to rant and rave like a loon swinging a handbag". Anything else I have to say will be cutting and pasting the same things I already said, so go back and read my earlier posts. My position has not changed. wikipediatrix 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have any right to be a judge of this article, seeing as none of your comments or contributions to this article and its respective discussion page have resulted in helping the outcome of the article. You are clearly proving yourself to be an unwilling participant to the conversation and to the improvement of this page, therefore I do not see how any of your previous edits/comments should be taken seriously, to the effect that your personal vendetta against anything outside of your "realm of what is considered reputable or acceptable to Wikipedia". If I am correct people need to stop makin g accusations for "incivility" against other editors when the major issue here is RESOLVING THE ARTICLE. So ONCE AGAIN, wikipediatrix it was on your head that this page was locked in order to resolve the issues of which I still see none that you seemed to have against the validity (which has been proven) of the article and content. Therefore either step up and back up your arguments or just drop the entire thing so we can all get on with it. If you want to make an issue out of personal attacks then I would take a good look at your own record history before you point fingers at anyone or blame others for having "no interest in entering a conversation with someone who uses language like "that does not give you the authority to rant and rave like a loon swinging a handbag"." That is hardly a good enough reason and in MY OPINION is rather faceless and silly. I am still waiting for this entire thing to be finished once and for all, otherwise I would opt to have the entire article deleted because as of now it is in a pointless standstill which is primarily due to the unreasonable edits and tags put forward by wikipediatrix. If you don't want to answer me fine, but I WILL put this article up for deletion if this issue is not resolved with or without your approval wikipediatrix, as your name illustrates you seem to believe yourself to be some form of a "dominatrix", of which I don't care. This is an open source project that accepts the opinions and views of everybody involved contributing to it. Piecraft 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't nominate an article for deletion just because it no longer says what you want it to say. And how is my name relevant here? (It has nothing to do with the word "dominatrix", incidentally. Is that really your only frame of reference for the "-trix" suffix?!) wikipediatrix 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, if wikipediatrix has a problem with me I don't feel it should block the progress of the article (which I originally created le me add), so let it be heard; I apologize for my flowery language. I will refrain from this discussion until the article is unlocked. good day to you all --Jum4 18:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is frigging ridiculous. Why are people asking that sources be cited when they clearly are? The link to the Scott Mills comment is bloody present. Are you actually The Frosties Kid because you seem set against this article demonstrating the correct degrees of information?--Jack of Blades 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is a very important question to be asked- Why has this article remained intact, even if it has had major editing and discussion, and my original article was deleted on no grounds of the Wikipedia deletion policies?--Ford Prefect 2 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atricle rewrite..

Ok, the article has been unlocked, from the logs I see wikipediatrix is as quick as ever in her revisions. Is there any point in my trying to continue this. There are citations for everthing bar the real name of the kid? any thoughts!? --Jum4 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have citations and verifiable sources for what you want the article to say, place them after the appropriate sentences in the appropriate manner as per Wikipedia style guidelines. wikipediatrix 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix you are being very foolhardy and disrespectful in the way you edit articles. I advise you take a step back and cool off, before you make any more radical changes to articles. You have been warned. Piecraft 16:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has simply been ruined. Bababoum 14:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote of the day!!! --Jum4 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article re-write II

Actually starting from a blank canvas isn't such a bad idea. It certainly helps editors avoid the mistakes, that led to the revert war.

However, can we please just clear up what The frosties kid is?

• Is he a fictional character who appears in an advertisment or the advertisment itself?
• Is he a living person who has been the source of speculation about his actual or imagined demise?

If you start on one of the above propositions it will make it clearer a way you construct the new article, rather than it being a mish-mash of unsourced and speculative original research. Sources are out there, but they are very far and wide.

Happy editing :-) Mike33 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say the second,Is he a living person who has been the source of speculation about his actual or imagined demise? glad to see we are all back on track! --Jum4 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Frosties Kid being a living person

First of all, the only sources which I can find relate to the Advert and not the living breathing kid.

The premise that the Frosties Kid is an urban myth can only rely on snopes.com and museum of hoaxes.

Secondly, their is an opinion that the 'actor' never lived an breathed but was created by CGI. (I can cross reference that with a recent article about the sloppiness of admakers. Which sites as an example, the fumble before Frosties Kid ascends above the crowd on his hydraulic lift).

Thirdly, any reference to lyrics and actual blow by blow logs of the commercial must be kept at a minimum, and cannot be used as source.

Finally, Photo of the frosties kid without giving a name mmmmmmmm - not good authoring. (A little like the unknown student who blocked the tank in Tianemen Square, 1989) thumb|Center|This is a screen shot, and fair use policy needs to justify its use in any article

I want to help, but please don't let us fall into the trap, however good our intentions of giving credability to the trolls of web blogs and forums. Your friend Mike33 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

1. You can't just say "These rumours are thought by some to have been started on the Football365 messageboard". This is WP:WEASEL language. Find a WP:RS that says this exact same thing, and then report that they said it, with a cite. (Note: message board posts are not WP:RS.)

2. The same goes for "The Frosties Kid's actual identity has also been the source of intrigue by many". If this statement is true, prove it. Get a source.

3. "It is partially believed that due to the controversy of the advertisement, the actor wishes to remain anonymous for the time being." Partially believed by who?? Saying it doesn't make it so. Get a source.

4. Linking directly to an MP3 is not a proper source. Find a news report or a transcript for the Scott Mills citation.

5. The article is about the Frosties Kid himself. The extreme play-by-play rundown of the advert is unnecessary. I have seen no other article about a cereal's mascot that feels the need to go into so much detail about a 30 second commercial.

6. The printing of the jingle's lyrics is a probable copyright violation, and also unsourced. wikipediatrix 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

yawn.. I love you wikipediatrix, I really do think you just need some love. On a lighter note let's start from scratch. Mike33 do you think we should take the other route? Is he a fictional character who appears in an advertisment or the advertisment itself? ? --Jum4 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Smart-ass responses won't help your case any. Leave out the personal insults and try to understand that as long as "yawn" is all you have to say about Wikipedia's policies, this article will never, never, never, ever say what you want it to say. wikipediatrix 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How to win friends and influence people Forget pseudo-aggression lets be friends Mike33 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell it your "Yawn. I really think you need some love" buddy. wikipediatrix 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The easiest route (That great TAO is wikipedians)!!! The advert is much easier to source. You can even give a blow by blow account of the clock striking 8am to him rising above the masses with his 'mayte' Tonee. The advert was described in badadverts.co.uk as far back as May. Lyrics are copyright but you can use words like plate, mate, pyrate??, date and link it to the source of the tune Ian Dury and the blockheads "I wanna be straight" 1979.

You can mention that its CGI and you can mention that it has aroused interest. I would not mention he's the boy with no name and would stay off the subject of the gory details about blogs and playground chat.

Its a safe road, but if you really think its about the frosties kid himself, will back you - AS LONG AS YOU WILL BE BOLD and find sources. :-) your friend Mike33 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foregone Conclusions

Just thought about about the comment:

Smart-ass responses won't help your case any. Leave out the personal insults and try to understand that as long as "yawn" is all you have to say about Wikipedia's policies, this article will never, never, never, ever say what you want it to say. wikipediatrix 22:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No it can't mean that good editing, careful consideration of sources is going to become a flame war? Surely you didn't mean that? what is the point of any committed editor coming to wiki if they will get bullied. I suspect that you saw Jum4 comments as over familiar or sexist, however it may have been a little of the big atlantic pond seperating our modes of friendly jocular speech.

Wikipedia policies aside the article can go to AfD and we can all have an equal say - but to tell another editor that the article will not say what his vision is? How can you tell that another editor will not side with him and find serious sources to back it up? I am just shocked. Mike33 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. I am saying that the article will never say what he wants it to as long as he continues to ignore that the information must be sourced. In other words, as long as his only response to a good-faith discussion of Wikipedia policy is "yawn". And where was your indignation for the last week when Jum4 has been EXTREMELY insulting in every single post and doing all the flaming and bullying?? You know, the text that you wrongly removed from this talk page instead of properly archiving it? wikipediatrix 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

hiyas! first of old the yawn was directed at you wikipediatrix not the golden wiki rules. Second of all was not trying to be insulting (trust that would be much worse), I just think it's funny that you keep going on and on and on ........... anyways please forgive me I won't joke around with you anymore but let's remember this is the Frosties Kid talk page, not the Hezbollah article. Anyways I'll keep my conduct strictly business with you from now on. 'I have been warned!!!--Jum4 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

yawn is pretty inexcusable if he meant it in terms of ground rules. He may have been tired, possibly - yes i did express my opinions about you (its somehow been lost from where it sat originally, but i will re-expound it)

"Wikipediatix is a very useful source of information and when i have any doubts, trust and and am happy to be corrected by her. I think Wikipediatix' goldern rule is be BOLD when editing - if you want to write here be aware that other editors will remove uncited or unfactual or unencyclopedic material - but everything is always open to discussion. Slagging off any editor is uncool and not in the spirit of Wiki. Mike33 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

I have the greatest respect for you, but by its very nature this article attracts more attention than it deserves. My only wish during the last few weeks has to guide it away from the Internet hype of actor involved into evolving into a short (NOT THREE LINES) article about the advert and attention it has received from mainstream varifiable UK newspapers. (NOT blogs not radio programs). And slagging off any editor hurts me.

Piecraft Closure topic has been moved to the archive Talk:The_Frosties_Kid/Archive 1 - it was long and unsavoury and had outlasted its usefulness, so served no purpose by being here.

This Article does have a place I am sure, I have raised my own doubts about whether or not it deserves to stay, but please Wikipediatrix give it some benefit of the doubt, let me and some of the other guys write our own articles in the sandbox during the weekend. Your friend Mike33 00:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the bolding. It's annoying. --mboverload@ 00:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey is it me or wikipediatrix just a complete bore and acting a little ott for an open source encyclopedia project? I think you REALLY need to take a break and go outside, you're not making any friends here. And if you're answer to that is: "I'm not here to make friends" then I can only assume you're not doing much else but make everyone's life miserable here with your bible-bashing on about Wikipedia policies which you're taking far too literal and abusing to the extreme of being self-imposing and opportunistic for your own personal vendetta against other editors who disagree with you and your own personal perspectives, views and opinions which no else seems to agree with. You're a very sour person wikipediatrix, and I am shocked that you're not helping the situation at all, I reiterate what I said at the start: "it's people like you who make this project and compendium of useful information a bad place", now go moan about how I'm being insulting because that's the only two cents you'll get of interest out of anyone. I'm out of this, just thought I'd share my final thoughts on how ridiculous you are, and how scandalous you're treating this, IT'S JUST A BLOODY ARTICLE, chill the heck out, don't lose your rag over it. And if you take any offense to what I've just said DEAL WITH IT, nothing on the Net is supposed be serious, otherwise we'd all be halfway to the Betty Ford clinic with nervous breakdowns and brain aneurisms. So carrry on, continue with your unjustified and unwarranted personal revolution to blatantly delete sections and other people's work on WP out of your own individual perception that it is wrong or does not correspond to WP regulations. Bah! Piecraft 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful article

Just to say I found this useful .... heard the rumour that the kid from the adverts was dead .. looked on Wikipeadia found this ... gave me enough info to say he almost certainly isn't ... curiosity satisfied If the kid's real we wont find out who he is (Youth brings anonimity, age brings paparazzi) So this is all we will know ^Jaster 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was unsure whether to believe all the rumours concerning his apparent death, so I looked on wikipedia and this account confirmed that he wasn't. It is a useful article. Bababoum 21:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/Delete

Consodering the amount of editing activity on this page I suspect that it is noticable ... and the Kid is the main (and only noticable character, beside the ubiquitous Tony The Tiger) in the advert, it has raised a lot of comment and the reference is to the Uk's biggest selling national newspaper who ran an article on it so it is current ... when the fuss dies down I propose a merge with Frosties ^Jaster 07:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go for a merge - all I'm saying is that is there really isn't enough for the kid to have an article all of his own, otherwise there'd be articles for practically every advert out there! HawkerTyphoon 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose a merge with Frosties Kid Becoming a redirect to Frosties and a few words in the Trivia secotion of that page about the fuss ... ^Jaster 11:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is no article called Frosties. It's a disambiguation page that sends the reader on to Frosted Flakes. Clearly, there needs to be a separate page for the two, because discussion of this British commercial makes no sense in the context of Frosted Flakes. wikipediatrix 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

The South African Sunday Times interviwed Sven and his mother Cereal Threats (Sunday Times Zuid Afrika) on September 10th. It includes all of the information you could possibly want on the frosties kid. It certainly beats the hell out of The Sun, Metro and Daily Mail articles.

I think most of the original editors have got bored with the article and constant vandalism. Not sure where the article should go from here. I have always favoured it being about the advert itself. Although now with press reporting it seems more of a Little Mikey story. We have a name for the kid now - Sven Ruygrok; but knowing that just seems too REAL. His existence and 50,000 internet blogs wanting the poor kid dead is just too much for Wikipedia. The advert is ephemeral and fluttered its last public airing on TV 6 weeks ago. Ephemera has a place, but a biog of a kid who looks like a future star of the South African Olympic team, shouldn't leave him with a moniker of being the Frosties Kid, 15 year old boys don't need that notoriety (or for that matter deserve a biog).

I move to rewrite the article and class it as an urban myth, based on the nonsense that has been written about the frosties kid. Mike33 13:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger - Is it about fosties or an advert or an internet phenomenon?

The advert has hundreds of blogs, so it is an internet (ness). It has as much to do with frosted flakes, as we do to being editors of the world. The kid has a name, Sven Ruygrok, he seems indifferent to the abuse. I think we should keep seperate. I don't think there is any more to add. What do you think? Mike33 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I AM THE FROSTIES KID!

Hello, yes, I am the frosties kid. My name is not sven, it is Michael. It is nice here in South Africa. No one was bullying me, I did not try to kill myself and my parents thought that I should be moved to South Africa for some reason. Ask me any questions, as I would be more then happy to answer them.