Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning

message: If this is about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers, please, please, please, don't bother with this.  Move on.  Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a rest, Jeff. – Steel 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in the right thing.  Nothing more, nothing less. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion on these matters has been noted by everybody, Jeff. You might like to stop now. Up to you, of course. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I'm glad that the only way people can justify this is through IAR. Absolutely pathetic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it occured to you that this is not the way to solve anything? I'm going to have to bail out soon, before this goes to Arbcom, but think about it. -Amarkov moo! 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious that there is no way to resolve anything here anymore.  People rush to the defense of disruption here, defend disruption at AN/I, I get reverted when I attempt to reverse the disruption.  What the hell else is someone supposed to do when faced with a disruptive administrator if this isn't the way, hm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only disruption here is being caused by you. – Steel 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, thanks for playing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, thanks for your input. I'm glad nothing's changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to your question, Jeff, you might consider the possibility that you're wrong. Most problems are caused by people not considering that. -Amarkov moo! 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were wrong, I'd leave it be.  I leave many things be that I disagree with based on that.  I am definitely not wrong on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I soo wish I had a diff of a POV warrior saying that same thing right now. -Amarkov moo! 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If I lose, at least I've stood up for what's right.  That's what's mportant.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How pointlessly courageous. Thunderbunny 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh geez 

message: Originally posted as a response to my outside view. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please substantiate the emotive word "disruptive" as used in this context. Thanks. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AN was a suitable place for any further discussion that was needed; the talkpage of the deletion review would also have done nicely. An RfC is inappropriate, and RfAr would be absurd. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What part are you struggling with? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from main page

message: That is a good sign that this will end badly. I reccommend everyone who wishes sanity starts aggressively ignoring this dispute. -Amarkov moo! 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our benevolent dictator has been invoked 

message: Looks like we've lost jeff.  .  GRBerry 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth noting