Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tisdale

David Tisdale was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE.

David Tisdale
Vanity. *sigh* -- Scott Burley 22:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Actually I read this as probably having been written by Dalton Tisdale, intended as an affectionate prank directed at his brother David. Anyway, Dalton or David Tisdale, if you're reading this, consider creating a Wikipedia account (easy, free, and no personal information need be disclosed) and putting this material on your user page. If you're not sure what all that means ask and we'll be glad to explain. Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you stay, but autobiographies are out and so are biographies of non-notable people, meaning no offense. And good luck to David or Dalton in Iraq. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment (My reasons for thinking this can be seen more clearly the version originally submitted [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not vanity. *sigh* anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to exhibit all the traits listed on Vanity page, but perhaps your definition differs. Pnot 02:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of whether or not it is a vanity page by that definition (which is quite counter-intuitive), but I'll remove my vote since at least someone has made a sensical argument. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony has reverted to trolling the VfD pages in the exact same manner which got him blocked from editing following an arbitration committee ruling. I give you warning, Anthony, learn  how to give meaningful votes, or I *will* block you.  RickK 06:41, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was never blocked from editing following an arbitration committee ruling, and this is not the type of vote which the arb committee told me not to make as is obvious from the fact that I was making these types of votes during the time that the arb committee was ruling that I had ceased the "provocative" behavior (which was making sarcastic comments). This is not a vanity page.  It should be kept.  *sigh*.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete in a friendly manner -- not notable, vanity, POV ("the trend of American hating college students"... huh? American college students hate Americans?). Pnot 02:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Autobiography or biography of a non-notable individual. ("American college students hate America" of course....one of the oldest chestnuts of the far right wing in the US.  It allows them to ignore protests and marginalize the voices of students.  If they can cubbyhole students as "America haters," they don't have to listen to them or count them as dissent.)  Geogre 05:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability. Personally I was more of an America-hater before and after college than during, but those were the Bushs' years, so it stands to reason. -R. fiend 06:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not vanity. *sigh* Netoholic @ 06:55, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * There RickK, block me too if you want someone to intimidate. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * You don't have an open arbcom ruling specifically banning such behavior. Anthony does.  RickK 08:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop lying Rick. I do not. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * From Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony: If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours, not subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other users. Please note that I gave you a warning, which you have chosen to ignore.  RickK 22:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) That's not a ruling, it's an agreement I made with Raul654. 2) It doesn't ban any behavior, rather it states that admins may block me for 24 hours for certain reasons.  3) Sighing is not trolling, disruptive, or antisocial.  I would elaborate on this point, but I don't feel I can do so without engaging in what one might consider a personal attack.  4) The agreement certainly doesn't specifically address such behavior. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As for your "warning", I have not ignored it. If you choose to regularly block me for simply expressing my opinion, and you continue to refuse my repeated requests for mediation, then I will simply take it to the arbitration committee.  If the arbitration committee chooses to deny me the ability to express my opinion, I'll then appeal to Jimbo and/or the board.  If Jimbo and/or the board choose to deny me the ability to express my opinion, then I won't discuss anything on Wikipedia any more.  I'll still make edits.  I'll still vote on issues.  I just won't discuss anything through any method but private email.  So if that's the path you want to go down, and you think the arbitration committee, Jimbo, and the board are all going to go along with you, then I certainly can't say I wasn't warned.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and finally, I should note here as I have noted elsewhere that I was making exactly these types of edits while the arbitration committee was considering the finding of fact that "Anthony has over a long period of time made a number of provocative edits to VfD for no other apparent purpose than to stir other editors up. This behaviour has now ceased." ( is one example, but the others seem to have been lost as the templates were deleted). Emphasis is mine, and the fact that the arb committee agreed 6-0 in favor of that finding of fact leads to the conclusion that it was not comments like this which they disapproved of.  Martin, one of the arb committee members, also specifically said "Anthony has apologised for some aspects of his behaviour (the stuff I find problematic, basically)."  This was in response to my statement that "I also don't apologize for making relevant statements along with my votes. For example, Bethany Massimilla is a famous person who works for CNET. To say that I can't explain my votes, especially when some editors will throw out votes which are not explained, is just as unacceptable as saying I can't vote in the first place."  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep voting keep, that's not the point. The point is that you vote keep by mocking those who vote delete.  I will block you if you persist.  I have nothing more to say on this matter.  RickK 21:22, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call expressing my disappointment with a similar *sigh* to be mocking. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in the least. &rarr;Raul654 07:08, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and vanity. jni 07:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, fits the vanity page criteria perfectly. If you disagree with the criteria, take it up there, instead of ignoring them and voting to keep. Shane King 08:26, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, clearly fills all the vanity pages. Average Earthman 10:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No encyclopedic content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. --Improv 16:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Jayjg 00:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.