User talk:Twothirteen213

I adjusted the sentence of your previous concern. These articles referenced show that there is criticism against belt and road over the camps. This criticism section does not make explicit that all criticisms are valid, just makes readers aware that these are issues raised against BRI. Thank you for your great concern over your great nation 爱国, but I think this section adds to the value of this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twothirteen213 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't ever call me "Aiguo" or "爱国" again, I advised against it as one of my very first edits to my own user talk.
 * That was a most miniscle adjustment. The editorial judgment The geographical position of Xinjiang makes it both the most central piece to much of the BRI, being a hub to everything west is nowhere to be found in the source cited. This is a textbook violation of this site's policy on original synthesis of sources. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Caradhras, Here is the exact sentence I was paraphrasing: “The same geographical position that gives China concern that it might seek independence also makes it the perfect hub for Chinese exports via the Belt and Road Initiative.” How is the paraphrase not saying the same thing as the original source? And if you have a problem with one sentence, why delete the whole thing? Also, sorry for the name calling, I see that on your talk page now.