User talk:Akilimali Ndag

Deceptive edit summaries
Hi, this is not "fixing a typo". Don't use intentionally deceptive edit summaries, particularly to push a certain point of view. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Transit Elevated Bus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Timothytyy You're a propagandist, therefore Wikipedia is no longer what it meant to be Akilimali Ndag (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your content removal? Because I cannot understand your edit summary; you didn't remove any links. Timothytyy (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy I removed it Akilimali Ndag (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant what is the purpose of your removal? The information is verified by a source, so I don't see why it is "untrue". Timothytyy (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy The so called  "source" isn't true in itself because it's still managed and manupilat by malicious people. When you use sensitive words like "immature" towards specifically "Chinese engineers" without any accurate link and you want people to trust Wikipedia. It was and still is a political toll. So fucking hate it. No more accurate information everywhere, from news to the dead Wikipedia Akilimali Ndag (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "immature" isn't even an attack, it's just explaining why the project wasn't adapted by the local authorities at that time. I have no idea why you think the content is attacking engineers. Timothytyy (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy You're probably the one who used that word I assume. How can you say the word "immature" in this "context" isn't sensitive. It implies on one hand "hate" and on the other hand "propaganda" Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you need to calm down. The report from the Chinese government used that word "技术未够成熟" when it rejected the proposal in Beijing. Why do you think it is created by Americans? Timothytyy (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy Source of your claim??? Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * shows that it was rejected by the government. Quote: "According to Song Youzhou, the project's chief engineer, guardrails would be constructed between the bus tracks and the car lanes that pass through the elevated bus to prevent traffic accidents. The rails would be able to absorb at least 70% of a collision’s impact to reduce damage to the bus and other vehicles. Lanes for the elevated bus would be limited to passenger vehicles no higher than 2.2 m (7 ft 3 in), and the buses are designed to meet zoning and bridge height regulations in each city. He also said that the buses were fully capable of turning corners, though the cars underneath must wait until the buses have passed before turning themselves." The exact wordings from the original article is: "the project was not given authorization by the district authorities because the technology was considered to be too immature". Do you think this information is created by bad-faithed people? Timothytyy (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy Yeah and you really believe the government used the literal word "immature"???. Personally I don't think and you know no trust in media anymore. It may have abrogated the project for other reasons than "immature" blah blah blah like reasons. The word in itself is an insult and must be considered "hate speech" by some from ill intended people Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "whether the hovering bus could interact safely with other vehicles, particularly when drivers manoeuvre to change lanes" "the tracks would require relatively straight roads not found in many older urban areas, and that the overhead boarding stations that the bus needed would take up too much space" I think these are the concerns. If you think the word "immature" is too insulting, you can change it. However the information that the project was rejected by the government is true, and the reason is exactly because it is not safe enough. Timothytyy (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy In the same page " The project was viewed as "immature" also in the same page "The Straddling Bus was selected by Time magazine as one of the "50 Best Inventions of the Year 2010" and you think you're right?? Too obnoxious Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Americans considered it to be a good invention butthe Chinese authorities dismissed it as not safe enough. No contradictions. Timothytyy (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Critics of the project when the concept was unveiled in 2010 have questioned whether the hovering bus could interact safely with other vehicles, particularly when drivers manoeuvre to change lanes. Critics had also argued that the tracks would require relatively straight roads not found in many older urban areas, and that the overhead boarding stations that the bus needed would take up too much space." Do you think "the critics" are attacking the Chinese people? Are they even Americans? Timothytyy (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy When you mention "immature" project, do you think this is really acceptable? Take it as if it was the allegedly Americans mentioned in your Wiki that first proposed it. I'm not even Chinese but Wikipedia has become a propagandist website. No accurate information anymore Akilimali Ndag (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that you removed a section title (maybe accidentally?); I will fix it myself. But this edit requires explanation from you. Timothytyy (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy Got you. But Wikipedia must be a toll for accurate information. Politically neutral but it's as if I'm talking oxymoronically as it's become the "American soft power". I hate America for this Akilimali Ndag (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking the truth, I am not an American. I don't understand why the content seems too sensitive to you, I myself don't see any "American attacks" towards "Chinese engineers". Maybe you can quote some sentences that you think is incorrect. Timothytyy (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy You know, internet isn't a reliable tool anymore. The problem is because it's become "one-sided" thus political tool. The part I removed when like "Transit Elevated Busses in China...Proposed in 1996 by "Muricans" and the later China..." too inaccurate the site where the link directed. The main issue with the internet today is because there is more inaccurate infro than there's accurate. So, when they direct you to a page, you're more likely to get a "one-sided not true info". Information on the web isn't verified if it's true by truth Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, but if you want to remove information that you think is incorrect, you need proof! Why should we believe your "thoughts" instead of relying on internet sources? Should I believe in you or the internet? And why do you think people would do such stupid things like faking a designer? Timothytyy (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy You seem to be new on this soft political toll. The source you imply in itself requires someone to do more research to get an really accurate information. Many sources here aren't accurate or political neutral unfortunately Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy The source you're talking about didn't use words like "immature" but had other information than what was written in the page Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you insist that the word shouldn't be used, you are welcome to remove it. The problem is that you removed two references and two sentences which I don't think is untrue. You aren't giving any proof that the sources are unreliable. I want proof. Timothytyy (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy From South China Morning Post: In an editorial, the state-run Global Times tabloid slammed the project for not realistically taking traffic problems into account. The newspaper also was critical of the TEB’s funding source – peer-to-peer (P2P) investment platforms. China’s regulators have recently cracked down on these online services, viewing them as public-private partnerships. Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "部分性能的实现相对困难，如弯道稳定性、转弯行驶等" "项目可行性论证曾起风波" From a Chinese source, not written by Americans. Timothytyy (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timothytyy You're not getting me right. I didn't mean the project was successful launched but I meant the untrue sources where some links lead, case with the ill intended word "immature". The text that you just sent me in Mandarin literally says "It is relatively difficult to achieve some properties, such as corner stability, cornering driving, etc.The feasibility study of the project has caused controversy" which just correlates with the South China Morning Post's post and if you read meticulously the page itself it says about feasibility issues which the project faced. So, I don't know what you don't understand mate Akilimali Ndag (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat: If you insist that the word shouldn't be used, you can change it to words like "infeasible" or "hard to operate" (from the Chinese source). I am totally fine with that. Timothytyy (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Melissa Chen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm REDACTED403. I noticed that in this edit to Illegal immigration to China, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -REDACTED403 (talk)  14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @REDACTED403 I removed because all links seem misleading. I wanted infact to delete the whole page and to create a more nuanced one Akilimali Ndag (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Links seemed misleading" is not a proper justification for removing the cited content. If you have concerns about the content, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. Also please do not use an edit summary such as "fixing a typo" when you are in fact removing paragraphs of content. ... disco spinster   talk  17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Zen, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  13:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Girth Summit You're not here to write accurate information and give people factual information but to spread propaganda and one-sided information namely in favour of American. This site must vanish or have at least an alternative Akilimali Ndag (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I, personally, am primarily here to spread my knowledge of Scottish historic buildings. I very rarely mention America, and I can't remember mentioning China anywhere. You are at liberty to start your alternative tomorrow, but I don't think you're a good fit for this project. Best wishes. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)