Talk:Froggy Fresh

Froggy Fresh on the view

Removed the sentence stating that Froggy Fresh was going to join the View. Not cited, although I'm sure that would be hilarious. Shenkerism (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. The vandalism to this article lately has been exceptionally high, such that even the regular editors of the article haven't been able to keep up. --MadenssContinued (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So...

This is what the Wikipedia considers a part of the "sum of all human knowledge"? As if we needed further proof that the Wikipedia doesn't know what knowledge fundamentally is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.3.223 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this guy deserves a wiki and don't even deny that since this guy has been featured on Huff Post, Barstool Sports, CBS, AOL.com, NASDAQ, and a whole lot of other reliable sources. Soulboost (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Wikipedia declares that if a few newspaper articles mention something then that thing constitutes "human knowledge" and is therefore worthy of inclusion (though that's not the Wikipedia's actual criterion for inclusion; that would be whether someone cares about it enough to write an article about it and has enough free time to spend on the internet doing so). Like I said, that just further proves that the Wikipedia does not know what knowledge is, or is unaware of the distinction between knowledge and information. No serious encyclopedia would include this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.3.223 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No serious encyclopedia would include up to date information either. Are you aware the real encyclopedias need to be printed, distributed and bought? By the time someone buys the encyclopedia, thousands of other things could of been added to it. That's why Wikipedia is looked at as a serious source of information. And due to that, wikipedia articles need to have references and sources to prove their importance which this one does. Just because you disagree with some articles does not mean that they don't deserve to have a wikipedia page.Soulboost (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point, or you're refusing to engage with the point. I realize the electronic format grants Wikipedia the ability to be less temporally-challenged than conventional paper encyclopedias, but that doesn't fundamentally change what constitutes knowledge. This article's topic is obviously of no intellectual value, and any serious encyclopedia includes only subjects that are of significant intellectual value.

If you disagree, and you clearly do, let me ask you this: do you really believe that some guy who posted a video of himself "rapping" online is of intellectual value? Do you believe it's essential that the world have a record of that man's existence and the existence of his "work"? Do you believe that anything mentioned, even in passing, by a couple of news/entertainment websites is necessarily of intellectual value? This article's existence proves that Wikipedia does, which demonstrates, as I said, that Wikipedia does not know what knowledge actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.3.223 (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, wikipedia isn't a normal encyclopedia. Why is that a bad thing? Encyclopedias are going extinct. [1] Nobody wants to go out, buy an encyclopedia and search up a topic that may have limited information. On wikipedia, articles that you believe deserve articles will have updated and new information as well, unlike encyclopedias that will have to re-write, re-print, re-distribute, and later have to be re-bought. Now as you say, wikipedia is full of articles that don't bring more knowledge. Well that's untrue. This article brings the knowledge of a parody rapper who was able to create several viral videos and be featured on reliable news sources. Articles of animals bring knowledge of those animals. Articles of small towns bring knowledge to a geographically located town and that town's politics and customs. Why do you look for wikipedia articles you don't think are knowledgeable when someone else will look up for knowledge or information that need to know, want to know or just find interesting about finding out. If you disagree or dislike wikipedia so much, just go grab an encyclopedia and look up the thing you want to know on that. It's not that difficult. Soulboost (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham?

Where do you get that he's from Birmingham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugefun (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not. He's from Michigan. Krispy Kreme is just a character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaxo1 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Source on age

The source that says he is 21 (the first source) doesn't actually say that he is 21, it says that he looks like a 21 year old version of some celebrity; should the birth date be taken out or does this source constitute saying that he is 21?--Counthektor (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It states on his YouTube channel that he is 21. I updated the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.228.19 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the source that was listed only metaphorically called him 21, I suspect he's not really 21 though, and that his account probably has that age so he can watch restricted videos, time will tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counthektor (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Age and Origin

While the image of the face of 'Tyler Cassidy' at http://blog.mlive.com/flintcommunity_impact/2008/06/Graduates_section.pdf is very similar to Krispy Kreme, the age difference, weight difference, and poor image quality (e.g., inability to distinguish eye color) make it difficult to be certain. Until a stronger source can be cited, I have deleted origin and source data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.228.19 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see that there is some controversy over where he is from. Being that the stated sources were incredibly weak, I have also removed the references. I also note that whoever is adding these changes does not make any comments to the talk page. The sources of 1) a very low-res image of someone that resembles the 'artist' and 2) a soundtrack, uploaded to YouTube AFTER the subject's videos went viral and 3) a facebook page that does not show any images do not meet the Wikipedia requirements for a verifiable source. I have also removed the statement of a claimed name for 'Money Maker Mike' because it had NO source.I Use Dial (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I know for sure he is Tyler Cassidy. I found his Facebook which has his birthdate which is now blocked but it included his brother and sisters names and you can see references to Tyler dating back to 2010 and they are also friends with Tyler Newby who is Money Maker Mike but their pages were made years before Krispy Kreme so they have to be real. He also has a photobucket account he hasn't used in a year under the name 'tscassidy10' which his pictures of him on it that weren't in any videos and even some childhood pictures. Also I viewed his old YouTube page 'ihearttylercassidy' which had him telling people to watch his old songs that were deleted when I saw it but he's deleted that now. But I am 100% sure he's Tyler Cassidy. This is the photobucket http://s292.photobucket.com/home/tscassidy10 I dtf4nd (talk) 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtf4nd (talk • contribs)

It does not matter that you know that you know. What matters is that you must demonstrate, through reliable sources, that what you state is correct. This is the only thing that I am debating. I care little whether he is Tyler Cassidy or someone else, the point is that you are not following the guidelines published by Wikipedia in the Wikipedia:Verifiability article. I strongly suggest you read that article, because obviously you haven't. I Use Dial (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Still no new sources

I continue to delete poorly sourced and non-sourced data that is perpetually uploaded to this article. Someone, for the love of God, provide some REAL source data and end this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.228.19 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As we continue this charade of pretending to be editors of the world's most used encyclopedia, I am no longer surprised that even the most active of its users lack the general ability to think critically and review proper sources. The 'new' sources listed by Soulbutt were nothing more than the same sources being listed by by bloggers who provided no additional information whatsoever. They did not claim to have witnesses, contracts, higher res images, etc, or generally anything other than the web rumor and poor data that has existed for months. This is my first escapade in dealing with a Wikipedia article and so far I'm not very impressed with the Wikipedia community, as if that it matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.228.19 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, any mention of Tyler Cassidy and the numerous sources that VERIFY that this is Krispy Kreme will be ignored or deleted because he does not say it himself. Could you so-called admins please elaborate on what you would accept, or will you continue to be vague and delete valuable information to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubevision93 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You gather wrong. We need verifiable information from reliable sources, particularly when talking about a living person. No such information and sources have been presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So even with 2 NEW SOURCES (Complex (magazine) and Slacktory) 71.80.228.19 still deletes the proof. Krispy is Tyler Cassidy. Also this is one of the edit summaries: "Deleted unsourced data - if you know nothing about this article, then read the talk page BEFORE making any chages!" Really? Unsourced? Clearly 4 SOURCES (complex, slacktory, refinedhype and The Flint Journal) isn't enough. And let me address this part: "if you know nothing about this article," I'm not quite sure if this was directed at me but if it is how can I possibly not know anything about the article if I was the one that created it? The 'new' sources listed by Soulbutt were nothing more than the same sources being listed by by bloggers who provided no additional information whatsoever. Thank you for giving me a nickname that I'm sure was needed and for giving the same excuse of deleting the proof. I won't re-add the references that report that Cassidy is Krispy because it's become clear that you will delete any references that say Cassidy is Krispy. Soulboost (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Orange Mike. This is still no hard evidence to suport that Krispy is Tyler, all you have is speculation and hearsay from different sources. Just because a few websites think they are the same person is not actual evidence proving he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.250.51 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of sources out there that prove beyond a doubt that Krispy Kreme and Tyler Cassidy are the same person, yet when added to this article, this information keeps getting deleted. Even when 4 sources are posted with news articles, pictures, names, and all. It's ridiculous that these updates keep getting removed when so many sources are provided. Krispy Kreme is just a character, not a living person. Just because he hasn't admitted it himself doesn't mean it isn't a fact. Many articles on here contain information about people that is sourced but the subject of the article would never admit to themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaxo1 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There could be a million sources all repeating the same questionable information and it would not make the information any more credible. Please read discussions above. MadenssContinued (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources I cited, in particular Complex and Slacktory, were sources already used at least 12 times in the page for citing other "facts" about him. If those sources weren't good enough for his true identity, why are they good enough for other things? Seems there's a problem with consistency there. It's wrong to cite one "fact" from a particular source, but deny the others. Wouldn't that discredit anything cited from that source? Quaxo1 —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These non-journalistic bloggers are only reporting information easily verifiable elsewhere, such as YouTube views, dates of YouTube uploads, tweets, etc. The information on the actual identity of Krispy Kreme is only Internet rumor at this point and the bloggers even state that in their posts. They list the image of the high school photo (which as noted above, is too low resolution to even determine eye color) as evidence, which it is not. There are people who look uncannily like others, so that image alone is not sufficient evidence. The uploaded recordings provided months after the initial Krispy Kreme videos that are claimed to be made by the person who is Krispy Kreme could have been made by anyone. I'm sure if I worked really hard at it and had the right engineer, I could sound like Krispy Kreme, or even Snoop Dogg, so this evidence without anything supporting it is also not acceptable. Then these same bloggers throw in the name of Money Maker Mike with no citation at all, and guess what? Not evidence. Just because someone posts something on the web and lots of people read it, even choose to believe it, does not make it true. As requested millions of times daily on every Wikipedia edit page, please read the Wikipedia:Verifiability article. Acceptable evidence might be interviewing current neighbors and others who know Krispy Kreme and his real name; people who have reviewed mix tapes that have his image (clearly not photoshopped from videos) associated with them; and of course Krispy Kreme admitting who he really is, or something similarly concrete and with multiple sources (just as journalists and historians do when trying to verify the billions of rumors that surround everything worth talking about). MadenssContinued (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a new source: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Tyler-Cassidy/Burton-MI/240djik the age matches, the city matches, and the parents match this page http://blog.mlive.com/flintcommunity_impact/2008/06/Graduates_section.pdf Also Google streetview of the address looks exactly the same as in the Stolen Bikes video. [2] Also compare this (in the same neighborhood) to this. Bugefun (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all circumstantial evidence. You are not providing any sources that convincingly reveal the identity of Krispy Kreme. Please refer to the article on Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I can tell you that as someone who as traveled extensively across the U.S., there are many, many neighborhoods that look exceptionally similar. While that may well be the place the video was filmed, without any other evidence to support this claim there is no way to be certain.--MadenssContinued (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is some primary source info about his name: The latest single up on Amazon says "Copyright: 2012 Tyler S Cassidy". It looks like he has registered ISWCs for his works using his real name for composer/author (e.g. searching for T-909.004.077-0 at http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ will bring up the details for "The Baddest"). That should be a enough to include his real name at least. --James (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright holder does not necessarily identify Krispy Kreme as Tyler Cassidy. The copyright holder is the person who owns title to the property, so this information cannot prove the identity of Krispy Kreme. It should also be noted that Krispy Kreme claims no copyright to any of his material as presented on his YouTube channel. Additionally, there is no link to the Amazon product by Krispy Kreme, and it seems likely that an artist would want to profit from his work by promoting it in the place that everyone sees it. The information in the ISWC file is essentially blank, stating only who owns a property titled "Baddest." Finally, given the anonymous nature of the Amazon store and the ISWC registration service, this is not proof of the identity of Krispy Kreme, or really anyone for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadenssContinued (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The entry in ISWC-Net lists Cassidy as the composer and author (i.e. the writer of the lyrics) for the song. And if you search for other entries by the same creator, you will get a list of other songs attributed to Krispy Kreme -- I just picked the first result as an example. Even if the copyright in the recording was held by a third party, this data would still list the song writer.

I am having trouble understanding why you would think that the ISWC data does not count as a reliable source though: for entries to appear in that database, the authorship of the song needs to be registered with a royalty collection society that operates under CISAC. For the information to be incorrect, a Tyler Cassidy (or someone pretending to be Tyler Cassidy) would have had to fraudulently register all the songs via one of the collection societies. While it is possible, you have no reliable source to back up that this is what happened.

I'm not going to add any other personal information, but I think there is clearly enough reliable sources to include his name. Unless you have some other reason to object, I'm inclined to revert your removal of the information. --James (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The ISWC entries list Cassidy as the composer and Krispy Kreme as the performer. They do not state that Tyler Cassidy is Krispy Kreme. The Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) article reiterates the importance of the No Original Research (NOR) policy. The sources you discuss do not explicitly state the identity of Krispy Kreme and therefore are not acceptable sources for such a claim. As the BLP article states, the article "... must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." MadenssContinued (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So you'd be happy for the article to state that Krispy Kreme's songs are composed and authored by Tyler Cassidy then? --James (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh so you guys are suggesting that a hoax started that Krispy Kreme was Tyler Cassidy and months after the fact Krispy just happens to use that name for copyright despite the speculation.It doesn't make sense. Ive found baby pictures and pictures posted on an account called tscassidy10 from like 2010. Did someone make a fake account of a random guy before he was famous. I even found mikes twitter and krispy kremes brothers instagram which has pictures of mike and tyler on it that have not been released to the internet in any other fashion. Any contradictions to the truth of Tyler's identity don't add up and make this page incomplete. Wikipedia isn't Amercia and Wikipedia's Verifiability rules aren't the constitution. Getting the well established truth written for the people shouldn't be a long and grueling process especially when as many sources and evidence has been presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtf4nd (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not intimately familiar with the policies and inner workings of Wikipedia, but it sounds to me like the article should just be citing all those sources and letting it all collectively speak for itself. It shouldn't actively be making its own judgments and saying "As you can see, this evidence overwhelmingly proves that Krispy Kreme is Tyler Cassidy!" That'd be like the article on the Casey Anthony case saying "On July 5, 2011, Anthony was wrongfully acquitted of first-degree murder." --75.80.176.105 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This sentence While Froggy has never revealed his real full birth name, nor his birthplace, Huffington Post, among other news outlets, have reported that Froggy is a Michigan native named Tyler Cassidy. should not be removed from the article. The sentence holds the fact that Froggy has not revealed his real identity, nor does it state that Froggy's real identity is Tyler Cassidy. It only states that HP has reported that his true identity is Tyler Cassidy. HP reporting and writing an article about his identity is a fact. The sentence should remain because it fits into his personal life, and how he hasn't revealed much about it, which is supported by this part of the sentence: While Froggy has never revealed his real full birth name, nor his birthplace, The sentence is cited in the article, as well. Soulbust (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Origin and Age

I can find no source for Krispy Kreme's origin, so I have deleted the data per the article on the Citation Needed tag. The Krispy Kreme YouTube page no longer displays Krispy Kreme's age, but I have left the age because it was verified from the YouTube page on the date listed, many other sources report the same thing, and I'm not sure what to do with it otherwise. --MadenssContinued (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because his videos have received a great deal of online success, including almost 10 million views for his video "The Baddest" on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.18.74 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

©: 2013 Bad Boy/Interscope Records

Although I am not aware of any public announcement of Froggy Fresh being signed to a label, songs published to the FroggyFreshVEVO channel do include the statement "©: 2013 Bad Boy/Interscope Records". A direct link to a YouTube video would be a better source than iroots.org. I changed the article to reflect this and also removed unsourced statement that Froggy Fresh disputed the legitimacy of the new Vevo channel.MadenssContinued (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No a direct link to the YouTube channel would NOT be in any way better than a third-party source (*cough* iRoots *cough*). This is because

• 1: iRoots is a third party source

and

• 2: The YouTube account could be fake. According to iRoots, they were contacted by Froggy, and say that Froggy has informed them that the VEVO account does not belong to him, and that he is not signed to BBR. Now of course, without an explicit statement from Froggy, we can't say for certain if the account is fake. However, just look at an undeniably real VEVO, like the rapper Drake's. His VEVO account has the heading "DrakeVEVO", and is verified. You can ensure that it is verified if you scroll over the little check mark in a gray box right next to the YouTube channel's heading. For God sakes, even another YouTube rapper, DeStorm Power, who recently got a VEVO, has the verified marker, as well as the generic "[insert artist's name here]VEVO" heading that you see on every legit VEVO page. When looking at the VEVO page in question, Froggy's, you can see his heading is "Froggy Fresh", not "FroggyFreshVEVO", and it does not have the verified marker.

Soulbust (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, stop removing the source from iRoots. I'm fine with it being not included in the article's references, BUT only after you contact an admin about the situation if you still feel that what I have said above is not sufficient enough to either 1. prove the VEVO is fake, 2. prove Froggy is not signed to BBR, or 3. both of the above.Soulbust (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That iRoots.org makes a claim does not make the claim true. I looked into it more and what I find more suspicious than the FroggyFreshVevo channel's name is that Froggy Fresh is not included as a searchable artist in any Vevo database that I can find (I checked the Vevo website and my Roku Vevo channel). If the channel is legitimate, we'll need some sort of verification, but I would categorize it as an unknown. If we were to assume the statements from Froggy Fresh are true, then it still may not disprove anything. Perhaps the rights to the works of artist Froggy Fresh are owned by some other party, who has signed with a label and asked Vevo to obfuscate their Froggy Fresh channel. I'm not saying I think this is the case, just demonstrating how we do not have enough information to include this in a Wikipedia article. If you have a problem with my edits, that is your problem, and you may contact who you wish, but I am not seeking permission to make edits.MadenssContinued (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)