Difference between revisions of "User talk:Xenon"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Askale== | |||
What 'Askale' said is that SBS6314G was once a AMDEP 53 permer and he had seen it personally, though it only appeared on certain fixed BSEP timings allocated for Sv 53. It was later been appearing as cameo, though it was a stagnant permer of 53 under BSEP (it however, did not return to 53 quite often, as you mentioned).<BR> | What 'Askale' said is that SBS6314G was once a AMDEP 53 permer and he had seen it personally, though it only appeared on certain fixed BSEP timings allocated for Sv 53. It was later been appearing as cameo, though it was a stagnant permer of 53 under BSEP (it however, did not return to 53 quite often, as you mentioned).<BR> | ||
Revision as of 01:09, 15 June 2013
Any removal of things or adding of irrelevant things in my user or user talk page will not be tolerated, it will be reported to SGWiki admins based on my decisions. Plagiarism from my user page or user talk page will strictly be removed without the other party's consent.
Askale
What 'Askale' said is that SBS6314G was once a AMDEP 53 permer and he had seen it personally, though it only appeared on certain fixed BSEP timings allocated for Sv 53. It was later been appearing as cameo, though it was a stagnant permer of 53 under BSEP (it however, did not return to 53 quite often, as you mentioned).
SBS6320M is a 29 permer.
--Apex-LW'21 19:02, 14 June 2013 (SGT)
Thanks for the clarification of the last part in the first paragraph. However, he's still undoing those edits constantly and keep saying that SBS6320M isn't a former BNDEP(not CGBP) 29 permer.
Xenon 01:09, 15 June 2013 (SGT)