Talk:The Frosties Kid/problems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia is evolving day by day and editor are often in conflict with ideas which they will beleive will come true "some day".
"Someday is far away and not the day to post to Wikipedia
[edit] problems
Absolutely nothing in the article was sourced, so I jettisoned almost all of it. The entire article seems to have been created to further the suicide rumours. Without proper sources (message board discussions and blogs do NOT count!), you cannot have all this libelous speculation about a living person. Furthermore, the long section relating every possible detail about one of the commercials serves no purpose to an article specifically about the Frosties Kid, nor did the long song lyric. wikipediatrix 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It might be more effective if we discuss what's needed and what's not here first. --Jum4 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, if you don't agree with parts of the article, please discuss it rather than just deleting other people's hard work and research. Bababoum 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability There has clearly been some 'tooing and froing' on this article, but removal of tags placed by an editor by another editor is unacceptable. Similarly, where an editor has - completely correctly - questioned the WP:NPOV and WP:V of an article by the use of those tags, and removed the questionable content - it is not for another editor to just revert that. For the moment please discuss what may and may not be valid encyclopaedic content here, but providing an advertising company with additional free publicity, links, and unverified/iable content does not fall under that aim. --AlisonW 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
May I firstly state, that if you look through the history of this article that there has been clearly an inappropiation of tagging where it is not needed. In my defense this has been the ONLY reason I have reverted the tags to its original article. I feel that a particular editor has abused the right of tagging where it is not required. On another note I would like to make it absolutely clear that this article is based on the phenomenon of the Frosties Kid appearing in the Frosties ad, thus it should discuss and relate all information surrounding the lead actor and the reaction of the public and media to the ad i.e. the impact upon the internet via different message boards and sites which have made parodies and created urban legends which caused Kellogs to release an official statement on the Frostie Kid's well-being. It is rather evident that the article (prior to the editor in question tagging/changes) put forward this information in a neutral manner and according to the regulations. So in otherwords to reiterate once again, this article was tagged for "debating the factuality of the content" - this has in turn been proven wrong, seeing as the material has been sourced by various links and even a radio sample which proves that this phenomenon is real and the rumours and controversy are also real. 2) the article was tagged for "POV" I can see none of that within the article unless, stating the facts of what the subject is ABOUT (by explaining the related), and what occurs in the ad, and posting the lyrics of the ad to give the reader a greater picture of the entire subject is POV. Now it has been tagged once again for "not being encyclopedic" I may not argue so much as to that, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and as I stated before, with articles on such internet memes as Crazy Frog and other cultural phenomenons that have occurred as of late this subject deserves its own place in the Wikiverse. I can only perhaps agree that it might need to be formatted more appropiately. But you can now agree that the inapporpiate tagging of this article has been abused to an extreme extent before the lockdown. Thanks for your time. Piecraft 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] As for the Image Checking the history I noticed the image was deleted. As far as I know, this image was a still from a video uploaded to Youtube by another user. Just clarify things, ther eis no copyright violation regarding this. Firstly the fact that a video being uploaded to Youtube is usually protected by their fair use allows the sharing of such videos etc... And because it is a still from a Televised clip,, a commercial released to public promotion, this consitutes all rights. Of course the only liability is if the Frosties Kid, (whoever he may be) is currrenlty suing the Kellogs company then that's an entirely different question altogether. Piecraft 12:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the image on the grounds it is in copyright and thus not permissable. The fact that another person uploaded it to Youtube does not change the essence that the advertisement is copyright and does not mean that WP is suddenly permitted to use it because of the person 'in the middle'. btw, the fact that something is released as promotional material in no way changes any of the copyright and moral rights applicable to the material. --AlisonW 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, but on the grounds of WP which states that if the image is in fair use of promoting the subject of the article i.e. cover artwork for video games, stills from video games, stills from movies and movie posters as well as music album cover art and promotional material relating to artists and bands (unless photographer is to be credited) is all acceptable. This is clearly a still of the "Frosties Kid" who is an anonymous actor which complements the article by indicating who and what the article is talking about. Therefore because it is a still of the promotional Frosties commercial there is no copyright violation being done here. Especially if it is a photographed still taken from the commercial that is played on the TV, by all legal rights there is no plagiarism or copy vio being done unless such an image is to be used for malevolent purposes to harm the purpose of the ad or the company or person. This is why I said it would only be a copy vio if the kid is suing Kellogs, which does not seem to be the case. Piecraft 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC) There was nothing wrong with the image. Bababoum 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion Censorship I really think things are going to far , what's the point having a discussion page when my coments are just removed. I can't use the article and now can't post in the discussion page. This is going to far... --Jum4 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you should me which of your comments were deleted? I am more than willing to help all users end this conflict and make sure everyone is treated fairly. --mboverload@ 08:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Frosties_Kid&oldid=64374063 here compare this to the current version and you will see whole sections have been removed. --Jum4 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Wow, you're right. You seem to be a little better versed in the different sections, can you put them back in? I support you in this, just so everyone knows. --mboverload@ 09:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Have now put them back in, thanks Mboverload you have managed to sort things out! --Jum4 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) lol, it turns out that I accidentally removed those comments, and I'm the one who wondered who the hell removed them. Oh the comedic irony. See the section I posted below. --mboverload@ 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) We all make mistakes sometimes!! Glad it's all sorted. Furthermore do you think we are at the stage where we might get the block lifted. I have asked Tony Sidaway any thoughts? --Jum4 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I have asked him as well (look where you posted). Hopefully we can do this nice, calm, and slow --mboverload@ 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nice and slow! I think now would be a good time to get some input from wikipediatrix. Don't want to kick things off again but I think she should discuss here any possible isssues she may have once the lock has been removed. --Jum4 10:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I would not rely on wikipediatrix, seeing as thus far she has not contributed to the discussion or advancement of this article. Piecraft 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I refuse to discuss anything with rude and insulting persons. I am simply waiting to see what happens in the future with the article, and have already said all I have to say. wikipediatrix 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Well wikipediatrix I think you should give us all a chance. We have all agreed to cooperate and take others view into consideration. I feel you're beeing very childish and would appreciate some input from you. --Jum4 16:52, 18 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)
This is a screen shot, and fair use policy needs to justify its use in any articleI 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) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Frosties_Kid"
