Jump to content

User talk:Agunter999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response to your feedback

[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your feedback! If you have any questions about Wikipedia , please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Have a great day! (:

Webclient101 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Agunter999, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!  TOW  talk  17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of common World War II infantry weapons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please discuss the changes on the talk page, seeking the support of other editors, before adding neutral countries to the list. Allan Akbar (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Allan Akbar (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

[edit]
Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse and introducing yourself! Come by the question page some time to discuss Wikipedia with other editors. I Look forward to seeing you there. heather walls (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons

[edit]

I have noticed that you have tried to make a comment made by you on "Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons" look as if it was made by someone else by replacing your autogenerated signature with the signature of another user, something that constitutes signature forgery and has been reverted. And now you have tried to remove the entire comment. Don't do things like that, it will only get you warned and possibly blocked. Allan Akbar (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Wwii equipment

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Wwii equipment. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - List of common World War II infantry weapons. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of common World War II infantry weapons - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. jfd34 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Wwii equipment

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from Wwii equipment. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

  1. Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
  2. This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


ok i was just seeingAgunter999 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons - signature forgery and deletion of content

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:List of common World War II infantry weapons, you may be blocked from editing. Allan Akbar (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Nomination of Wwii equipment for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wwii equipment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wwii equipment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jfd34 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Why am i blocked and not the other members involved

Because you are the only one who broke the rules. You should have followed the advice you got to learn how Wikipedia works, and what the rules here are, instead of just disregarding the warnings you got. Allan Akbar (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you were involved in the edit war

i do admit the signitur forgery thuogh

thats all

the page i made was ledal and broke no rules

3 times you reverte my work

it is not a reason to get blocked

i had perfect right to post that message on your talk pageAgunter999 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When does my block expire

not all of my contributions were disruptive i added about 90% of the content for the minor nations on List of common World War II infantry weapons Agunter999 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indefinete realy was that realy nessercery never been blocked before

please listen to meAgunter999 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2012 (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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:13, 29 June 2012 (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.

You have a similer name to meAgunter998 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK

[edit]

User:Temperyagunter999

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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reasons for the block. You should explain your reason for unblock here on this talk page, in the unblock request where it says "Your reason here". You should not create a new account and use its user page to explain your unblock reason - that other account is now blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2012 (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.

New unblock request

[edit]

User comment: Based on his behaviour, including his use of a number of sock puppets, I sincerely hope that he will not be unblocked. In addition to that a user account that was registered after Agunter999's indef block (Google9999), and soon managed to get blocked for a month along with an associated IP for disruptive editing and block evasion, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it is quite probable that Agunter999 has evaded his block and is already active here. That user (i e Google9999) has also managed to get blocked for disruptive editing on other language versions of WP as well, temporarily on one (id:WP) and indefinitely on another (sv:WP - a total block including account creation, e-mail and editing his own user page), which could explain why he wants/needs his old user account back. Thomas.W (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2012 (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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, a couple of things to clear up I did not set out or purposely to cause disruption to wikipeadia I understand that I should have consulted other editors on this issue Please consider this earlier request I have witnessed many people been blocked for sock puppetry who are not sock puppets. All I tried to do was add encyclopaedic content for people to view. There was then a long discussion about this content being on this page. People kept attempting to delete it so I quickly undid this aperently breaking the 3 revert rule. A person posted a message on my talk page about this as they were involved I decided to post one back. I also posted a massage on the talk page of the article in question about something entirely different but wanted to do this anomnasly so foolishly wrote down a random ip from a previous post from a couple of years ago. The I made another account to put my information that should be seen as it was hily aceptable on it's own page other people supported this. I never purposely damaged talk pages! The sockputting Well that was because I was angry I don't know what else to say Sorry?

Decline reason:

Nothing in this unblock request gives me any cause to believe that similar behaviours will not be repeated in the future. I don't see you being unblocked any time soon, frankly - if I were you, I would consider taking the standard offer: stay away for six months, don't use any sockpuppet accounts (here or on other wikis), and then come back with a clear intent to reform. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:01, 23 November 2012 (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.

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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to point out that google9999 is not me I admit that I have used sockpuppets before but not for some time I have left Wikipedia for a few months and this is my attempt to solve my wrongs an commit correctly on wikipeadia For proof that I won't recommit well you will just have to take my word for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.223.18 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Did you just ask me to take your word for it that you will not use alternate accounts... while logged out and avoiding the block? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (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.

Oh sorry forgot to log on Didn't do anything else though so I wasn't avoiding a block — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.4.153 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MY NEW UNBLOCK REQUEST

[edit]
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).

Agunter999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well this is most certainly not my first request but it has been some time since my last request and this time I have remembered to log in. First of all I will admit to rather disruptive editing and not trying to argue my point not just going to edit. But I am still goint to attempt to point out that the words 'nothing but' are incorrect, I had not created an account but I added most nations to List of common world war two infantry weapons which was extremely constructive and not a banning offence. The sockpuppertry that I used was because I was banned but still wanted to fight for my cause, that looking back was dam right silly and childish. That will NOT happen AGAIN. You may be wondering why it is now I am unblocking or what is he going to do now. Well there is no particular answer to that apart from the fact that I whish to properly input in Wikipedia as it is a fantastic concept. I have to be honest and say I have no idea what to say, the words Just trust me in this case are hopeless and if I was admin I would be very wary of me. S I ask you to take into account how much my grammar has improved, that means I have changed. Agunter999 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After consultation with the original blocking admin we have agreed on the following course of action: This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
  • Now, edit that content to propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
  • When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
    • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2013 (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.

  • Note to reviewing admin: Agunter999 was not only guilty of edit warring, POV content forking and talk page vandalism, as the block notice states, but also of block evasion and sock puppetry (with multiple socks, see SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agunter999/Archive), and showed a total lack of competence. There is also a strong probability that there is a connection to User:Google9999 who had a very similar style, including both spelling and grammar, and was blocked indefinitely in December of 2012 after causing even more problems than Agunter999 (during his short career Google9999 managed to get indefinitely blocked on several different WPs, and was also IP-blocked/banned on Meta). Thomas.W talk to me 20:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your severe concerns that I will infact recommit but since my last sockpuppet which was NOT Google9999 let me say I have not commited a wiki crime. You can check yourself if you if that type of evidence was available. I would also like to point out that Google9999 was created by some person with the purpose to harm this website. My sockpuppets were created to add what I believe as suitable information to an article. It was at the time in my opinion the only way to get that information there. Agunter999 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


List of military vehicles of World War II

[edit]

List of Second World War military vehicles by country, showing numbers produced in parentheses.

 Albania

[edit]

[1]

Armored Vehicles

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

 Austria

[edit]

[1]

Armored Vehicles

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

 Belgium

[edit]

[1]

See also: Belgian combat vehicles of World War II

Tanks and tankettes

[edit]
  • Renault FT (Char mitrailleuse and Char canon variants)
  • Light tank Vickers-Carden-Loyd T.15 (In the Belgian army called 'auto-blindée Mi T.15' or abbreviated 'a.b. Mi. T.15')
  • ACG-1

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

 Bulgaria

[edit]

[1]

Tanks and Tankettes

[edit]

 Canada

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Self-propelled artillery

[edit]

Armoured personnel carriers

[edit]

Armoured car

[edit]

 Independent State of Croatia

[edit]

[1]

Tanks and Tankettes

[edit]

 Czechoslovakia

[edit]

[1]

Armoured Cars

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

 France

[edit]

[1]

Armored Cars

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Armoured reconnaissance tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Self propelled guns

[edit]

Cavalry tanks

[edit]

Armoured combat tanks

[edit]

Armoured personnel carriers

[edit]

 Denmark

[edit]

[1]

 Estonia

[edit]

[1]

  • M1927/28 armored cars
  • TKS

 Finland

[edit]

[1]

 Nazi Germany

[edit]

[1]

See also: German armoured fighting vehicles of World War II
See also: List of World War II military vehicles of Germany

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

Jeeps/Trucks

[edit]

Motorcycles

[edit]
  • Zündapp KS750 (two wheel drive motorcycle with side car) (18,000)
  • BMW R75 (two wheel drive motorcycle with side car)
  • Nimbus motorcycle (made in Denmark)

Half-tracks

[edit]

Self-propelled artillery

[edit]

Assault guns

[edit]

Tank destroyers

[edit]

Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns

[edit]

Remote controlled devices

[edit]

 Greece

[edit]

[1]

 Hungary

[edit]

[1]

Tanks

[edit]

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

 Italy

[edit]

[1]

Tankettes

[edit]
  • Carro Veloce L3/33 (CV-33) (760)
  • Carro Veloce L3/35 (CV-35) (1,740)

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Tank destroyers

[edit]

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

 Japan

[edit]

Tankettes

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Amphibious tanks

[edit]

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

 Latvia

[edit]

[1]

 Lithuania

[edit]

[1]


 Netherlands

[edit]

[1]

Armoured cars

[edit]

Tankettes

[edit]

 New Zealand

[edit]

Converted tractors

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Armoured personnel carriers

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]
  • Beaverette NZ (208)light armoured car similar to the British Beaverette

 Norway

[edit]

[1]


 Poland

[edit]

[1]

See also: list of Polish armoured fighting vehicles

Tankettes

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Armored Cars

[edit]

Artillery tractors

[edit]

Cars and lorries

[edit]

 Romania

[edit]

[1]


 Soviet Union

[edit]

Source: Zaloga (1984:125, 225).

Tankettes

[edit]
  • T-27 (3,328 pre-war)

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]
  • T-28 (503 pre-war)
  • T-34 (1225 pre-war)
    • T-34-76 (33,805)
    • T-34-85 (21,048)
  • T-44 (965)

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Teletanks (remotely controlled tanks)

[edit]

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

Rocket artillery

[edit]

Anti-aircraft

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

Amphibious armoured cars

[edit]

Half-tracks

[edit]

Aerosans

[edit]

Artillery tractors

[edit]

Improvised AFVs

[edit]

Motor vehicles

[edit]
  • [All types] (272,600 pre-war)

 United Kingdom

[edit]

Artillery tractors

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Cruiser tanks

[edit]

Infantry tanks

[edit]

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

Armoured personnel carriers

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

Lorries

[edit]

 United States

[edit]

Tanks

[edit]

Light tanks

[edit]

Medium tanks

[edit]

Heavy tanks

[edit]

Tank destroyers

[edit]
Experimental tank destroyers

Self-propelled guns

[edit]

Armoured personnel carriers

[edit]

Armoured cars

[edit]

Artillery tractors

[edit]

Amphibious

[edit]

 Kingdom of Yugoslavia

[edit]

[1]

Notes and references

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/
  • Zaloga, Steven J. (1984). Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. Arms and Armour Press, London. ISBN 0-85368-606-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
[edit]
[edit]

[[Category:World War II vehicles|*]] [[Category:World War II-related lists|Vehicles]]

Unblock

[edit]

-UNBLOCK DELETED TUE TO THE DISCUSSION BELOW-

A "List of..." does not count as an article as it merely links to existing articles on Wikipedia (and typically shouldn't include items that don't have Wikipedia articles). You need to choose a single article, one that will have the need to references, and you need to show that you can expand that article using references appropriately DP 11:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have been working on that for months, as you can tell it would have been very, very, very nice if somebody has said much earlier to prevent my waisting my time, is it at all possible for this not to be counted as a good way of seeing that I can add effectively to Wikipedia?Agunter999 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Months? That's the output of months? Unfortunately, I cannot see this as "seeing that you can add effectively" as all of your work has been contrary to the MOS. "List of..." articles may ONLY link to Wikipedia articles, and should never have redlinks, no-links, or external links only. It appears to me that your only additions are contrary to that basic premise. Perhaps you'd like to remove the unblock request and try again on an article - I'd hate to decline it. DP 09:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Agunter999 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agunter999&oldid=1141288842"