User talk:Kongr43gpen

TUSC token 7a8edecf71840e97b5110886953de599
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Reward
Dear Kongr43gpen,

Thanks for the barnstar you gave me! It motivates me to do even more!

Xionbox₪ 13:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Scarlett (G.I. Joe) page

 * I'm sorry to bother you but the G.I. Joe page Scarlett is being vandalized but IP address 91.79.15.50 and other G.I. Joe pages, very close to the other IP address that you dealt with 91.79.10.40.TheHeronGuard (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

311
311 is no longer under contract with Volcano Entertainment/Jive. They have no record contract with anyone therefore it is unknown. 311 is not listed under the artist section of Jive's website —Preceding unsigned comment added byExcitableOne311 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

 * Edit conflict. How didn't twinkle understand it? -- kongr43gpenTalk 13:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You justified this on my Talk page, all good :D Casperruegg (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IP user blanking page
You just reverted an IP user removing warning from their talk page. However, per WP:BLANK, users may remove almost anything from their own talk page, including warnings. You may not revert to put the warnings back. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! :)
appreciated!  Wikipelli   Talk   14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * my pleasure ;) kongr43gpenTalk 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding updates
i added a news link and minor update that was immediately reverted? Why is that done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohen2011 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * just because you added . This is nothing to worry about. Welcome to wikipedia and have fun! You may revert your edit. -- kongr43gpenTalk 10:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Made corrections and posted. Thanks for the help --Cohen2011 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your signature
is large and distracting. Could you tone it down, please? Ta. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the advice! --kongr43gpenTalk 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted a change I just did
'''You have reverted a change I just did in Ladeira do Amendoim. THis was not a test, it was a germane entry.''' I did forget to add  on the title - not reason enough to revert the text, eh? --User:Algneto0
 * No, the reason was the  you added. A mistake, all of us have done mistakes like these. Have fun editing wikipedia, Assume Good Faith and be sure to sign  your messages! --kongr43gpenTalk  20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No intention to polemize, but it would be more polite to remove the italic (which was clearly an oversight - assume good faith!)than to revert the entire entry. Wikipedia is getting a reputation for being hostile to occasional users because of actions like this, and we are all poorer for it. The article will now go on without the reference to the Brazilian Magnetic Hill. Are you sure Wikipedia is a richer place after your contribution>? Algneto0 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_magnetic_hills&action=view&diff=431714890) --kongr43gpenTalk 21:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content
Content removed because it is untrue and may be malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.89.129 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This note may be about the Mercia Athletic F.C. article, where you added back a bunch of vandalism, Kongr43gpen. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the only edit I did was the reversion of the page blanking. No edit summary was provided, and if the page had to be removed, a deletion template would be more useful instead. As for the vandalism, I would expect a reversion after one and not a page blanking, without a summary. --kongr43gpenTalk 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But you added a bunch of personal attacks to a page. I'm not trying to suggest that blanking the page w/o a summary was the best thing for the other editor to do, but reverting the blank certainly wasn't the right move. "I would expect a reversion after one and not a page blanking, without a summary." - expecting is fine, but take a second to see if the blank makes sense or not. The editor that blanked the page had been a previous constructive contributor to the article, so that should have been a tip to you that the blank might have had a point to it. Sometimes a blank page is better than what was there before; please don't revert blanks without at least doing a tiny bit of research. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually add a bunch of personal attacks (Or is Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Mercia Athletic F.C., as this is confusing to readers considered a bunch of personal attacks? Anyways, this is the template, and not a personal notice) . The first message in this section was the reason I didn't revert this section removal. --kongr43gpenTalk  19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You did here. I'm just asking you to be more careful before doing things like that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the only edit I did was the page blanking. Then I received a message from and I didn't revert the section removal that continued. --kongr43gpenTalk 07:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
Thanks for your help with the Patrick Rich editor... this one's been a problem for a long time under various names.... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I like contributing to Wikipedia!!! But I see that the vandalism level is high now, so I had better go back to work! --kongr43gpenTalk 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage, I probably would of never noticed it, which probably would of been bad looking at that file name. :P Also, thanks for that banstar! Keep up the good work yourself. (= ZamorakO o (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your message in User talk:2.98.197.50
In the IP's defence (although not defending his blanking), Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source per WP:RS. Perhaps that's what they meant. X X X antiuser eh? 09:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses reliable sources. The reader chooses if Wikipedia is used as a reliable source or not. Vandalising this project however, because somebody believes that it is incorrect, is wrong. --kongr43gpenTalk 09:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not defending his blanking (in fact I've reverted a bunch of it). But I figured he could be implying an article is using WP as a source, which is against policy. X X X antiuser eh? 09:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through the refs and they've got nothing to do with Wikipedia. BTW, that IP could be removing the section because it hasn't got any refs? Maybe not, it is unreferenced since this month. --<span style="padding:3px;border-radius:3px;text-shadow:2px 2px 11px #F77, -2px -2px 11px #7F7;">kongr43gpen<sup style="color:black;">Talk 09:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I saw it, they were blanking without providing any reasoning (in fact their summary said "no reason given") and the other had an attack-y edit summary. I didn't see anything that supported the user's claim that "WP was being used as a RS", but they were pretty intent on edit warring. X X X antiuser eh? 09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox
Hi Kongr, I saw you actively participating in the AfD of FF5/6/7 (which, unfortunately, I didn't manage to participate in, but the decision was what I would have suggested, with the only change being of suggesting a "Firefox after 4.0" or "Firefox 5.0 - 10.0" or similar article. All in History of Firefox might be a little too much. Anyway, After the redirects, I started (and am trying) to clean up any references that still point to FF5-7 pages, and updating them to History_of_Firefox /6/7 (is this correct? I remember seeing once, in my years lurking here that redirects=bad, is this still true?). In the History article, I collapsed the overly big table they have for the release history, and now somebody has gone and changed it back. I would appreciate your opinion over at the Talk:History_of_Firefox topic I've created. Thanx! - ChrisWar666 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated!  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

hello
whatever i dont care :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.90.1 (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Great Revival: CVU Vandalism Studies Project
Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

RPG
Read the talk page. it has already been almost unanymously agreed that Rocket propelled grenade is incorrect. please stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.103.60 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one person supported your view. The discussion is inconclusive, you can't make changes based on what you believe without adding sources to the article. --<span style="padding:3px;border-radius:3px;text-shadow:2px 2px 11px #F77, -2px -2px 11px #7F7;">kongr43gpen<sup style="color:black;">Talk 13:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources [2] and [3] both support the view. which is why they're referenced in the etymology section. there are no sources that support a contrary idea. If you want to revert the changes i made youre the one who needs to bring the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.103.60 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd ignore this if I were you, howstuffworks.com and about.com are not expert technical sources for word etymology and don't give any evidence on who says it's a Russian-based term or how they know that. It's just "everyone says so" really, which is a poor standard of evidence.
 * Not that it matters since English isn't a dead language and it matters what a word means now, not where it came from. One only has to take a cursory glance at defence industry descriptions of vehicle armour packages, ground vehicles and so on to see they use "RPG" to refer to a class of weapons rather than the Russian RPG series of weapons specifically; phrases like "RPG protection" are used to describe protection from light man-portable rocket systems. This matters far more than the opinions of a handful of people on the internets bawling that it's wrong. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy
Hello member of ! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from. Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page. This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of —

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are obsolete and in the wrong order. Your signature may not look the way that you want it to.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

When you fix your signature, the "talk" link will be black again. More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice and fix, I have implemented your 2nd suggestion for the signature! <span style="padding:3px;border-radius:3px;text-shadow:2px 2px 11px #F77, -2px -2px 11px #7F7;">kongr43gpenTalk  20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)