User contributions for 206.174.198.66

21 February 2023

• 05:4905:49, 21 February 2023 diff hist +214 Talk:Saturn I SA-1 →Landing site for Artemis but not for Apollo?: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

12 February 2023

• 01:2401:24, 12 February 2023 diff hist +22 Mary Ng She IS .SHES ADMITTED IT Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

3 February 2023

• 19:1819:18, 3 February 2023 diff hist +8 Phosphorus Recent studies show that tropical forest growth is limited by phosphorus Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1615:16, 3 February 2023 diff hist 0 Nixon shock →Background: Clarified that the need for protection was a claim, not a fact. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1515:15, 3 February 2023 diff hist −262 Nixon shock →Event: An opinion piece from one newspaper in one city. Show me again that new York is full of narcissisistam Tags: Reverted references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1315:13, 3 February 2023 diff hist −1,555 Nixon shock →Event: No need for three paragraphs of half truths from a politician. Tags: Reverted references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1215:12, 3 February 2023 diff hist −7 Nixon shock →Event: Cmon. Can we please stop ascribing motive and feelings and morals to public figures. Which psychic told us that nixon cared, at all? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1115:11, 3 February 2023 diff hist −48 Nixon shock →Background: Took out irrelevant numbers to highlight relevant numbers.aybe the confusing less relevant numbers could be added farther down in the article. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0915:09, 3 February 2023 diff hist −118 Nixon shock →Event: Again which psychicnwas consulted to "know" the hard facts about why politicians do a thing? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0815:08, 3 February 2023 diff hist +6 Nixon shock →Event: Clarified facts vs assumptions. We KNOW they were told, obviously some probably didn't buy it Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0415:04, 3 February 2023 diff hist +27 Nixon shock →Background Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0315:03, 3 February 2023 diff hist +15 Nixon shock →Background: Not anymore, why present tense? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0215:02, 3 February 2023 diff hist +26 Nixon shock →Background: Clarified that this "norm" is less than half a century of human history Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0115:01, 3 February 2023 diff hist −529 Nixon shock →Background: Sandra doesn't actually claim to be psychic or to know what attendees were desiring. Tags: Reverted references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0015:00, 3 February 2023 diff hist 0 Nixon shock →Later ramifications: Don't "update" citation needed Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:5914:59, 3 February 2023 diff hist −351 Bretton Woods system →Rise of governmental intervention: I think that twelve whole years is long enough to not fucking lie Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:5914:59, 3 February 2023 diff hist +3 Bretton Woods system →Rise of governmental intervention: Clarified that one person said this was the lesson learned. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:5714:57, 3 February 2023 diff hist +2 Bretton Woods system →Economic security: This isn't an actual argument, hull just says "these are facts" Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:5414:54, 3 February 2023 diff hist −244 Bretton Woods system →Post-war negotiations: Objective source needed. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:4914:49, 3 February 2023 diff hist −22,213 Bretton Woods system Removed fabricated section that has absolutely no references or citations supporting it. Tags: Reverted section blanking Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:4814:48, 3 February 2023 diff hist +5 Bretton Woods system It existed for three decades. It didn't "persist" or "succeed", de facto has now "succeeded" longer than Breton woods was ever even functional Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

1 February 2023

• 14:5314:53, 1 February 2023 diff hist +49 Napoleon and the Jews Clarified intent behind this law. If this is incorrect information please proceed to correct the page "Grand Sandherin" because that is where this information is pulled from Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:3614:36, 1 February 2023 diff hist +469 Talk:Napoleon and the Jews →This page directly contradicts other wiki pages: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:3214:32, 1 February 2023 diff hist +381 Talk:Napoleon and the Jews →In the Grand Sandherin article these are presented as laws that the Sandherin chose and Napoleon merely enforced: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:2814:28, 1 February 2023 diff hist −3 Grand Sanhedrin →Sessions: Obviously this Sanhedrin had no authority since these "decrees" were not followed until encoded by Napoleon as law. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:2414:24, 1 February 2023 diff hist −186 Grand Sanhedrin →Creation: Citation still needed afaik Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:2314:23, 1 February 2023 diff hist +552 Talk:Infamous Decree →Grand Sandherin just doesn't matter?: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:2014:20, 1 February 2023 diff hist −426 Infamous Decree The source cited is obviously not reliable,if this citation IS RELIABLE then about 90% of the Grand Sandherin page needs to be rewritten to match this source. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:1614:16, 1 February 2023 diff hist −228 Infamous Decree We don't need to be stretching the truth of citations,on order to reinforce antisemitic stereotypes. Are you fucking Nazis? Tags: Reverted references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:1514:15, 1 February 2023 diff hist −354 Infamous Decree Napoleon didn't do this or decide this, the rabbi council did. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:1214:12, 1 February 2023 diff hist −297 Napoleon and the Jews →Napoleon's Laws and the Jews: Clarified that Napoleon was only treating Jews the way Jews professed to be bound by their own religion. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:1114:11, 1 February 2023 diff hist −964 Napoleon and the Jews →Napoleon's Laws and the Jews: Removed lies that were sitting unchallenged, presenoas factual for eight years without any citation ever being found. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:0714:07, 1 February 2023 diff hist −62 Napoleon and the Jews →Napoleon's Laws and the Jews: This is not verified by the citation given Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:0514:05, 1 February 2023 diff hist +72 Napoleon and the Jews Clarified that this is something Jewish people told Napoleon,not something Napoleon forced on them on any way shape or form. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:0114:01, 1 February 2023 diff hist +5 Grand Sanhedrin →Sessions: This was for Napoleon,not a binding judgement that restricted Jewish people in any way. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:5813:58, 1 February 2023 diff hist +461 Talk:Usury →How has this article been allowed to become such a sad, sick joke: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:5713:57, 1 February 2023 diff hist −520 Usury →Judaism: Not sure how a single document,from one city, from 1799 is supposed to show that all Jewish people were ostracized across all of Europe since they year 1300 or so. anti-Semitism" is just a magic word that gets lies published to wikipedia apparently. Tags: Reverted references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:5413:54, 1 February 2023 diff hist +21 Usury →Judaism: Clarified that this restriction is part of history, NOT part of current Jewish beliefs. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:5213:52, 1 February 2023 diff hist +168 Usury →Judaism: Obviously this is very relevant. Does this article deliberately stop in the year 1500 or some such thing? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:4813:48, 1 February 2023 diff hist −183 Usury →Judaism: Didn't realize Johnson was the sole judge of what is and is not "fair". Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:4513:45, 1 February 2023 diff hist −3 Grand Sanhedrin →Sessions: Obviously this decree/article has significant to Napoleon,and politicians,but just as clearly it was not for Jewish people,not followed by, not bonding for and not prescriptive for how Jewish people were bound by their religion. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:4413:44, 1 February 2023 diff hist −160 Grand Sanhedrin →Creation: No citation. Is the opinion of a single German located banker really relevant anyway? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:4013:40, 1 February 2023 diff hist +121 Infamous Decree →Background: Clarified that rabbis decided this FIRST and Napoleon followed their decision Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:3313:33, 1 February 2023 diff hist +440 Talk:Grand Sanhedrin →11 years no citation? No problem apparently for the wiki editors here.: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 13:3213:32, 1 February 2023 diff hist −222 Grand Sanhedrin →Creation: For over a decade this anti french drek has been influencing opinions with ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN REALITY Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

27 October 2021

• 15:1515:15, 27 October 2021 diff hist +28 Tomahawk →Composition: Clarified that this is ALL just what ONE person claims. If it wasn't for Mike this entire article would have close to zero references Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1315:13, 27 October 2021 diff hist +22 Tomahawk →Modern use: Whole US army units have ever used the tomahawk. Individuals may. Stop trying to glorify this simple tool for political reasons. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:1015:10, 27 October 2021 diff hist −50 Tomahawk →Composition: These smokable tomahawks exist commercially. So do bright neon ones. Is this article about history or fringe commercial products??? Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0715:07, 27 October 2021 diff hist −182 Tomahawk →Composition: If this was true there would not be several dozen pages in Wikipedia describing metelurgy before European contact. But there is. Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 15:0415:04, 27 October 2021 diff hist −15 Axe →History: The author providing the reference does say they were independently invented. They provide absolutely NO arguments or evidence to support this. The only thing they have evidence for is the axes existing. Archaeology is fraught with bias, especially cultural. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit