User contributions for 199.116.175.123

17 January 2019

• 16:5816:58, 17 January 2019 diff hist +44 John C. Bogle Undid revision 878894231 by FlightTime Public (talk) Tag: Undo

6 June 2018

• 17:5917:59, 6 June 2018 diff hist +2 Brighthouse Financial →Products and solutions

14 February 2017

• 18:2118:21, 14 February 2017 diff hist −2,905 Lancair →Sold to Cessna: This section was incorrectly included in the page on Lancair. The information in this section was actually about Columbia Aircraft (a spin-off of Lancair). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Aircraft Tag: section blanking

7 June 2016

• 21:1421:14, 7 June 2016 diff hist +106 American Sports Network Added San Antonio to list of affiliates Tag: Visual edit

5 February 2016

• 13:0413:04, 5 February 2016 diff hist −1 Matt Brown (fighter) No edit summary
• 13:0413:04, 5 February 2016 diff hist 0 Matt Brown (fighter) No edit summary

13 August 2015

• 12:5412:54, 13 August 2015 diff hist +1 Type 054A frigate I have also commented on the WT:SHIPS page as well. Please go and read it. It is the same comment as the talk page.
• 12:5012:50, 13 August 2015 diff hist +3,786 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships Reverted RevelovingPersonalityConduct's last revert. Presented recent, up to date, and reliable source to debunk RevelovingPersonalityConduct. Also point out his lies !
• 12:4612:46, 13 August 2015 diff hist +430 Talk:Type 054A frigate RevelovingPersonalityConduct's source never once mentioned May/29/2015 !!
• 12:3212:32, 13 August 2015 diff hist +3,069 Talk:Type 054A frigate Reverted "RevelovingPersonalityConduct" last edit. Correct his mistakes and added additional reliable source.
• 12:1712:17, 13 August 2015 diff hist +16 Type 054A frigate As of 7/29/2015
• 12:1612:16, 13 August 2015 diff hist +1,457 Type 054A frigate Revert outdated source, adding additional reliable source to confirm Janes source. Please see talk page.

10 August 2015

• 22:5222:52, 10 August 2015 diff hist +2,758 Type 99 tank Removal of sourced content. Why are you removing sourced content. The sources I added are all English sources and reliable !
• 22:4922:49, 10 August 2015 diff hist +235 User talk:Al Khazar →I made changes to WZ-10 and Type-99 pages
• 22:4622:46, 10 August 2015 diff hist +2,758 Type 99 tank Removal of sourced content.
• 22:4522:45, 10 August 2015 diff hist +673 User talk:Al Khazar Reasons. I made changes to WZ-10 and Type-99 pages
• 22:0722:07, 10 August 2015 diff hist 0 Type 99 tank Now Al Khazar, after all the source gathering, I have changed the content to a much more neutral tone. I mentioned all the things you point out such as the auto loader, and hull but they are clearly different as well. Please read. Thank you.
• 22:0422:04, 10 August 2015 diff hist +70 Type 99 tank This official source: "http://www.army-technology.com/projects/type99chinese-main/", clearly stated that Type-99 is a third generation MBT, while T-72 is a second generation tank. Therefor, your claim that Type-99 is a variant of T-72 is FALSE !!!
• 22:0022:00, 10 August 2015 diff hist −1 Type 99 tank To futher debunk your false claim that Type-99 is a variant of T-72. This source "http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72tank.htm", clear stated that T-72 is a second generation tank, while the sources I provided stated Type-99 is third generation!!!
• 21:5121:51, 10 August 2015 diff hist −1 Type 99 tank The source you found: " http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Type-96-99.html", "https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/337lh7/the_type_99_is_a_chinese_variant_of_the_t72_as_it/". These two sources are online fourms and blogs which are not reliable!
• 21:4921:49, 10 August 2015 diff hist +2,291 Type 99 tank Type 99 is indeed NOT a variant of T-72, it is superior in every way. It has a few features that were influenced from T-72 but noting a variant !!! I have added sources to back up my claim !!
• 21:3821:38, 10 August 2015 diff hist −22 ZBD-04 Where did it say it is a Chinese copy ??
• 21:3821:38, 10 August 2015 diff hist −13 Type 99 tank Type 99 is NOT a variant of the T-72 !! You need source to back up your false claim !
• 21:3221:32, 10 August 2015 diff hist −572 Changhe Z-10 No edit summary
• 17:3117:31, 10 August 2015 diff hist +62 Wu Wenjun State Preeminent Science and Technology Award

9 August 2015

• 21:4921:49, 9 August 2015 diff hist 0 Type 039A submarine Test depth.

7 August 2015

• 17:3517:35, 7 August 2015 diff hist −457 Chengdu J-10 Undid revision 674950897 by Peter O'Conner (talk)
• 17:3417:34, 7 August 2015 diff hist −30 Shenyang WS-10 That is NOT what the source says !!!
• 17:3317:33, 7 August 2015 diff hist +759 Type 093 submarine Removal of sourced content.

6 August 2015

• 21:1621:16, 6 August 2015 diff hist −19 Shenyang J-16 According to source, 24 build plus 1 prototype. Therefore, more than 24 were build.
• 14:2414:24, 6 August 2015 diff hist −1 Blue-water navy Grammar
• 14:2314:23, 6 August 2015 diff hist +807 Blue-water navy →China: Adding more materials.
• 13:5013:50, 6 August 2015 diff hist +12 Type 093 submarine Also, I did not remove any of your source. But you constantly remove mine and call them " unrealiable ", frankly you do not get to make that call. You are not an expert nor admin. Remember, your source from DoD is from 2014, this is already 8/6/2015 !!
• 13:3213:32, 6 August 2015 diff hist +218 Type 093 submarine At last, you can edit changes, but you should not removal sources. You do not get to decide which source is credible or not, if you can find a source that is more "credible" than mine, then provide them. Otherwise you just have to leave it.
• 13:3113:31, 6 August 2015 diff hist +529 Type 093 submarine You can edit the active 093 part but not the other part. The source also stated that 093G clearly has VLS and it is just as good or better than the Oscar class.

5 August 2015

• 23:2323:23, 5 August 2015 diff hist −14 CJ-10 (missile) Also, you already violated the 3 revert rule. I am letting admin know. You will be banned for 3 days.
• 23:2123:21, 5 August 2015 diff hist +137 CJ-10 (missile) If you argue that my source is not reliable, then back up with reliable source to prove them wrong. Otherwise please stop removing sourced materials. Thank you.
• 23:1723:17, 5 August 2015 diff hist +602 Talk:Type 054A frigate →Number active - 5 Agust 2015
• 23:1423:14, 5 August 2015 diff hist +7 Type 093 submarine wording.
• 23:1423:14, 5 August 2015 diff hist +141 Type 093 submarine 2 093 and 3 093G active as of today.
• 23:1223:12, 5 August 2015 diff hist +171 Type 093 submarine 5 As of 8/5/2015 according to official Chinese source. 2 as of 8/1/2014 according to US Department of Defense.
• 23:0823:08, 5 August 2015 diff hist +342 Talk:Type 054A frigate More to prove you wrong !
• 23:0623:06, 5 August 2015 diff hist +266 Talk:Type 054A frigate →Number active - 5 Agust 2015
• 23:0423:04, 5 August 2015 diff hist +606 Talk:Type 054A frigate →Number active - 5 August 2015
• 23:0023:00, 5 August 2015 diff hist +23 Type 054A frigate As of 07/23/2015, there are 20 054A commissioned according to Janes and official Chinese news.
• 22:5922:59, 5 August 2015 diff hist +4 Type 054A frigate Also, your source from US DoD uses information from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014, which does not include 1/1/2015 to 8/1/2015. During this time, 3 more 054A were commissioned which was pointed out by Janes but your source did not catch it.
• 22:5422:54, 5 August 2015 diff hist +92 Type 054A frigate Additional Chinese news confirmed that 20 054A are commissioned.
• 22:5022:50, 5 August 2015 diff hist +137 CJ-10 (missile) Removal of sourced content.
• 22:4422:44, 5 August 2015 diff hist +167 Type 054A frigate 20 according to Janes, 17 according to US department of defense.
• 22:4222:42, 5 August 2015 diff hist +267 Type 093 submarine Adding more materials and source.