User talk:Yanksox

.....And I just came here to give you a barnstar for your boldness and humanity--Doc^g 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

About bloody time too. And, when it stays dead, I'll know Wikipedia has matured!--Doc^g 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel Brandt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Cat out 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... WTF is going on? I can understand the desire to get rid of that cesspool, but unilaterally deleting the article and the talk is not the way. Can you provide any reason why I shouldn't undelete? Zocky | picture popups 15:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have gone for now - we are currently discussing this on DRV, perhaps you'd like to contribute to that.--Doc^g 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is any sentence, any word in that entire article that violates BLP, please point it out. The article itself is not libellous, but the personal attacks you made in deleting it are quite offensive. —freak(talk) 16:32, Feb. 23, 2007 (UTC)

Freak, this isn't about the rules. The rules don't exist, the rules were made to endorse kids who giggle and torment people when they can. This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen. We are not almighty, we are not great, Jimmy Wales is not god, you need to think and ask if someone who very few people knew outside of this is worth keeping if they have personal wishes. I for one, would not want a Wikipedia article. This whole thing is magnificent in theory, but it's gone out of control, it's time to harness everything and fix this goddamn mess. Yanksox 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to decide that alone, because you alone can't do that. It takes very many people. The reason that this project has managed to survive so far (and not to mention, make a good encyclopedia out of nothing) is that we mostly work hard on not pissing each other off too much. Your contribution today was harmful to the project, and it would do you well to think hard before pulling off something like that again. Zocky | picture popups 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If he was deciding *alone* then he'd have been overturned and that'd be the end. In fact, many many people are endorsing and supporting the decision.--Doc^g 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly many enough to write and run Wikipedia on their own. Zocky | picture popups 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

You get the second award granted in 2 days. People who count mostly think you are right. I suspect you know this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

		Three Purple Hearts
		Given in recognition of doing the right thing, the right thing, and the right thing in full knowledge of the probable consequences. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

wow

I'm shocked that you've had the balls to open a Can of worms twice in three days. First one makes sense, but your outright deletion of Daniel Brandt shocks me, as controversial things just can't be outright deleted like that. Your actions are actually starting to scare me. That doesn't mean you're wrong, your decision will probably end up right, but still.--Wizardman 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. then again I wish i could do that, heh. Sure your actions are shocking, but I respect your decisions. Whether or not I end up suporting your deletion I at least respect your guts in makign tough decisions.--Wizardman 18:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Expression of support

I wanted to stop by and say that I for one continue to love and respect you, and will support you no matter where you go with this. Please rely on me for assistance moral and strategic. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For the deletion of the Daniel Brandt article

You have balls the size of Wisconsin. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your words on the Daniel Brandt article

First presentation of the Wise Old Owl Award – for when a few words of wisdom change the course of events for the better. You spoke from a deeper place that isn't in policy, though maybe it will be. Tyrenius 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil

Where? Sorry, I certainly dont want to be uncivil to you and apologize if you took a cooment of mine in this way. You and I are on different sides of the political fence but I dont wish you any personal malice. I wish I knew exactly what had happened at DB. There will be a big fallout. Personally I wish you the best, and politically we are very much in opposition, I couldnt disagree with you more striongly. Cheers! SqueakBox 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar.

• 
  Rouge admin barnstar. For a shining example of the BOLD part of BOLD/revert/discuss.

But now it's time to undelete it and take it to AFD to get it properly ratified. --Random832 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Officialdom

I am being pressured to take this DB case to arbcom and while I am considering my decision I have concluded that you are the one responsible, ie acting in a way inappropriate for an admin (and this is a friendly letting you know), SqueakBox 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that ArbCom would accept a case based on a single deletion decision by a respected administrator. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Job well done

You have my full and unconditional support, for having the cojones to do something I thought should have been done a long time ago - WP:BOLDly get this silly, sordid and time-wasting affair over with. Excellent work. FCYTravis 21:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Petition to canonise Yanksox

We the underside call on the powers that be to officially declare Yanksox a saint of wikipedia, a defender of our humanity, and an all round good guy.

Signed:
--Doc^g 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

--Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
My opposition just got blanked. Lol this is utterly meaningless, if you cant even take a joke why make one? And I coyuld nmnot more strongly oppose. Canonising someone for supporting a banned user isnt quite bad taste but a sign of something else. It'll be Willy on Wheels next, SqueakBox 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opposition is noted - but even banned users have some entitlement to respect.--Doc^g 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Brandt has seriously damaged wikipedia and he gets his way by persuading users to ignore all rules. This is a sad day for the internet, SqueakBox 22:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that his article ever existed, then we wouldn't have had to have this ridiculous discussion. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. SqueakBox, I urge you to reconsider your position on this issue. The community consensus on biographies of living persons issues is becoming crystal clear - we must err on the side of caution in every instance, even for the most notable of persons. In the cases of persons like Daniel Brandt, whose encyclopedicity is marginal at best, there is absolutely no harm done to the encyclopedia to take strong consideration of the wishes of the subject. I'm tired of the confrontational "X person doesn't want an article, THEREFORE THEY MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE" mentality that seems so strong on Wikipedia. We do not need to be needlessly confrontational about our work - save the righteous indignation for a situation that really matters... like, House staffers whitewashing Congressional biographies.

The First Amendment gives us the right to publish. That's great, but it also gives us the right not to publish. When you are responsible for a publication, SqueakBox, sometimes the latter is even more important and powerful than the former. We must use our press fairly and responsibly. FCYTravis 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American so confess my ignorance of the first amendment (I'm subject to Honduran and British law in practice). If this were an afd or even if the article were still there and editable I would have no problem with any of this but procedure has been thrown top the wall. How is it okay to call him a saint and not a heretic? IMO this day is the worst in wikipedia history, that is my prophecy, SqueakBox 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The First Amendment is the right to freedom of the press and of speech in America. Wikipedia is not now, and never has been, a slave to procedure. If everyone had to follow strict and exact guidelines when editing, or be banninated, nobody would be left. One of the things that makes Wikipedia great is that bold actions are allowed, and even encouraged, because there is very little which is permanent. There is a distinct silent majority of editors and admins who think this whole sordid affair has gone on far too long, and just needs to be ended. None of us had the cojones to do anything about it, which is sad. I certainly wish I did, but I just didn't want to stick my neck out. Yanksox did, and now that he's come out and done what we all wish we'd done, we, this silent majority, are now free to follow in his trailblazing footsteps and say what we've wanted to say all this time. There is very little added to the encyclopedia by the article, and by allowing it to become a cause celebré, we damage the encyclopedia far more. It's about respect - no matter what he might have done, we do ourselves a disservice by keeping an article out of spite. Let it go, Louie, let it go. FCYTravis 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping

I have desysopped you. The ArbCom will take a good hard look at the case and determine the longterm solution.

While I am always an advocate of being bold, being bold while simultaneously insulting people is just not appropriate. Had you done the initial delete with a serious argument on the talk page, a deletion summary of WP:BOLD, well, I would not agree, but I would not consider it a serious problem. We can always undo a deletion... but insulting people creates the wrong kind of community action.--Jimbo Wales 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)