User talk:2602:306:B8BF:C0:F1F2:BE98:96EA:8B9

There's also the part where China has never even imported the T-72, let alone ever used it, so claiming it's "one of several Chinese derivatives of the T-72" or eveon one at all is an outright fantasy and holds no water whatsoever.

Khazar and his sockpuppet need to be permanently banned from the article, and ScrapIronIV needs to stop supporting him and realize he's actually holding the article hostage with incredibly unreliable information that's been debunked ages ago (No one who knows anything about Chinese armor takes the RAAF page seriously at all, It's completely baseless claims) and deleting any sources only he sees as "unreliable" that are actually far better and more qualified then his.

I will watch this page to make sure he doesn't ruin it even more then he already has, it used to be much more accurate before he showed up back around April according to the edit logs.

_______________________

I suggest you to lunch a socckpuppet investigation against Khazar.

BTW, it is indeed very ridiculous to state that Type 99 is a "variant" of T-72. It is simply too different and far more advanced.

Maybe you should request an admin to protect the page.

--2602:306:B8BF:C0:F1F2:BE98:96EA:8B9 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Type 99 tank. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Khazar (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---