Talk:David Yost

Untitled

Vandals like putting up nonsense about Yostmania. Note that Yostmania is described as sweeping the globe, but David Yost only a C list US celebrity. Googling for Yostmania produces only wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. Tbjablin 19:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The linked forums have only 17 and 400 posts. Yostmania is a private joke or obsession. Please stop adding the Yostmania section. Tbjablin 14:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yostmania is a proven phenomenon. I would like to refer you also to the songs written about David Yost, the fans writing themselves into romantic situations with David Yost in Yost-related fan fiction, and fansites clearly showing worship to Yost (all of which are linked in the Yostmania section). Many of these fans are worldwide, and not just in the US. For example, the song linked that was written about Yost was written by a man located in Australia. - A Yostmania Advocate 17:18, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)

Tbjablin is a n00b.

Seconding the inspiring testimony of "A Yostmania Advocate". Tbjablin would like you to believe that "vandals" like putting up "nonsense" about Yostmania. Nothing could be further from the truth, and quite frankly these accusations are offensive to myself and other Yost enthusiasts. I would like to begin by pointing out that I personally created and maintain wikipedia's article on David Yost. This article pops up several times when googling David Yost which I think is proof of its quality. As an obviously enthusiastic and serious member of the Yost fan community why would I write an entire section pertaining to Yost which simply wasn't true? And the fact is, I am responsible for the creation of the Yostmania section, and I continue to authorize its inclusion in the article by fellow faithful Yost fans. Vandalism, my friend, is the malicious defacing or destruction of property. If I painted a gang insignia on my own house, you could not force me to remove it unless it caused you some kind of distress. The same applies to intellectual property. As I see it, the only people who could say this act of "vandalism" is causing them reasonable distress are Yost purists who are unfamiliar with the concept of Yostmania. But is not this obsession with what you percieve as accuracy in Yost-related journalism a form of Yostmania itself? And then there is the matter of your own offensive comments relating to Yost's celebrity status. Such degredation of an article's subject is hardly the kind of thing that is appropriate for publication on this website, even if it is only in this discussion section. You speak as if you are an accredited authority on the subject of David Yost, yet you make biased and bitter statements about him. If, as you say, we have vandalized this website with our comments about David Yost than you have done the same here. And a low post count in the forums proves nothing. These forums are less than a year old, and are not advertised at all. Admittedly, Yost does not command the same fanbase as some other hollywood stars, but one exists nonetheless, and it is a healthy one. And by the way, I do not and never did reside in the United States, and the same can be said of many of my fellow Yost enthusiasts. If Yostmania isn't sweeping the globe, than how is it that we are keenly aware of this "C List U.S. Celebrity"?

Googling for "David Yost" yields about 10k hits. "Lock Haven, PA" has a population of 10k and has 55k google hits. "Dustin Diamond" scores 17k hits, and I consider him to be pretty C-level. You may feel very strongly about David Yost, and there may be others like you, but that doesn't make it a mania sweeping the globe or an important social phenomena. This article doesn't belong to anyone. Everytime you hit submit there's a warning at the bottom say:

1. All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details).
2. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Tbjablin 06:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that you think your knowledge on David Yost and things pertaining to him exceeds the combined knowledge of at least TWO David Yost enthusiasts, combined? - A Yostmania Advocate 16:53, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)

What matters is that there are simply not enough Yostmaniacs to render the topic encylopedic. Wikipedia cannot catalog every pursuit, opinion, or hobby. Tbjablin 07:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been protected as a result of a request on WP:RFPP owing to edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how many Yostmaniacs there are, the condition still exists. The only reason why everything cannot be catalogued on Wikipedia is that no one could possibly add all of those articles. Yostmania was already catalogued, and thus there was no need to remove it, or call it nonsense, as you admitted that there were at least SOME Yostmaniacs. - A Yostmania Advocate

If you can quantify the number of Yostmaniacs in some way, and it's a significant number, then we can put the number into the article and it'll be a useful addition. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would be possible, as even quantifying the number of people affected by (for example) a specific disease is very hard for even a team of scientists to discover. Yostmaniacs would be much harder to identify and quantify, especially for just a single contributor to do. - A Yostmania Advocate

If you can't even put a verifiable ballpark figure there, it's not encyclopedic. You should do what the Star Wars fans did--spread a rumor around census time that if people list Yostmania as their religion then Yostmania will become an official religion in their country. They did that in the UK census and we ended up with more Jedi knights than Jews. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well we are aware that it exists, for sure, so none of the information we are providing is incorrect. I can't estimate a worldwide figure because I'm obviously limited. But I personally know upwards of 10 Yostmaniacs in my community. - A Yostmania Advocate

Tbjablin is a n00b times infinity.

I think that the best proof of Yostmania lies in the united effort of a few David Yost fans in their hopes of bringing down an ignorant person such as Tbjablin. "Yost World" currently has a thread which clearly displays a certain member's thoughts and feelings about Tbjablin's ignorance towards such a topic. If Tbjablin, truly feels that he/she is correct, surely he/she will read that entire first post and acknowledge points made by his/her opposition to further understand where they are coming from in order to make this dispute fruitful and not a waste of everyone's time. -- A deeply offended Yostmaniac

That thread seems to be rather old--the latest post there is mid-March. This isn't a fan site. If we take out comments about Yostmania it doesn't mean we hate him, it just means we can't verify them. This is an encyclopedia so we need to be sure that our articles are factual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize it doesn't mean that you hate him, however there are several Yostmaniacs posting at those forums and several discussing it on here. I think he is taking offense because you aren't recognizing that the people who are posting and discussing to be Yostmaniacs. These people exibit all of the qualities that were defined in the Yostmania section, so I don't really see why we can't determine that Yostmania exists. Maybe saying that it was sweeping the globe was a slight stretch, but it is still fairly obvious from reading the forums that Yostmania does exist. - A Yostmania Advocate

Several people posting on a fan site does not make a mania. Lets look at the claims one by one:

1. "As a result of old Power Rangers episodes being discovered by former fans, a phenomenon known as "Yostmania" is currently sweeping the globe"

• Sweeping the globe? Totally unsubstantiated

2. "with some extreme Yost fans going as far as to write songs about him (http://www.geocities.com/peter84au/davidsong.html) or even write themselves into Yost-related fan fiction"

• true, but not encyclopedic

3. There are also numerous Yost related fansites on the internet, including "The Yost" (http://www.pcshock.com/PRMania/Billy/index.html) as well as a comprehensive Yost forum (http://s4.invisionfree.com/Yost_World/index.php?act=idx).

• Check out my previous comment. There are less David Yost sites than there are sites about Dustin Diamond.

4. Yost has also had a major impact on the vernacular. High School students have been known to quote Yost quite frequently, most notably by saying "you ooze you lose" or "oh no". Yost's own name has even become a word with many uses, for example a "yost" is a person, animal, or inanimate object of sub-par quality; "yosting it" or "pulling a yost" is to fail at a task, especially one which any competent person should be able to do. This is not to be confused with "yosting someone" which means to put them in a position of disadvantage, to let them down, or to otherwise cause them some trouble as a result of your own imcompetance. When someone does this to you, you can say you were "yosted". For example, those who doubted that Yostmania exists are "Yosts" and have been rightfully "Yosted".

• This part just has to go. "Yosted" a verb? Googling "yosted" gives me 26 pages. "Yosted" might get to be a neologism when it grows up.

You are incorrect.

1. If you have a problem with only the part about "sweeping the globe" then change only that. Do not just remove it.

• OK. I will change this. Do not blindly revert all of my edits. Tbjablin 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Why not? It further backs up the fact that there are extreme Yost enthusiasts (or Yostmaniacs).

• But see point below if it is not encylopedic that there are extreme Yost enthusiasts, then support for this fact cannot be encyclopic either. Tbjablin 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. The idea of Yostmania is that the fans are extreme fans, and that they are still enthusiasts many years after the end to his major acting career. The idea is not the number of Yostmaniacs, but the level of enthusiasm.

• The high enthusiasm of a small minority is not encyclopedic. Tbjablin 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Some of those googled results are the following websites, with the following quotes in them. And by the way, my googling of Yosted turned up 63 results. If your statement was true, then this shows a HUGE growth in the use of the term.

• Dude http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=yosted&btnG=Google+Search there are still 24 results. Tbjablin 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.atlantainjurylawblog.com/offers-of-judgment-57-yost-deja-vu-wisdom-of-no-first-use-policy-on-offers-of-judgment.html This is an official site from a law firm, it is not something just made up. I quote from the 2nd paragraph "For three years afterward, plaintiff and defense lawyers 'Yosted' each other in a high percentage of cases."

http://p092.ezboard.com/fbrewersfandemoniumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=497.topic This is a fan forum of a baseball team, with no real affiliation to the Yost community, and one of the posters (who has been a member since 2003) defines in his signature the term Yosted. "Yosted (v.) - To be a player of marginal talent who has been inserted in the lineup everyday because of ability to 'battle'"

- A Yostmania Advocate

I thought what I wrote was a pretty fair attempt at compromise. If you don't like my edits try to improve them instead of blindly reverting. The reason I did not reply during the protected period was that I was happy with what Tony Sideways said, and I do no think you substantailly rebutted it. Tbjablin 00:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The legal website uses the term "yosted" in a context that appears to have no relationship to David Yost, but refers instead to a Georgia legal precedent of 1986 (when the Yost of this wikipedia article was fifteen years old) known as Yost V. Torak. The Brewers reference gives a meaning of "yosted" that is related to a baseball player known as Edgar Frederick "Ned" Yost who played Major League from 1980-1985. He was with the Brewers from 1977 until 1983. The term "yosted" as used in the sense of David Yost doesn't seem to have much currency, but in my personal opinion (as a fellow Wikipedia editor) it may merit a mention and an explanation of the meaning in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we are getting closer to a compromise. Can you find any evidence of Yost being used in the ways described in the article? If so, let's link it. Also, are you sure that this is most common in high schools? From what I understand Power Rangers was most popular with pre-teens, so wouldn't it make more sense if Yost were quoted by middle schoolers? I must confess I have never seen Yost used the way you describe. Who have you seen use this word? Could it be that the word is used exclusively among Yost maniacs? If I saw someone use Yost as a noun or a verb it would suggest to me that that person is a Yostmaniac. Another puzzle is why Yostmaniacs use Yost's name in a derogatory fashion. Further, are we sure that this is not a geography specific use of the word? I live in the eastern United States. Maybe this usage is more common in another part of the world. If so, we should include that information in the article. Tbjablin 23:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we're coming to an agreement. I'm fairly sure that it is most common in high schools currently, as the generation that were pre-teens (and thus in the target audience) at the time of the show's creation are now growing up, and in thier teenage years are reliving thier childhood through watching old power rangers episodes. Regarding the possibility of the word being regional dialect, I live in eastern Canada and it is a fairly common term, mainly among high school students. - A Yostmania Advocate

I think we should assume this word is specific to Eastern Canada until we can get some other documentation. I live in the Eastern United States and have never heard the word used this way. I think the view that this is a highly regional phenomena is consistent with the levels of use seen on the Internet. Certainly, we don't want to give the impression that Yost is entering the British or Australain lexicon. Tbjablin 00:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'm in agreement with teh current state of the page, so it seems we've come to terms. I'm glad this worked out. - A Yostmania Advocate

Why is Yost in a derogatory way by Yostmaniacs? Tbjablin 13:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To those planning on editting out the Yostmania section: There was already an arguement over it and a moderator was involved and an agreement was reached over the content. There is no need to further remove any of it.

The whole Yostmania section is a joke. I can't believe this article is protected due to the ramblings of a few trolls who claim to have a "spiritual interest" in such a low level celebrity. This section should be removed immediately, it's completely unencyclopedic and reads like some sort of practical joke or trolling. SchnappM 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Why do you think an agreement was reached under the supervision of a mod?

I have no idea. It boggles my mind. Maybe it's because 24.141.254.74 is a "n00b times infinity"? SchnappM 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC), a deeply offended sane person

Oh, and hey! I found out exactly what the right term is for the "Yostmania" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT But I don't really want to bother with this any further, so hopefully someone else will take care of it. SchnappM 10:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you quoting "n00b times infinity" and attaching it to my IP? That was not my adittion to the talk page (if you'd check the history, it was made by a user of a different IP.) All of my posts have been made in a mature manner. I don't appreciate your calling me "n00b times infinity" without any reason. I assume you were doing that because you thought that it was my comment that originally contained that, but it was not.

And furthermore, I don't appreciate your signature implying that I am insane.

Yost's sexuality

I'm curious. The article mentions that Yost married a childhood sweetheart named "Louis". Does this mean Yost is gay? Kidicarus222 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is yes. It said it was a commitment ceremony. Kind of curious why it got deleted on 5 April. Maybe it's not true or they broke up or something? RexTraverse 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Provide some evidence, and you can re-submit it, else someone will probably erase it. Michael 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

why was it deleted??i hope it was simply because the info was wrong, or mr yost wanted his private life to remain private. any other reason for the info to be deleted is just wrong- who ever decided to delete it should explain why he/she deleted it -

Presumably, it was removed because there are no reliable sources to back up the claims, and those are necessary for information to be included in Wikipedia. That certainly doesn't mean that it's not true, but until and unless he comes out publicly, we don't have the kind of proof we need to include it here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

His quotes

A lot of these quotes would probably go under the Billy Cranston page instead of the Yost page because it is the character that said them, not the actor. wonduhbread 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Please feel free to add them to the character's page, if you feel so inclined. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Put the quotes onto the Billy page and reverted page back to the moment after the quotes were removed due to over editing of things. There is no reason to remove half of that stuff. Its been there for a long time and people were quite happy with it. It fits in well and it seemed like a bit of it was very nit picking removals. Please discuss first before removing everyone's hard work here. This is everyone work here, not just one persons to remove. This is about David and his career as a power ranger. Things like his most high profile work as Billy matters as we are stressing the point that it was both his biggest power ranger moment and as an actor. It should not be nit picked removed like that. Lets discuss first before taking everything out of here and leaving nothing of substance here for people to read when they come to the David page. Thanks PantheraLeo 23:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to not have stopped by the talk page first to discuss. I just figured I'd be bold and see how things went rather than trying to explain in advance. I did attempt to explain some of my changes in edit summaries however, and I'm willing to talk about what I changed, which I believe was in keeping with Wikipedia policy.

The reason I removed most of the section about the possible reasons Billy may have moved into a reduced role is because they appear to be pure speculation. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia is supposed to "only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Also, Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy prohibits "personal analysis or interpretation of published material". It might be true that "some people" have interpreted Billy's reduced role various ways, but the text in the article doesn't specify who these people are or offer any evidence (from a reputable source) that they think this, so the speculation doesn't belong here. The same goes with the discussion of the role Yost was allegedly supposed to have in the Turbo film. I also thought the bit about this actor feeling it was only fair he should have his previous pay rate was rather POV -- it's written from a sympathetic point of view toward the actor. The rest I just simplified to make the article more accessable. I admit I removed a lot of text, but none of the (verifiable) information I removed was actually about David Yost. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, with regards to the line you're referring to -- David's most high-profile work portraying Billy and in his career seems redundant to me. If the movie was the most high profile work of his career, it has to be his most high profile work portraying Billy. There's no reason to state it twice. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 08:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is in policy but it's also in policy to be able to change it back if the changes aren't agreed upon. I don't disagree at all with what you are saying here, don't get me wrong. Thats all fine and true but I don't feel that the changes were necessary is the point here. Yes maybe you can say it was some POV but it can also be seen as clarification on some part. I think its a grey matter issue we are dealing with here over POV and policy issues. The idea is to build an informative, fun and as best as possible write up about whoever it is at the time (this case being David) and less isn't always more. I don't think any would have any problems with making some minor cuts or punctuation movements but to totaly cut and snip out everything in the name of following policy when it's quite questionable if it wasn't following policy in the first place is the problem. How about fixing the things there to make it fit to policy rather then just cutting everything out all together. It's easy to take a scissor to something and not patch it up , much harder to take an existing work and adding to it without using the scissors. I just think before we cut everyones hard written work here we should work to adding more rather then removing a lot. The page was quite informative as it was and the POV things can be edited slightly to make it less so. But cutting out everything isn't the way to go about it either. I don't want this to become a edit..revert..edit..revert battle here as I think we both want the same thing here. Which is the best page we can make for David Yost. Lets take what we have and either add to it or make it work better. I see some of the Yostmania stuff was POV based and thats up to you or the others here if it should stay or not. But even that seemed to have been debated heavily here and backed with sources to make it stay. I didn't bring it back as some of your edits here were great. But I was amazed that when I came back to this page you cut out almost everything and replaced it with nothing. Like I said there is a way to make changes without just removing everything in the name of policy. As I know the policy quite well and have read it. It doesn't say anything about nit picking removals that are questionable at best to not be following policy. When people come to pages like this they should have a lot to see and read and be informed on. Encyclopedias give as much as posible without over doing it or offering too little. I thought that this page accomplished that quite well as it was before the huge scissors came in to play. Thats why I reverted it back to right after you removed the yostmania stuff. After that I think we got a little too picky on things and I see many other character and bios that do the same thing that was done here and has been like that for years. Be bold.. I agree with that but also sometimes find the places to be bold and do it at the right times too. We will see what we can come up with but I don't think it should have been changed that much .. a few minor changes would have more then satisfied the problems you had with it. Also if we can add rather then subtract that would be most appreciated as well. Anyway I'm just a member like you, so it's your call I just don't want to get into a fight as you seem like a good member and someone who really wants to do the best here, but so do I. I'm not even a big Yost fan I just found everything here to be a good example of what wikipedia is about. A lot of people contributing informative and enjoyable information in an encyclopedia style. Lets just edit what we have slightly rather then remove it I say if you insist on having to make those changes you did.PantheraLeo 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate that you are editing in good faith and only reverted the changes you disagreed with, rather than everything I changed. I also appreciate that you don't want to get into an edit war -- I don't either. However, if you think it's questionable that the article was not regarding policy, I recommend you re-read the pages of policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability)I have linked to, because I think the rules are pretty clear in this case. Looking over the differences between the two articles again, I can't see any content that I've removed that isn't speculative and completely unsourced. If you think my understanding of policy is mistaken, perhaps we should get a third opinion on this. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if it will help to clarify, but I've gone ahead and marked statements either citation needed or original research where they seem to apply within the article. Perhaps we can discuss some of them individually? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I can see you are very serious about this. I don't agree with some of your edits but will back down due to this only being a page on David Yost and this seems very important to you for some reason to do this and it's not worth going through all of this for either of us. I said how I felt and people can read how I feel and we will see what happens in the future. But if you want to bring in more people thats fine. Lets not though, this is David Yost. Not the Pope you know? If you want to take it that far, I am just throwing my arms up in the air and walking away. Honestly I just don't want to go through all the effort here that this has become. What should have been something simple has turned into something on the side of very complicated. I'm shocked if not surprised that you would take it this far when its just a few questionable edits that shouldn't be done. I don't know why you feel you have to do all this to this section (well I do but don't agree as I said) but let it be noted I didn't agree with your feelings on if it was neutral or POV based but gracefully backed down without protest. I said my piece. I will leave it at that. I am reverting it to your previous version and lets just move on. Someone in the future can add to it and hopefully it will be fine for everyone. That's what makes this place great, everyone is always adding and adding to things so I hope the good people who come by here do so in the future and make it a great read again. I just am moving on as I'm not a big enough Yost fan or Power Rangers fan to put too much more into this. Keep up the good work man. Someone in the future can add or do as they want with it and then we will take it from there. That's all I will say now. PantheraLeo 01:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks again for remaining civil. You don't need to back down of you don't want to -- I'm definately willing to talk about edits -- but I can also completely understand wanting to move on from a debate about David Yost, of all people. If it shocks you that I'd make a big deal of this, it would probably surprise you a lot more to know that I found this article utterly by conincidence. David Yost certainly doesn't have a huge amount of importance to me; I don't even know what a Zeo Crystal is. When I first edited this article, I expected my edits to be relatively uncontroversial. When you disagreed with my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I thought it was worth talking about because policy is worth talking about rather than because Yost is a stunningly important academic subject. In the end, I'm sincerely sorry you think I'm wrong on this issue, because I think the nature of our disagreement relates strongly to the functioning of Wikipedia itself, but I respect your decision if you want to drop it. Your edits, and all the previous versions of this article, will always be available in the article's history if anyone wants to find that information and try to find a source for it somewhere. Hope to see you around Wikipedia, -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yostmania vs. reliable sources

I removed the Yostmania section again, because this does not appear to be relevant to David's Yost's notability. I based this decision on the combination of the following principles:

1) WP:Verifiability: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain.

2) Wikipedia:Reliable sources-- Personal websites as secondary sources: Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website.

3) Reliable Sources -- Self-published sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

I realize there's been some discussion of this before, but the issue was not resolved from what I can observe. "Yostmania" gets just over a hundred hits on google, the was majority of which refer back to this article in one form or another. As for "numerous" David Yost fansites on the web, I found two. Unless someone can prove this is significant part of why David Yost is notable, the term shouldn't be here. As was stated above, "the high enthusiasm of a small minority is not encyclopedic". -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, why is this irrelevant to the notability of Yostmaniacs? What is a fact that is MORE notable regarding Yostmaniacs?

Regarding the fan sites, you could only find 2? I'll take about 30 seconds of time here and list what comes up from Yahoo on David Yost (in terms of fansites)

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/7689/ www.geocities.com/peter84au/david.html http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3933/ www.angelfire.com/falcon/film3/DavidYost.html http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4931/yost.html http://www.pcshock.com/PRMania/index.html (not exclusively Yost, but has an undisputable focus on him)

I did not look beyond the first page of results. Perhaps a different set is coming up for you.

Furthermore, I disagree that "a high level of enthusiasm among a small group of people is not encyclopedic." If there was a small faction of Hitler enthusiasts being called "Hitlermaniacs", everyone would think it was encyclopedic.

I apologize for not searcing more thoroughly. I found two in the first ten pages on a google search. I should have mentioned that I found two "from a quick check of google", or something similar. With regards to to the links you found, the third seems to be a small section of a larger personal site, the fourth seems to profile all of the former actors from the Power Ranger franchise without making any claims about being a David Yost fan, and the fifth is dead entirely, so that brings us to three or four. It's hardly fair to say this means he has an especially large number of fansites.

Regarding point three: My problem with the info about Yostmania is not that it isn't relevant to Yostmania. My problem is that it needs to be relevant to the notability of the subject of the article, which is David Yost. David Yost is notable because he played a prominant role in a popular and finacially successful children's franchise, not because he has an exceptionally ravenous fan following. In fact, almost every celebrity has a number of extreme fans. If you can come up with a number that indicates the reaction to David Yost is special in some way, it would help. Right now, though, if you google for "David yost"+"fan" you get about 750 hits, most of which lead back to the text from this article and/or are google spam. "Amy Jo Johnson"+fan gets about 50,000. "Keanu Reeves"+fan gets over a million and half. The word Yostmania, meanwhile, only gets ONE result that doesn't come directly from the text of Wikipedia's article. Should we start adding sections about words made up by the fans of every celebrity on Wikipedia?

In order to Wikipedia's policy, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the word Yostmania is a term in use, using sources that are acceptable to Wikipedia. This means no self-published sources, including fan sites, message boards, or personal home pages. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Regarding Point 3": The phenomenon of Yostmania is not based on the fact that David Yost has MANY fans so much as it is based on the fact that he maintains a devout following many years after his carreer as a mainstream celebrity ended. Yost has not been seen in a major role of a television show since 1996 (and even that role was diminishing). Amy Jo Johnson has a successful career in Music (and musicians tend to have more devout fans than television actors). Keanu Reaves has been the star of a relatively recent box-office hit TRILOGY of movies, as well as numerous other A-list films in the past few years. Yostmania is a phenomenon noting the level of enthusiasm of the fans, as well as the extreme length of time for which they are remaining devout fans. EDIT: Also, I do nmot see what the problem would be if there was a fan-created term that pertains to the actor, and that term was added to that actor's profile. I think it's notable that there are multiple fans using the person's name in words for everyday speech, it certainly says something about the person.

Alright, let's take this on a point by point basis, okay? That'll probably be the easiest way to reach an agreement.

According Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to add, or keep, information in an article. So let's talk about the word Yostmania.

Can you demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the word is commonly used by fans of David Yost, or anyone else? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody here seems to have forgotten that an agreement was reached with respect to the Yostmania section, which involved a Wikipedia moderator. This section should not be taken down and the precedent set by that moderator should not be ignored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.199.18.113 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what agreement you're referring to, but Wikipedia works by building consensus, and from what I can see above there was never any clear consensus regarding the 'mania' section. The fact that this topic has been discussed before doesn't mean it can't be changed, even if an administrator was involved in the discussion (and from what I can tell, it doesn't really look like any admin has said the section should remain anyway). To reiterate, the burden of proof is always on the person wishing to keep unverified information in an article. If the term is really notable, it should be very easy to prove it exists using reliable external sources. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a better one? To be honest, he looks like he's in pain in that one... Michael 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... it was taken at Thuy Trang's funeral. It is the most recent one widely available on the internet and much better than the fuzzy screen capture that was there before. RexTraverse 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh...Then, I will make a note of that in the caption. Michael 04:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a screenshot from a video. Was that funeral taped or something? ^---SilentRAGE! 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... would you guys mind if I updated Yost's picture... that thing is from 6 years ago... he doesn't look anything like that any more. RabidPanda V 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Z Pizza?

David Yost currently working at Z Pizza? Source?

That's probably just bullshit. Unless the instigator who created this rumor can produce solid evidence that Yost is working at a pizza parlor, I won't buy it and consider it vandalism. Pitstain 05:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Yost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161022022548/http://henshinjustice.com/2016/05/18/power-rangers-actors-reunion-film-the-order-revealed/ to http://henshinjustice.com/2016/05/18/power-rangers-actors-reunion-film-the-order-revealed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)