User talk:Wesleymullins

Chris Benoit[edit]

I KNEW THAT WOULD BE A STORY! that night when you mentioned it i was completley agreeing with you, but those other "adults" (use the term lightly) were demanding we end the convo! Great work looking that up by the way! BigCoop 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So far MSNBC and FoxNews agree with me. The guy who deleted my thread and the admin who blocked me really have egg on their faces today. Of course, they both seem like the kind of people who can never admit being wrong. Wesleymullins 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I just saw this on The Wrestling Observer and remembered that I somehow ran into it while vandal-fighting. Imagine my surprise when I'm trying to get my daily fill of mixed martial arts news and find something I was involved in. east.718 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work - were you the first to discover this? And good job standing up to those who lack the imagination to see when something is important. -- 71.191.43.139 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the first to discover this. All references to this post found on wikipedia occur after my original post here. So when wikipedia administration make quotes in the press. like, "It didn't become apparent until someone put the pieces together and realised that the comment was made by someone who apparently knew about the murders," the someone they are talking about is me. Wesleymullins 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

haha i remember you east as well. we were all there telling them that we needed to contact someone. It had to be known whethere it something serious or not, who knew. you deserve a barnstar for doing your job, and handling it well, and being right...lmao. BigCoop 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sleuthing. Hope the cops are clever enough to look at the earlier vandalism from the IP where some names were inserted in an article about a town. Suppose it was a lucky guess by vandals? This precognition should be put to work in the stock market or at Las Vegas. The overzealous archiving on the Benoit article talk page is wierd, too. Edison 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEE! I knew you would get some awards, because you deserve them! Congrats once again! BigCoop 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews trophy[edit]

I, — Brianmc Award you this Wikinews trophy for being diligent enough to spot an oddity in an edit that has made major news and given Wikinews - and Wikipedia - a great deal of publicity. -- 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrites[edit]

This is a pretty unique award. I don't expect to give it to anybody else, so enjoy.

Barnstar[edit]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For great detective work with the Chris Benoit edits. east.718 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Filone[edit]

I am requesting your help. You can help me turn the tide in Brendan's favor if you vote for him as a secondary character in the discussion page on the list of characters for sopranos. You stated earlier that you would agree that his presence was a pinnacle to the show's message. If you would help me with this, I would greatly appreciate it. But as of now, you are currently stating that you are for him to be merged. - Zarbon

Shouldn't this be kept to the character page? You did the same thing on my talk page. 72.57.92.95

It is, there's just a clutter of stuff there it's extremely hard to contact members in that mess. - Zarbon

Zarbon[edit]

I have filed a request for comment here and I would appreciate your support, as another editor who has tried to reason with him and failed. Kafziel 04:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Pittsnogle[edit]

I have reverted your edit regarding this article, my comments can be found on Talk:Kevin_Pittsnogle as to the location of said quote. I actually missed it the second time I looked at the article, but it is there. Thanks, feel free to respond on the discussion page if you have any comments about it. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comments on a userpage of mine[edit]

Thanks for your comments. The reality is that we can say that it will most likely never be an issue, but we will eventually be bitten by it. Wikipedia is a top 20 website. Eventually, somewhere, sometime, some company is going to get upset and WILL sue Wikipedia over it. If we were some small time site with less than a hundred contributors, I maybe could see the argument. But, we have far too much visibility to remain a non-target forever. Plsu, the Wikipedia office itself receives calls everyday regarding copyright violations. So, it already has become an issue. --Durin 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Chilltown.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chilltown.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wesleymullins (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I challenge anyone to read through those archives and say I was the person being a troll or uncivil. Moe was being short and nasty in his replies and even admitted as such. Also, there were many more people who agreed with me that this was a legit topic of discussion for a talk page, while only one person did not. If the admin wanted to start banning people for trolling, uncivil behavior, he should have started with Moe. And if either of them wanted to begin removing content that didnt belong, they should have started with all the different theories on why CB died or all the posts that simply said "he was a hero of mine" etc.

Decline reason:

The actions of other editors to not excuse your own actions. Even if there was consensus for what you were asking, you went about it in an uncivil manner. — Alison ☺ 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was not added by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), but rather an impostor, Alllison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See the diff. Daniel 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It may not be a bad idea to apologise to Alison for your terse comment. Daniel 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me examples of how between Moe and myself, I am the person being uncivil. He deleted a thread that everyone else felt was important without even discussing it and then threatened anyone who posted again with being banned. When someone else reached out to an admin with the following request...

"hi we had a section about a 4:01 edit and moe decided to revert the whole section. the reason he did it was because he didnt want anyone saying anything to the main office. he was in the conversation the whole time, but when someone disagrees with him he decided to erase it. did he have the authority to do such? Im asking becasuse I know your an admin. thanks. the main coversation was not about revealing an ip address, it was adressing a problem to the office. He was upset because he was the ONLY ONE who thought we shouldn't have. And he should have been more respectful, his tone of voice was not needed as it was only a discussion about an edit in question."

...the admin came and banned me. If you are going to say I was civil, point out how my behavior warranted being banned when others did not.

You may note that the person who declined your unblock was not in fact Alison, but was an impostor (note the three L's). Mak (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job![edit]

It was excellent that you did the first research to find the now famous 12:01AM (eastern time) edit to the Chris Benoit entry, and I am really glad that you posted to the discussion page of the article about it. I am also glad for those who followed up by researching the location of the ip number. And I am very sorry that you ended up getting blocked for it. I am speaking to the ArbCom about that block, so that we can try to prevent that sort of thing happening in the future.

There were accusations of violating the privacy policy, but these accusations made absolutely no sense at all. It is impossible for ordinary users to violate the privacy policy, because you are not privy to any private information in the first place!--Jimbo Wales 13:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesleymullins :-) Intellectual curiosity is a good thing! I'm glad that you took the time to look into the matter. FloNight 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...[edit]

I just want to say thank you for having the honour and dignity to immediately apologise for your comments on my talk page re. the unblock review. You made those comments in good faith and, in fairness, it was an easy mistake to make. The individual who pulled that stunt has now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. It was bad enough being stalked and harassed as I was. But it was worse for you, in many ways. You never had a chance of a fair unblock review thanks to that individual, and that was just so wrong. I really feel sorry for what has happened to you and feel you really didn't get treated fairly here at all - Alison ☺ 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job![edit]

I just thought I'd add to the clamour of congratulations and commendations and give you a big thumbs-up on uncovering the Chris Benoit edit. A good bit of detective work, and it's just unfortunate that you got blocked. That said, you got a message from Jimbo, which sort of makes up for it. :^) Well done! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Don't wikilawyer me about "the rules" and what "higher people above" think about. First off, I'm not an admin, so saying I "deleted" anything or saying that I even had the power to block is is incredibly wrong in itself. Anything I removed, not deleted was still accessable through the history. I told you again and again, just move the conversation to WP:AN/I or WP:OFFICE and we wouldn't have a problem. I never said "shh.., people aren't supposed to know". I never had a problem talking about the edit, just the talk page wasn't the place to do it, regardless of what Jimbo said. Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, and nothing you or anybody else said in those threads had anything to do with helping that article and thats why I removed it. Whether or not it was a thing to investigate, it didn't belong on that talk page, and continuing to troll my talk page afterwards is why you were blocked in the first place, disruption.

And if you woke up to smell the coffee, you would realize that I never said I agreed with your block. It's not like Alkivar and I were on the same side there, and we sure as hell aren't now. Regardless of the length of the two blocks or who he blocked because of what, both the block of me and you were inappropriate.

And no, you're not getting an apology from me about that entire mess. I never had anything to do with you getting blocked, I disagreed with the block, and I'm not apologizing for upholding talk page guidelines or the fact that you won't leave me alone. But I guess I have must have done something wrong in the eyes of everyone considering I've been threatening e-mails and various calls from media about my supposed "hiding of evidence". Apparently some jerk thought it would be funny to tell the media anonymously of the removals I made and start telling lies about it, leading to some very questioning local media. So go ahead an enjoy your spotlight and your little "prizes" for finding it first, but your real enjoyment seems to to be making users who are just trying to uphold guidelines suffer. If you comment at my talk page anymore, I will start reporting you for trolling because I've had enough of this stupid crap I can handle, and you obviously seem hell-bent on making my life miserable for trying to move a conversation to a different location.

And if you hadn't gotten the memo earlier, I don't care what people think of me. — Moe ε 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please report me. I'd like a full review of this entire issue. You are rude, bullying and have no respect for the opinions of others. The founder of this site made a statement about an issue of disagreement between the two of us and you call me a Troll for pointing it out to you? I hope this whole experience is a chance for you to learn to be a better editor here, but the first lesson you need to learn is what is/isn't a troll. Wesleymullins 06:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the personal attacks. jimbo didn't have anything to say about me, so there was no reason to come to my talk page. The most related to me was that you were blocked, which as I explained above, I really didn't care for and had nothing to do with, so "informing me" wasn't nessecary. I already know I'm a good editor here, and nothing Jimbo says can make me a possible better editor. And trolling comes in various forms and commenting someplace you aren't wanted, is trolling. — Moe ε 06:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo said it was good that I posted the information on Benoit's talk page, a direct disagreement with what you said that night. So yes, his comments did relate to you. But again, please report me. I beg you. 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, what Jimbo said isn't something that should be set in stone. The top of the talk page in various places say unrelated content will be removed, and just because Jimbo said that it was good that you reported it, didn't nessecariy mean that you took it to the most correct spot to do so. The issue is dead and unless you have anything furthur to attack like my pride or any self-respect I have left, go ahead and do so. And it's the kind of comments like "I beg you" that reek of trolling. I'm not reporting you, you're not trolling up my talk page anymore, just stay away from me. I don't want anything to do with you, that god-forsaken thread or anything regarding you anymore. — Moe ε 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not gonna report me, then why threaten me with it? I'll call your bluff. I don't scare that easily, especially when I am right. Again, your understanding of the word "troll" is off a bit. I think you think it means "anyone who disagrees with Moe".

As for what Jimbo said, notice you just changed your story. In the previous message, you said he did not disagree with you. Now you say it doesn't matter if he disagreed with you or not. Seems like you will keep changing your story whenever the facts show that you are in the wrong. I know it hurts to see the founder of the site question your actions and agree with someone you harrassed, but you're just going to have to live with it. And I'm sorry that other people have been harrassing you (if that really happened, which I doubt), but there are consequences to our actions. If you are going to be rude, nasty and bullying here, you better make sure you are righteous, because when you are not, people will be lined up to take shots at you. Just deserved shots. Wesleymullins 06:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bluffing, you keep messaging me at my talk page and I will, your not now, so I'm not. I never said that Jimbo did not disagree with me, I said regardless of what he said, which means he did go against what I said. He did go against what I said and I disagree with it. Yes, apparently I'm making shit up nowadays, not. I've taken more shit than I can handle because of this crap. And yes, I may be rude here sometimes, I admit that, but that doesn't deserve real-life harrassment, period. Thanks for the personal attacks again, just more to add to your track record. — Moe ε 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't personal attacks. Rude, nasty and bullying are descriptors of your behavior. But if you think they are personal attacks, please report me. I beg you. Wesleymullins 06:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Begging gets you nowhere, even trollish begging. — Moe ε 07:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am a troll, then report me. Wesleymullins 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview regarding Benoit[edit]

I am aware that you are the one who discovered the now incredibly famous edit to Chris Benoit's article. We are going to attempt to get an article going on Wikinews regarding your discovery. I was wondering if you would be interested in an interview? Nothig big. Just a few questions from either myself or a variety of community members on Wikinews. Considering if you did not doscover the edit, then the kind of publicity Wikinews got would not have been possible. Thanks to you, we had our highest ratings ever. Even more than the time Wikipedia and Wikinews investigated the Congressional edits over here. You can find a link to my Wikinews talk page on my Wikipedia talk page. It is easiest to get a hold of me through Wikinews. Please let me know either way :) DragonFire1024 08:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create an account on Wikinews and cross-link wikipedia/wikinews to verify who you are? Thanks! --Brianmc 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk to me over there. Wesleymullins 10:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...[edit]

...Alkivar, while I fully sympathize and empathize, I recommend taking the approach, as advocated by Leo Durocher: "Don't wake the sleeping dogs." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]