User talk:USER-cacophony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, USER-cacophony, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JoJan 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. USER-cacophony 20:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] re: Deletion Review of myg0t

All I said was that those people who were basing their opinion on the prior deletion discussion (and several people had recommended overturning the deletion because they believed that decision had been improperly closed) needed to be aware that the discussion had been vandalized between the time the decision was closed and when they reviewed it. The vandalism obscured two or three strong "delete" opinions in that discussion. After removing the vandalism and restoring the old deletion discussion, the arguments that the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus" need to be reevaluated.

I don't know whether this article will be recreated or not. That decision is still under discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Myg0t-pczone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Myg0t-pczone.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 13:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello thar

Next time you leave a message on my talk page, please leave your signature. I'll add it anyway. I also added some new stuff to the myg0t talk page. --Andeee 10:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 04:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This is unacceptable. You should now go and post the same on the Talk pages of those who previously advocated Delete. Ballot-stuffing is grounds for blocking, please ensure that you never do this again. Just zis Guy you know? 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask any of these people to vote one way or another, I simply asked them to post their thoughts. The fact that they voted to delete affirms this to be true. You're free to block me, however. It certainly wouldn't be the first time you've been in favor of removing something that made wikipedia a better encyclopedia. My reguards, cacophony 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on entirely missing the point :-) If you are going to notify those who previously voted on a particular debate, the fact that you don't advocate voting a particular way is irrelevant if you only notify those who voted one way. Notifying all previous voters, whichever way, is acceptable, notifying only yhose who voted the same way as you, is not. The reasons are obvious. I note that you are now notifying others, well done - don't stop with me (I am not entirely stupid and can see your contribs list). Your final comment is of course an example of begging the question. I happen to believe that including this kind of article makes the encyclopaedia worse, not better, and we are both perfectly entitled to our respective, and opposing, views. Just zis Guy you know? 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You do not appear to have alerted the other previous Delete advocates yet. May we take this as a tacit admission that actually you were intending to skew the deletion review? Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I am busy with other matters at the moment, however if you would like to notify some people, feel free too. Personally I do not feel it is necessary, as most people seem to have believed your lies about the myg0t article (such as it being non-notable, even though it satisfies the notability requirements). Besides, who needs votes to delete, when you have an admin that breaches wikipedia's policies in order to satisfy his personal desires? cacophony 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Pierce Didn't Create His Own Entry

Hello, I just noticed that you're trying to accuse me of creating my own entry. It might be impossible to prove that I didn't but lets go over some of the things you quote from the original entry

  1. "His writing style is impromptu, frank, respectfully opinionated, humorous, and uniquely careless of capitalization."

i dont think writing impromptu is a compliment. i dont think im typically respectful in my blog all the time, and for sure i dont think that being "careless" of capitalization is something worth describing about my writing style. those are usually the things other people say about me which i usually have to say, so what? if you read any of my interviews you'll see that i explain the lack of capitalization in my blog is due to the fact that im a lazy writer who often blogged at work and had no time to edit or give a crap.

in fact if i wrote something about my style it would be "lazy, crude, rude, and intended to get laid."


  1. "He is patriotic but politically critical, while at the same time charismatic and quite the ladies man."

PATRIOTIC? how can someone be patriotic "but" politically critical? since when are the two mutually exclusive? in my mind youre not patriotic unless you question authority and your employees in government. never have i called myself patriotic unless i was defending myself in some weird debate, nor thrust such a weird definition for no good reason on anyone else. i have written a lot of things, put "politically critical" and tony pierce into Google and see what you get, i bet you will only get whoever it was who wrote this thing about me on wikipedia.


  1. "He has published much other material online including photo essays, podcasts, and photos. He has completed several books via cafe press including How to Blog in which he discloses some of his blogging secrets, and Stiff, a novella in which he travels to hell, to meet Kurt Cobain."

CafePress is one word. spelled like that. i am deeply indebted to them and when i do pay attention to spelling its to people who have done me right. only someone unfamiliar with CafePress would put them into two words. although you might be able to find the rare occurrence where i split the words on my blog, Lord knows if i was putting it in a Wikipedia page i would have spelled it correctly.

As for Stiff, I dont go to Hell to meet Kurt Cobain! In fact I believe the first sentence of the book is "I knew I was in trouble when I saw Kurt Cobain at my front door." If anything Kurt Cobain came to Earth to meet me in that book to tell me that I was dead and had to go get judged. But only someone who hadnt read the book would think I went there to meet Kurt - who by the way is in Heaven in my book.

  1. "He has also been known to converse with such celebrities as Howard Stern, and Matthew Good."

OK Sherlock heres a clue as to who this Shakey Bear might be... What Americans care who Matthew Good is, or even know who he is? Odds are Mr. Bear is Canadian and was/is into me because of my friendship with the musician who is relatively unknown here in the USA. As for Howard Stern, not only have I never met or conversed with him, but I never even pretended to in my blog, despite the fact that I do pretend to talk with celebrities (cobain, anna kournikova, etc) as well as inanimate objects (Escalators)

There is definitely enough about my so-called notability to discuss in the debate. May I suggest that you clear out all those silly attempts to out me as Shakey Bear and stick to the topic at hand which is, does a guy who has been quoted in newspapers around the world, who is in the Technorati Top 500, who received an award for a post that has been translated in several languages, and who became a professional blogger, and who helped coin the word "blook" which is unique to blogging and has taken off and was runner up This Year as Word of the Year... deserve a place in Wikipedia.

I admire your attempt to take the easy way out but you're barking up the wrong tree. Once you have decided that you are wrong to suggest that I am not a man of my word, I would appreciate you deleting your accusations against me.

But trust me, I have great respect for the web and Wikipedia and I feel like my inclusion on Wikipedia stands on its own based on what I have done on my blog which is very different and unique than other bloggers. As for my photo being used... I have thousands of pictures on the web, and I believe that photo was my main MySpace photo at the time. Anyone could be Shaky Bear but I believe he/she is a Canadian. If Canadians are disallowed from making pages here then delete me immediately. Tony Pierce 75.200.116.69 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since, by your own admission, you have never said any of these things describing your qualities, I can safely assume that nobody else but you would have knowledge of them, and thus it would be impossible for anybody other than you to have written an article describing said qualities. Come to think of it, how do I even know that this is Tony Pierce I am speaking with? On a side note, regarding the section title, do you often refer to yourself in the third person? cacophony 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
the point of the matter is sometimes people get things wrong. for example, the falsety that i have interviewed or talked with Howard Stern - I worked at E! Networks for 4 years, on occasion it was my job to help out on the Howard Stern show in post-production. I also met the Executive Producer Robin Radzinski and an Associate Producer from NY. In talking about that on my blog it could lead to an excited fan of mine to recollect incorrectly that I actually met Mr. Stern. If you are suggesting that everything in Wikipedia is accurate then please say so and I will go on my way.
to prove I am Tony Pierce, I will write a post on my blog in a few hours addressing these issues. if you wish to stand by your guns that I am the infamous Shaky Bear, I will ask you to state your reasons why in the comments of my blog. That way you will know that you are conversing with me, Tony Pierce.
If you conclude that I am not making all of this up, and that my entry was created by someone else, please do the right thing and edit out your false claims against me. my blog is located here
As per your side note, I have no idea how Wikipedia works, and I used that title so that it would be of easier reference to you as opposed to saying "Quit making up shit about me, I've had enough of that around here". Hopefully this will be the last time I will have to go to someones user page on Wikipedia to have them take down false allegations against me, but if you can suggest a better title, please let me know what I should have written. Gratzi - Tony Pierce 70.219.47.146 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, nothing you've said has convinced me, despite the overwhelming evidence, that you did not, in fact, create your own article. While you may or may not have done so, my comment on the AfD will remain so other users can draw their own conclusions from the evidence. Thank you, cacophony 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that one is guilty until proven innocent? Also what "evidence" do you have? All you have is wild speculations. The way CafePress is spelled alone should be proof that someone unfamiliar with that company wrote that. The fact that I have written on my blog about every interview of every famous person who i have met over the last five years, and yet never mentioned meeting one of my all-time heroes, Howard Stern, should also be proof to you that I didn't write that entry. Do facts or logic mean no difference to you when you ALL CAPS false allegations about other people? Or does actually debating whether I am notable based on my actual blogging career tire you since it's clear that I meet several of the requirements? For your sake I apologize that I've been quoted in newspapers around the world, given the highest blogging award, been read by millions, and earned a job as a professional blogger. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to disparage me based on no facts and no logic and refuse to do the right thing and correct yourself when you are found wrong. But as I promised, in a few minutes I will post on my blog, because one person here is a man of his word. Tony Pierce 70.219.47.146 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've drawn my conclusion from the evidence, and presented the evidence for others to draw their own conclusions. I think that's only fair. Your bid to censor me has been noted and denied. I have presented no arguments regarding your non-notability thusfar, I feel that other people have done that enough in the debate. I think this matter is closed now. Reguards, cacophony 02:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not trying to censor you. I am asking you to correct yourself when you are proved wrong. Huge difference.

Secondly, by keeping your ALL CAPS allegation against me, after reading my blog post and these conversations, you are basically saying that you believe that I am lying to you in this page and I am lying in my blog post. You are saying that you believe that I put up my own entry using words that I have never used before or since on my blog, and descriptions about my blook "Stiff" that aren't true and are disproved in the FIRST sentence of the book. If that is the case I would actually prefer it if you added to your comment "I believe that when Tony denies on my Talk Page that he is Shaky Bear he is a flat out liar."

Because of the way that discussion page is set up I can not defend myself there. So if now, after you have written your ALL CAPS slam in a public forum indirectly linked to by Digg, and read my blog post that took time for me to write, and followed the search results that I spent time linking for your ease, if you now believe that I am not only the original author of that entry but also a liar, please say so in the open forum or delete your allegations against me.

You have provided no "evidence" in your allegation, you have posed claims. I have provided evidence based on links and logic and histories and phrases that are easily searched.

On a side note it's fascinating how quickly guys like you and timecop, who have no problem being verbose while slinging mud on people in public forums, suddenly clam up and request for discussions to end when you're on the losing end of a discussion on a TALK page. Shouldn't you have a disclaimer on this page that says "Yes I know that this is a TALK page but when you're successful at proving me wrong I'd rather not talk any more"? Tony Pierce 70.219.47.146 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused how you were so in favor of myg0t being considered notable enough to vigorously fight for its inclusion, but not the Tony Pierce article? --LADude 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be because myg0t is notable, whereas Tony Pierce is not. Is it that hard to understand? cacophony ◄► 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello, My name is Andrew. I am the one known as "Shakey Bear". I Have been reading this firing match in bits and pieces, and I have not read the whole thing, because I don't have time for the nonsense. I know that it is too little too late, but I would like to set the record straight: I wrote the article on Tony Pierce. In fact, everything Tony has argued has been right (my own shortcomings regarding his material, etc.) I do not know anything about the user Cacophony, but it does look like he acted as best as he could with the evidence he had. Although once again, I only have skimmed this article and I found it by doing a search for my nickname "Shakey Bear", for reasons that have nothing to do with this argument. I have no problem backing up myself. I can be reached at shakeybear@hotmail.com

[edit] tony pierce

LOL @ Tony Pierce blogging on your talk page. Skrewler 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last change / Blue Dot AfD

Hi,

You asked me to also list the article for deletion, but I don't know how to do this? I'm dedicated to helping the spread of knowledge ( and removing spam, which I consider anti-knowledge ), but I'm also pretty new here, and learning as I go along. DigitalEnthusiast 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DigitalEnthusiast, I have replied to the issue on your talk page accordingly. Regards, cacophony ◄► 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello cacophony

This is Theresa123123123. You had left a message on my talk page at 16:13, 19 December 2006. Thanks for the welcome, but I have been a member since August. I'd actually like to thank you for pointing out the nonsense. I'm not a good writer, and all the stuff I am good at writing about, already exists here on Wikipedia. I need to re-read the guidlines about creating articles, thank you for the reminder. Theresa123123123 16:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Theresa123123123 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas!!!! and happy holidays! -hotspot (come say hi) 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Christmas tree-7534301.jpg

Hello USER-cacophony, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Christmas tree-7534301.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:USER-cacophony. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about boh3m3 and afd

i was reading your comments and found them interesting. my main argument should be clear at this point. regardless, i plan to read about more about "internet fame" and how it relates to youtube or wikipedia. a line needs to be drawn somewhere Sexyorge

[edit] Active user verification

Hello, USER-cacophony. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 23:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

A lot of the people on the InspIRCd AfD are spa's. I also moved your large discussion to the talk page of the AfD because it was getting rather large. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nenolod and sockpuppetry

I respectfully request that you withdraw your accusations on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nenolod. The list you have provided clearly does not suggest that nenolod is using multiple accounts - he is merely using his IP and his home account, which by no means is grounds for a sockpuppetry accusation. WHeimbigner 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the accusation. --nenolod (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

I would just like to point out to you that the template WP:VANITY which you use alot on eg. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/InspIRCd can easily be considered very offensive. WP:VANITY does exist but it's far more polite to use the WP:COI template which WP:VANITY also redirects to. Allow me to quote a section from WP:COI;

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

Also WP:VANITY is a soft redirect allowing you time to read the quote on the soft redirect page which reads:

"Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the people it is applied to."

I'm sure this will lead to a less controversial flow of comments of the discussions you participate in and better further a constructive dialogue. I know this is what spiked my initial outburst to you and I therefore deemed it important to mention this to you here. 83.88.224.53 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nenolod

I've deleted this RFC for the time being, due to what I percieved to be personal attacks (was it really necessary to accuse anyone of being a troll?), as well as the fact that I can't find anywhere any attempt by Jmax to resolve this issue. Moreover, I think it stems from a misunderstanding.

You are under the impression that nenolod wants to make some sort of point, to protest the deletion of InspIRCd, correct? I believe he is applying a standard he wasn't aware of before. Basically, I think you convinced him.

I don't think you two actually disagree, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Apparently Jmax was the author, and you were certifying. Well, okay, I messed up somewhat, but this seems to be founded more in misunderstanding than malfeasance (and I stand by deleting a poorly-certified RFC that accuses someone of being a troll over what is clearly a good-faith content dispute). I think other avenues (such as getting the help of an impartial user ¬_¬) may be more effective and less destructive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I informed Nenolod that his actions were in violation of WP:POINT, and he responded by adding the prod template to even more pages. He was thus informed of the violations of policy when he did this. If he was actually applying a standard of some kind, then he would have listed Atheme along with the other irc services, but he didn't, and coincidentally, Atheme is an IRC service developed by Nenolod. When others applied this "standard" by placing the prod template on Atheme, he quickly removed it. I am convinced he knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. Regards, cacophony ◄► 10:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What point, exactly, do you think nenolod is trying to make? I think you've misunderstood what WP:POINT means, and I'm not sure what, exactly, nenolod is disrupting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The point I believe Nenolod is trying to make is "if InspIRCd is put up for deletion, then all irc related articles should be put up for deletion". Consequently, after InspIRCd was listed for deletion, Nenolod listed every other IRCd for deletion as well, all in rapid succession (within seconds of each other). A contributing factor to this could be that Nenolod is a developer for the InspIRCd project. cacophony ◄► 11:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's 6:00AM here, I should really be getting to bed now. That's not to say this discussion is over, rather that I will continue it in a few hours. cacophony ◄► 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered that you simply convinced nenolod of the rightness of your position? You argued, at length, that a badly sourced article on an ircd should be deleted. When that article was deleted, nenolod tagged a number of equally-badly-sourced articles for deletion, for the same reason InspIRCd was deleted.

I can't see why you'd assume an ulterior motive when the simplest expanation seems to be that nenolod saw the wisdom of your argument and changed his mind. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbies

Please don't bite the newcomers, [11]. – Dreadstar † 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)