" 
 ::182, youmils03, or whatever your name is, if you want to get rigorous about identity you can start with your own. You show contempt for us if you sometimes ""get too lazy to log in"", therefore disguising the fact that there is only one editor who thinks as you do about this. 
 ::I and others will resist your unsourced editing. We know that in certain modern usage congruent can be applied to angles, sides, and the like: but if that usage is used consistently the word angle means something quite different from what it means in Euclidean or neo-Euclidean terminology. In the modern usage that you apply selectively and without respect for consistency, tradition, or arguments from other editors, triangles do not have angles. Every angle, in the system that speaks of ""congruent angles"", has parts that are rays; but since triangles with finite-lengthed sides do not have parts that are rays, triangles do not have angles! You also misrepresent the usage in question as the American usage. It is no such thing. Look for example at the mathworld articles angle (note the definition carefully), right angle, equilateral triangle, and then isosceles triangle (""This property is equivalent to two angles of the  triangle being equal""). None of those articles uses the word congruent even once. 
 ::A little learning is a dangerous thing; and so is misguided zeal in amending articles that many others have worked on with great care. 
 ::I suggest you take up your sophomoric program of reform at Talk:angle. (When you do that, I shall also deftly refute your simplistic analogy involving persons and their heights.) Until matters are systematically resolved there or in some other appropriately general forum, you are behaving like a vandal, and I for one will treat you as such. 
 ::–''''''¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!– "