Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ungtss

message: In my modest opinion, Ungtss' summary confirms any of the points written by Joshua and DreamGuy. --Neigel von Teighen 20:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i wonder, what do you think of the new creationism template?  Ungtss 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: i'm curious why boycotting pages -- i.e. choosing to cease editing them -- is bad faith, Neigel.  Thoughts on this new policy?  Ungtss 04:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be known that Ungtss is now again editting creationist pages and has restarted his efforts to include personal attacks and his own pov-pushing into articles such as theistic realism. Joshuaschroeder 20:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: let it be known that mr. schroeder never stopped vandalizing or pov pushing, and his misbehavior has been noted here andhere, in his most recent failed vfd.  Ungtss 20:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

message: <<Follow-up note: Ungtss' claims to have agreed four days ago to no longer post to the articles under dispute and not make personal attacks on user talk pages are false, as he has made personal attacks on Joshuaschroeder's talkpage since that time.>>
:care to back that accusation up with some facts there, bro?  i think it would be more persuasive if you showed your comment before mine, so that everyone can see how you didn't continue to attack me personally, but rather treated me civilly, only to be met with the vile hatred only a creationist can muster.  yes.  i think that would be spectacular.  Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the RFC is premature -- this is not the place for working documents.  your user pages are the place for that.  your rfc is hollow and in direct violation of the policies articulated at the top of your rfc, which require it to be signed by 2 partipants showing efforts to make change and the failure to do so within 48 hours of the posting.  Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: i didn't respond to your last 9-point treatise on "how evil ungtss is" on schroeder's page.  i simply agreed to your terms.  what else would you like?  perhaps you'd like me to agree with you about what a horrible human being i am for daring to disagree with you?  repent of my error and be purged of intellectual apostasy?  Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: in the meantime, i would also ask you to articulate some valid charges before posting a rfc.  Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: how about posting hollow rfc's without providing substantive evidence to back the REQUIRED ELEMENT that efforts of change be made and fail?  perhaps we should encourage that sort of behavior?  Ungtss 02:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  followup notes 

message: this rfc is beginning to remind me of the grand theory of evolution.  groundless assertion, devoid of any meaningful evidence to support it, thoroughly and repeatedly refuted, should have been tossed out long ago by ANY estimation of the identifiable rules, but somehow manages to survive because nobody has the courage to do the right thing and put it out of its misery, even when allowing it to remain involves direct violation of wikipedia policy articulated at the top of the rfc page.  I repeat: my accusers are in direct violation of the rfc rules, having posted an rfc without providing evidence of efforts and failure to resolve the conflict, have failed to sign the page, and have failed to provide any evidence against me not subject to the doctrine of unclean hands, even 5 days after posting this farce.  Healers, heal thyselves.  Ungtss 03:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: :i note, in passing, that this rfc is closed and so mr. bensaccount is not authorized to edit this page, which is intended to be an archive and only an archive.  i don't mind tho, considering none of the above constitute personal attacks.  Ungtss 02:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Ungtss' personal attacks on [[talk:creation science]]