I find particularly distateful the talk page spamming to rally people: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this as spam either. Every participant has to be informed. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 08:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYONE involved has been contacted those are the people that have been involved either on the ip talk page or the users talk page (Deng 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I was not given Deng's message. Yet Deng, Kurt and I have encoutered each other on many occasions on the very pages listed in the RFC. We have posted on each others' talk pages more than once. So the statement that "everyone involved has been contacted" is inaccurate. DMorpheus 14:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the only contact you have made that I could find are a few indirect posts one revert here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-34&diff=41188799&oldid=41152854 and one extra comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKurt_Leyman&diff=41188568&oldid=41001095

And more importantly you asked me not to post on your page ever, so I am just following what you said

(Deng 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I dissagree with what DMorpheus says when he says that "and continues to make, numerous personal attacks" He does not provide any proof of his statment and since I know what I have posted I know that I have made no post after the creation of the RFC that in any way can be seen as a personal attack. Show me these personal attacks that have been made after the creation of the RFC and let others judge if they are personal attacks (Deng 06:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

One should take note that Kurt has refused to respond to the matter at hand and the only post he has done in no way answers why he has vandalized so many pages. Also he contiunes with his acts of vandalism and contiunes to edit wiki which proves that he has no wish what so ever to discuss anything (Deng 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A fine example of a personal attack. You are atrributing motives to someone you don't know. Discuss actions and edits, not people and their (unknown) motives, please. DMorpheus 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of a personal attack really? then what do you call this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeorgy_Zhukov&diff=51718554&oldid=51712467 useing the term "This is laughable" isnt that a personal attack? (Deng 12:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is about Kurt, not either of you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it about kurt did I not? And then I responed to the comment. Where does it say that I am not allowed to point that the person who has a RFC has refused to reply to the matter at hand, and where does it say that that it is not allowed to respond to responses made by others. (Deng 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Also he contiunes with his acts of vandalism and contiunes to edit wiki which proves that he has no wish what so ever to discuss anything"

Same could be said about you. He has not answered any of my points, such as deleting the information on Tiger II article as vandalism and getting reverted soon by Denis. (Unsigned comment added by Kurt Leyman)

First post things where they belong second answer the first 56 diffrent points made on the article. The edits made to the tiger 2 were a mistake from my side now answer the 56 points made on the first page and reply in the section where you are ment to reply (Deng 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]