User talk:GenuineMongol

Welcome...

Hello, GenuineMongol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Aramgar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aramgar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MPs were sworn in, so presumably we've got full results now...? But where? Thanks! —Nightstallion 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this article if you can read Mongolian. MPRP has got 42 seats, DP - 24 seats and CWP - 1 seat currently. Bayangol and Dornod aimag results have been submitted yet to the President. --GenuineMongol (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "History of Mongolia" the same as those four "Mongolchuud - Nuudel Suudal" volumes (2006 paperback edition)? I have had both books in my hand, but the latter work looks (from the outside) as if it would contain much more text. Yaan (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "History of Mongolia" is the translation of "Mongolchuud - Nuudel Suudal".--GenuineMongol (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK & thank you. Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with you source for "Elbegdorj sworn in". The link leads to the main site of www.news.mn, not to the specific article. I think the problem is with news.mn, it seems can get a stable url by copying the one at the end of the article. Is it this article you have been referring to? Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Political Dweeb here wants to explain that I found by having a google search with the title Mongolian Democratic Union and I find that the first of the many websites is Wikipedia with the title "Mongolian Democratic Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". However when I clicked on it it the name of the article was not that name but was Democratic Union Coalition (1996-2000). Do you know why this is and does this mean its possible I could put the Image:MDU.jpg there. Here below I've put a link here to show you of the google search I did on this political party finding the first website that was Wikipedia.

[Mongolian Democratic Union

Political Dweeb talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.223.6 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image is not the logo either Democratic Union Coalition (1996-2000) or Mongolian Democratic Union. It is just some scrambled geometric shapes. --GenuineMongol (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Whispering 07:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at WP:RFPP:

Why only a week protection? Please see the logs. The page was protected temporarily many times before, but the vandals never stopped. We should have a more protective policy for this article. Otherwise, too much efforts are wasted on nothing, but vandalism. --GenuineMongol (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this, I wanted to say, that I chose a short protection because the last time it was protected was some months ago, so if it was not protected the last months, maybe there was no reason. If the protection does not stop the vandalism, you can re-request a longer one any time. THat way does not hurt you and does cost you little time, but a longer protection might have lost us good contributions without much reasoning. So, if vandalism outweighs good faith edits in a week again, I'd be happy to grant you longer protection. Just ask me directly or at WP:RFPP. Regards Yhwos 12:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GenuineMongol, Can I ask your opinion concerning this map? What d'you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greater_China.GIF It's found in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_China

Gantuya eng (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. I edited the article to exclude a sentence about Mongolia there. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort. :) Gantuya eng (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd like to ask a favor of you, namely would it be possible for you to translate at least some of the text in the Mongolian article to fill out the English stub? I'd love to be able to do it, but my Mongolian is non-existent :) Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can't revert a change to this map to the Version of Yaan. Can you please help me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greater_China.GIF Gantuya eng (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.png

Gantuya eng (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GenuineMongol! Hurry to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mongolia_during_Tang_rule#Mongolia_during_Tang_rule and write down your opinion. Iim muuhai novshiin oguuleliig ali hurdanaar ustgah heregtei shuu. Eniig uldeemeer hun hojij bolohgui!!! G Purevdorj (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for constructive feedback

Please share your view of the comments I've posted at here. From a superficial scan of the AfD thread I gather that I've given only cursory attention to aspects of this article which you find objectionable.

As I continue to work on improving the quality and scope of Horses in East Asian warfare, I would want to be better informed about a point-of-view I had not previously considered. --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the range of your objections to this article, but I wonder if you might prefer that the current title of this article were changed to something like "Tang influences in Mongolia"? -- see, e.g., the Library of Congress (LOC) online overview of "Mongolia, Tang influence" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further development

Please see Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Semi-protection needed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. I'm sorry for whatever can be construed as my part in the stressful exchanges of the past week. In retrospect, every well-intentioned contribution just made this situation worse because the most relevant factors were not within the ambit of anything written explicitly presented on the screen in front of me.

I regret the extent to which my contributions exacerbated a problem I was trying to mitigate. No one could have been more surprised than me as I continued producing the opposite of intended results. I'm not unsubtle; but all I can say at this point is that I will continue trying to learn from my mistakes. I know this isn't much of an apology; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued editing, without providing sources or any kind of material to back you up whatsoever, is violative of wikipedia policy. Please check the opinions of respected editors such as Pericles. Your vandalism if it continues will be reported.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it on myself to strike the provocative and insupportable accusation and other comments which wrongly sully this talk page. I construe it as offensive and undeserving. In due course, one can only hope that Teeninvestor recants his extravagant, escalating attacks.--Tenmei (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Mediation Arbitration

Assuming I could have or should have done something differently, I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Tenmei reported by Teeninvestor. Perhaps this will slow things down a bit. --Tenmei (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to withdraw from WP:3RR because it is ineffective and no uninvolved editor has shown the willingness and temerity in wading into this escalating dispute.

Instead, the dispute resolution processes of formal mediation are necessary. Failing that, the resort to arbitration may prove helpful.

We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of our alleged "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

As you probably know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality.

As I see it, your participation has reliably focused on aspects of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which would lead to a stable, credible article.

What seems to be missing is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively. Mediation may help resolve the issues which mark this minor article as a battlefield. --Tenmei (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation process is explained at WP:Mediation. I will initiate the process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. As you may know, all participation is voluntary; and in fact, Teeninvestor can thwart the process by refusing to agree to mediation or by withdrawing at any point afterwards. If you prefer, I will not include your name in this reasonable next step; but I construe the likely benefit/risk ratio as mildly encouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my best effort to distill a complex tangle of problems into something succinct. Even if nothing else is ultimately achieved, I feel this writing exercise was worth my investment of time. I hope this can -- in some unforeseen manner -- help you avoid the necessity of "re-inventing the wheel" in some other setting in the future. In my view, this summarizing step is an essential part of the alchemy process which turns what we all endured into something of plausibly instructive value. I myself can't understand the full measure of lessons learned the hard way at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty -- not yet. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I posted the following on Teeninvestor's talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an ArbCom notice template on Teeninvestor's talk page. He/she did not consent to mediation; and that dispute resolution process could not go forward. Today, a request for arbitration has been entered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; and the complaint is captioned "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article". --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU do not need do participate unless you choose to do so

I'm sorry. Do I need to apologize? You are not required to be a part of this.

You are welcome to participate, of course; but I wasn't intending to drag you into anything. I used this ArbCom notice template because I thought it would be easily recognizeable; but if misled you by doing this, that's bad. Sorry.

Having asked for your feedback, I was persuaded that I was a little bit obliged to "keep you in the loop" ... but I truly had no intention to burden you unfairly. --Tenmei (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. As I understand it, the open-ended process invites anyone to participate, not only those who contributed to the thread which led to a case being opened.

I wonder if this forum might be worth your investment of time and attention -- if only because of the possibility that you glimpse some better way of dealing with those who would dismiss, deride, or devalue your future contribution labeling you "pro-Mongolian" (as if it were a self-evident and obviously perjorative term). This seems rather like those who have sought to diminish my Wikipedia contributions with a label "Japanese" (as if "Japanese" were to be understood an arguably derisive term).

I would guess you probably understand that my primary focus is elsewhere, but I'm still troubled by that "pro-Mongolian" gambit in the AfD thread. It's not so much that the innuendo was introduced, although I'm very clear that it shouldn't have been tolerated by the consensus. What still bothers me particularly is that this derisive tactic proved to be so easy, so effective, so readily accepted by the so-called "uninvolved" or "neutral" others in that discussion thread. I wish there were some way to leverage this ArbCom "event" so that such needless tactics were less easy or that such heedless claims were accorded closer scrutiny? Just a thought ...?

To be frank, I don't quite understand how this will unfold from this point on -- especially in light of what Teeninvestor has posted thus far, but the formal notice that the case had been accepted included the following, which I construe as being addressed as much to you as me:

• Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence.
• Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible.
• You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

Bottom line: If you can see some way to convert this from a mere academic exercise into something with practical and practicable consequences, please share your thoughts with me or with some member of ArbCom. You aren't obliged to do anything, but, as promised, I'm keeping you informed as developments follow one after another.

On an optimistic note, will you join me in hoping that this process can be converted into something which is demonstrably constructive, useful, helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect-page

In this slow-moving ArbCom case, I proposed only one remedy -- deleting the Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page; It has engendered one comment.

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop: (diff) 13:53, 18 April 2009 Patar knight (43,556 bytes) (→Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule: Seems to be a lggitimate redirect)

Teeninvestor invited this editor to comment -- see here.

You were in my thoughts when I typed out this proposal -- see here.

The discussion and decision-making about this singular proposal would benefit from your participation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom remedy?

The ArbCom case is moving inevitably towards conclusion. The only part of it which plausibly concerns you is one of my proposed remedies:

• Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page.

I have added my arguments to what G Purevdorj posted some weeks ago. If you want to add your voice to this one thread, now would be a good time to contribute whatever you think best. --20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a table of Tsagaan Sar dates in Tsagaan_Sar#Dates, loaning the idea from the Tibetan new year article. However our table could be longer. In the current table the date for Mongolian Tsagaan Sar are missing for the following European years: 1989, 1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000. If you are interested please find the Tsagaan Sar dates for them. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this (I mean the accuracy of the article, not the topic)? I know this practice existed in the past, but was polygamy really a topic in certain newspapers in 2005 or not? Yaan (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, there was a deputy (representative) of the People's Great Hural of 1990, who proposed to legalize polygamy in Mongolia. But that proposal was not supported by the Hural and has become a subject of joke since then. As far as I know, there was not a public discussion on media in 2005. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Yaan (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

this German source says he was minister of finance only in 1998, as does Morris Rossabi in "Modern Mongolia". And unfortunately I was unable to find more on this on his website (maybe because my Mongolian is not good enough). Of course it might well be Rossabi and Corff are both wrong, so maybe you can look into it again? Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Baabar was Finance Minister only in 1998. But don't rely on Modern Mongolia by Morris Rossabi. He is a joke in the modern history of Mongolia. His "Modern Mongolia" has provide a lot of false accounts about the modern history of Mongolia. For example, he wrote that the first demonstration of democrats was held at the Sukhbaatar Square, which is false. --GenuineMongol (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree. I wanted to use him mainly as a source for the claim that Golomt Bank was being owned by Lu. Bold in the Elbegdorj article. I think this is not so controversial and was indeed part of what the MPRP said in opposition to the banking merger? But I won't enter a fight if you say some of his statements are wrong. Maybe this source could be used as an additional source. Yaan (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bank merger issue was described in the Rossabi's book with a very much biased POV, because the he wrote his book based on the interviews with a few ex-MPs who were members of the Democratic Party, but worked against its government. Please don't use his book at all in all articles related to the modern history of Mongolia. Otherwise, you will face a lot of reverts in your edits from many native Mongolian editors.--GenuineMongol (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the resignation of Elbegdorj as Prime Minister in 1998, the real intention of the MPRP members was to revenge for the audit of Erdenet copper plant and firing Otgonbileg, who was MPRP member and the allegedly corrupt director of the plant.--GenuineMongol (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for clarifying GenuineMongol. --Compbok (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid my understanding of WP:RS or WP:V is a bit different. That Rossabi has an own POV does not mean he is complely unreliable on facts. Of course cross-checking and being a bit cautions about repeating his claims is always better, but to simply dismiss him just because he has an own opinion seems a bit too easy. As for what was the motivation for the MPRP to boycott parliament etc., additional sources are of course welcome. Yaan (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to revert that article once again. I will try to implement some changes that seem uncontroversial, and include the statement for the confirmation of which you wanted some time. I think the article could mention some DP allegations about the riot itself (not just about the elections), but I think you might be more qualified to look into this. Yaan (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said that only 10% of Mongols speak fluent Russian. I'm very confused : I thought Mongolia was among the best friends of Russia since both nations fought together against the Japanese in 1939. Mongolia even adopted cyrillic alphabet after Russia. So, I'm very surprised to learn that Russian language is not widspread among Mongols. You also said that English became the first foreign language. Does it mean that you want closer ties with the USA ?Mitch1981 (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking a foreign language fluently is not related to the war history at all. Cyrillic alphabet was forced into Mongolian language, when Mongolia had already adopted Latin alphabet. However, it is the official alphabet of Mongolia along with the traditional Mongolian script today. Since 1990, Mongolia has been developing "third neighbor policy", which means Mongolia will no longer rely on Russia and China as its only partners, but will pursue a policy to establish closer relations with other countries, including USA, Europe, Japan and Korea. For this reason, the Russian can't be the first foreign language taught at schools anymore. English language has already become the most popular foreign language among the population of Mongolia.GenuineMongol (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10% being fluent in Russian seems quite plausible, perhaps GenuineMongol took from some source. If Japan adopted Chinese characters, does this mean that they are necessarily be fluent in the Chinese language? If the Czechs adopted the Latin alphabet, does it mean they are fluent in Latin? Gantuya eng (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe, though, to say that close to 100% of all people who started school between the 1960s and 1987 or so learnt Russian in school?

My impression was that fluency in Russian was rather more common in Mongolia than it was in East Germany, where Russian also was the first foreign language taught in schools. But I don't have any data and maybe I just met the wrong people.

Nowadays, English simply is the international language. Russian was useful as long as most international (economic, educational etc.) contacts were within the COMECON. But outside the former socialist countries, rather few people speak Russian. Yaan (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all students who studied Russian at Mongolian secondary schools didn't learn the language to the level of fluency. For example, I studied Russian for 7 years at a Mongolian secondary school and 4 years at a Mongolian university. But, I can only read and listen Russian, but can't write and speak the language fluently. And I was one of the better students (may be within top 10%) in Russian at both secondary school and university. So, the majority of students who studied Russian at Mongolian schools and universities can't be considered fluent in Russian. But only students who studied in Russian Secondary Schools in Ulaanbaatar and/or who studied at the Soviet universities/colleges can be considered fluent in Russian. These people can't make up 10% of the population today.GenuineMongol (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the information. But then the article on Mongolia needs to be revised because it states that "The Russian language is the most frequently spoken foreign language in Mongolia". on the Languages section.

As far as I know, Mongolia is part of the Shanghai Cooperation in which Russian is the one of the two working languages. So, don't you think it will reassert somehow the position of Russian in your country ?Mitch1981 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia is not a full member, but an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation, while Mongolian foreign affairs are conducted mostly in English, the most dominant language of international relations.GenuineMongol (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for the article.

I think it would be a good idea to mention what category those works you mentioned fall into. Are they novels, individual short stories, collections of short stories, or something else. I suppose it is the second, but I am not completely sure about what you intended.

Some of his works have been translated into German, most of them during socialism, a new edition of two short stories is available via books-on-demand (translator+editor's webpage). I don't know if this is very important.

And, can you confirm that E. Bat-Uul is his son, or is this just an urban myth?

Regards, Yaan (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. can you translate the titles of those works that are not in the infobox, too? I can figure out Naran Togoruu, but my Mongolian is not good enough for the rest. Yaan (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Erdeniin Bat-Uul is his son. Please see this for confirmation [1]. Bat-Uul gave an interview about his father. I'll try to translate the titles. I think you should mention that his works have been read in Germany since the socialist period.GenuineMongol (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Is it OK to translate "Naran Togoruu" to "Sun cranes" instead of "Sunny crane"? I have of course not read the original, but this is how the german translator translates it. I think it sounds more beautiful and I guess she had a reason to think it was plural. Yaan (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel that "Sun Cranes" might be better. I haven't read the story too. So, I would accept your version. GenuineMongol (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mongol Empire. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Caspian blue 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-11T07:50:06 GenuineMongol (talk | contribs) (129,257 bytes) (You are the one who converted the very first original map without proper exUndid revision 325207748 by Caspian blue (talk)) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-11T07:47:49 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (129,259 bytes) (rv by GenuineMongol You're the one who resumed reverting without any explanation. The map has been contested, so you better use discussion. Remind of 3RR) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-11T07:39:52 GenuineMongol (talk | contribs) (129,257 bytes) (Unexplained revert Undid revision 325167920 by Historiographer (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-11T02:07:36 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (129,259 bytes) (Undid revision 325045080 by Bogomolov.PL (talk), unexplained revert) (undo)
5. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-10T13:57:26 Bogomolov.PL (talk | contribs) (129,257 bytes) (undo)
6. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-10T13:54:46 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (129,259 bytes) (Unexplained revert by GenuineMongol) (undo)
7. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-10T02:04:21 GenuineMongol (talk | contribs) (129,257 bytes) (Undid revision 324837502 by Historiographer (talk)) (undo)
8. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-09T13:43:49 Historiographer (talk | contribs) (129,259 bytes) (undo)
9. (cur) (prev) 2009-11-09T10:33:26 GenuineMongol (talk | contribs) (129,257 bytes) (undo)

Look the map's accuracy has been contested and disputed for almost a year mainly feuding between Historiographer and Enerelt, not me. You'd better check the history instead of making such the bogus accusation that I started the edit war. You're the one who resumed the edit warring given the evidence. I'm giving you this edit warring warning since you've just engaged in edit warring for recent two days including 4 reverts without any participation on the talk page unlike me. Use discussion page.--Caspian blue 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historiographer's revert also reached the number 3. Besides, the very first original map was changed by a Korean user called User:Chopinxenakis on February 29, 2009. Until then, the map existed for a few years. He/she didn't explain his/her action and Korean users have been trying to insert this map into the Mongol Empire article. So, please answer me who started the edit-war first? GenuineMongol (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you've admitted that I'm not the starter of your edit warring. I specifically stated that you're the one who "resumed" the edit warring over the map without any explanation. Thanks for the self-admission of your error, although I don't expect your apology to me.--Caspian blue 08:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring was started by Koreans, but not me. You're too biased to judge this issue. GenuineMongol (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, the map was made to glorify the 13th century's empire by Mongolians regardless of the inaccuracy of the map. Edit war means edit war between at least two parties with different views, so deferring your own fault to the other party is simply wrong, and implausible. As I said, you made the bogus allegation referring to me as the starter of the edit war. I've never claimed that I'm neutral party to this dispute while your replies to me show that you're heavily biased.--Caspian blue 10:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove that the map is inaccurate using non-Korean sources. GenuineMongol (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Britannica map --Caspian blue 10:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the extent of the Mongol Empire until its breakup into Yuan Dynasty, Golden Horde, Chagatai Dynasty and Ilkhanid. Here is the map of the extent of the Yuan Dynasty by Britannica [2] GenuineMongol (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map you present does not show me anything but a page requiring log-in. Capturing the map, and then uploading to your personal website would be appreciated for further discussion. Or the map could be confirmed by a third party (neither Mongolian/Korean nor any one who have been involved in both projects since you do not trust editor by ethnicity)--Caspian blue 11:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Here is the map accessible by anybody.GenuineMongol (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the britannica's maps, the map File:Mongol Empire map.gif is inaccurate. The map does not specifically state the nature of the "extent", and the caption, "c.1300" on the Britannica map and the alleged full occupation in 1259 on your preferred map do not match to each other at all. In common sense, the "circa" only covers a couple of years back and forth, or to extent up to 10 years, not covering "half century". Your preferred map's accuracy is rather challenged by the Britannica map that you present.--Caspian blue 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be such ignorant. Any map shows the border at a certain time, in this case the map shows what was Mongolia by ca. 1300, but doesn't show which year Mongolia conquered certain areas because it is not dynamic. The Mongol Empire map.gif is a dynamic map showing the expansion of the Mongol Empire. The last date on the dynamic map is 1294 which is the same as this map's date. The last situation of the dynamic map clearly shows the breakup of the Mongol Empire into four large pieces. GenuineMongol (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be such rude and uncivil. Putting aside the circa 1300, the each phrase is also questionable. Mongol started to assault Korea in 1231 but your preferred map shows part of Korea began to be occupied in 1219 and 1223 which are false. You're the one who forgets Korea was not part of Mongol Empire, but paid tributes to the Chinese Yuan Dynasty. That is the core dispute between Mongolian editors and the other side that having been pointed by others (not me, and some are not even Koreans as opposed to your allegation). Unless you've explained the nature of the "extent" with reliable sources and show each phrase with maps published by reliable sources, you could not expect that your preferred map with the false information would be accepted by other editors with different views.--Caspian blue 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being rude. But you are attacking me now. Yuan Dynasty is not Han Chinese, but they were the Mongol rulers who ruled China, Korea and other Asian nations then. The Britannica map shows clearly that fact. GenuineMongol (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked at all, but, it is true that you're being rude and have attacked me from the start; the edit summary, and me being too biased and ignorant, etc. Well, Yuan Dynasty is referred to as one of Chinese dynasty in even English sources, so that is not a matter for you to complain about me. Moreover, you did not answer to the inaccurate info of your preferred map and the status quo of the dispute.--Caspian blue 13:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Yuan dynasty was a Han Chinese dynasty, why the Han Chinese wanted to free their country from the Yuan dynasty? That's because the dynasty was established by Mongols. You may correct the date on the map if some dates are not accurate, but your preferred map made even more serious error by excluding Korea from the Yuan territory. GenuineMongol (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about whether Yuan Dynasty is not a Chinese Dynasty of Han Chinese or otherwise here. I've never said that the dynasty was of Han Chinese, but since you bring up it, China in fact, has consisted of multiethnics. Jin Dynasty established by Jurchen was not of Han Chinese as well, but treated as part of Chinese history. That goes same to Qing Dynasty established by Manchu who have assimilated themselves into Chinese culture and history. Qing Anyway, if you google web, books, the hit number of "Chinese Yuan Dynasty" or "Yuan Dynasty of China" is three times than that any of "Mongolian Yuan Dynasty" or "Yuan Dynasty of Mongols" (almost nil) or other variants. The term, "Yuan" itself is a loanword of Chinese origin and pronunciation. That is how the world and scholarship defines the dynasty, so don't complain about it to me. The inaccuracy of your preferred map has been pointed out, so as I've said, you can not expect your opponents to accept the map to any stretch. That is why you should've opened a discussion instead of the edit warring.--Caspian blue 05:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the man who changed the map discussed it and persuade other members interested in the topic in the first place? With regards to dates on the map, the map clearly shows that Mongols began invading Korea in 1237, but not in 1219 or 1223. You are just continuing the Chinese propaganda that one of the heroes (Genghis Khan) of northern China united the nation. No, Mongols invaded all those countries, then broke up among 4 large empires. Yuan can be a Chinese word and millions of google hits say "Chinese Yuan Dynasty", but that doesn't change the fact the Mongols founded the state. GenuineMongol (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the blame for the edit warring does not fall to one party or another. Rather, I'm bemused at your derailing with another allegation that I'm in favor of "Chinese propaganda". Look, I've said, the main topic has nothing to do with Han Chinese, and I'm not Chinese as you're well aware of. The Google hits from web and books are how the "current English scholarship and media" view the Yuan Dynasty, not Chinese scholarship or something affects to the world. There is no change that Qing Dynasty was established by Manchu, but their history becomes a major part of Chinese history as well as Yuan Dynasty is referred to as "Chinese dynasty". Back to the point, you seem to be confused with "invasions" and "occupation" of one's territory. If the inaccurate map's caption is about Mongol's invasions to other countries, I can live with that. However, Korea's maintained it monarch which is not equal to Yuan Dynasy's territory.--Caspian blue 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Korea became a vassal and provided labor and men in Mongolian invasion of Japan. If Korea was independent, why would have they followed the order of Kublai Khan. There were many such nations, including Georgia, who were called as vassals of Mongol states, in other parts of the world. There were considered parts of the empire. Korea was not a sovereign or independent state, but merely a vassal. GenuineMongol (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vassal states paid tributes, but their territories do not automatically designated as Yuan Dynasty's unlike Mongols had been ruled under China after the collapse of the dynasty. Korea maintained its own monarch during the time, and if it was Mongolian territories, why Mongol royals let Korean royals rule Korea? The map has many inaccurate information as you admit, so I'm wondering why you're still favoring the false map.--06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To GenuineMongol. Наад мангар "Capian Blue" чинь сэтгэцийн өвчтэй юм шиг байна лээ. Би ярих гэж зөндөө оролдсон, наад балиар чинь ямар ч яриаг заваан хэрүүл болгодог. Энэрэлт бид хоёрыг дайрч давшилж доромжилсон. Туйлын бүдүүлэг этгээд. "Capian Blue", "Historiographer" хоёр яг үнэндээ нэг хүн байж магадгүй харагдаад байдаг юм. Ер нь сэтгэцийн өвчтэй хүнтэй маргаад байх нь дэмий юм гээд бид хоёр наад асуудлыг чинь орхисон. Хамаг нервээ барахын нэмэр.

Тэгээд хамгийн зэвүүн нь наад муу чинь монголчуудтай аймаар дээрэлхүү нахал харьцдаг мөртлөө барууныхны өөдөөс юу ч хэлж чаддаггүй, гөлөгнөөд байдаг юм. Солонгос хүний ямаан зан юм байлгүй дээ. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gantuya eng (talk · contribs), I'm honored to see that you're so passionate about me even by "following me" here although none invited you to come here. I demand you to translate the above Mongolian text into English because none can understand Mongolian text except Mongolian (there is no free Mongolian-English translation tool). Your such move flatly prevents me to understand what you're talking about. Since my name is mentioned "twice" in your text (this is quite rude on your part) and you're following me here, I have a right to request you to do so and please read WP:TALK Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.--Caspian blue 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you get a translation, but maybe you need not be so insistent. A translation wouldn't further the discussion very much. I'm not comfortable with the map in question - sinocentric chauvinism isn't the only way to misrepresent history. "Was gestern Recht war für den Rhein, ist's heute nicht auch Recht für Polen?" (Herwegh 1846) G Purevdorj (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you can kindly translate on behalf of Gantuya eng. It is outright rude of writing messages about the opponent in non-English which can not be reached to other than Mongolian readers. I've demanded a very simple thing: present direct quotes from books that can not be visible in Gbook preview. I've presented translation or quote if somebody question about sources that I used. Although I can read some German, here is English Wikipedia, not Mongolian nor German Wikipedia, so please try to communicate in written rules and guideline. --Caspian blue 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While they fit in here very well, I still don't feel qualified to translate the lyrics of a German poet, and the quote out of context is worthless anyway, so if you don't know the poem by heart, you simply have to look it up. It is about the lack of support on the part of the German nationalists for the same cause in Poland. So much for my part. While I agree that Ganaa was a bit rude not to write in English here, I'm not gonna interfere with this and disclose a comment which she only addressed to GenuineMongol. If she should ever address YOU in Mongolian, I shall gladly provide you with a translation. But given that she did write in Mongolian (which she is entitled to), I suppose that Ganaa is not even in breach of the Talk page guidelines, as she couldn't have expressed what she said in English and accordingly is unable to provide an accurate translation. And to preempt a possible second request of you for me to translate it: any serious translator will only translate into a tongue that she doesn't know as a native or at least near-native at her own peril. But you see: it wouldn't be my peril in this case. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It will be deeply appreciated if you look at article Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 and give your opinion. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to assess if this person is notable: Ichinnorov Manjaa? It has been BLP Prodded. I speak no Mongolian and Google Translate can't handle it, so I find it impossible to assess the sources; what little there is about her in English is snippets or 404. If the article is deleted before you see this and you'd like to see it I can let you see the text. Fences&Windows 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the story behind this edit? The name "Sambadondovyn Tserendorj" does not appear in any of the related articles, and is not supported by reliable sources, so I had to revert it. Can you shed some more light on the topic? --Latebird (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be about replacing the prime minister of the provisional MPP government in Khiagt with the prime minister of Ungern-Sternberg's government in Niislel Huree.

At that time there were two competing governments: the one led by Chagdarjav was the provisional government in Khiagt which did not really have much control over anything until June or so. The other government was a government in Niislel Huree that was probably not much more than a puppet government for Ungern-Sternberg (right?). It seems GenuineMongol wanted to replace the MPP prime minister with the one appointed by Baron Ungern.

re. the name, my impression is that the prime minister appointed by Baron Ungern was either Balingiin Tserendorj or the Jalkhanz Khutagt. Yaan (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we are following the "official" succession, as supported by the Mongolian government. I'm not sure if Sternberg's rule really fits in there, and if so, how. People installed by him may be interesting to cover, but with a clear indication that they represent a seperate branch from the normal succession. Would it make sense to split the table into "local" and "exile" columns, or does that make it too complicated? --Latebird (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdo Khan was the official ruler of Mongolia back then and appointed Sambadondovyn Tserendorj (Manzushri Khutugtu) as Prime Minister officially, while the so-called "provisional government of the MPP" in Khiagt was not the official government, but a puppet government organized by the Soviets. So, we must follow list the official PM instead of illegal Soviet puppet PM.--GenuineMongol (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to NPOV descriptions like "de facto" and "exile" governments and just mention both. It is not up to us to decide which one was more "legal" than the other, or whether the Soviet's or Ungern's puppets were more legitimate. Do we have enough reliably sourced information on this Sambadondovyn Tserendorj to create an article about him? And please do not make unilateral changes while the discussion is still going and without providing any sources. Since this is about content, please continue the discussion on Talk:Prime Minister of Mongolia#Succession during Ungern's rule, where I have started a new section for this purpose. Thanks for your cooperation. --Latebird (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Сайн уу, өөрийн чинь username - ийг wikipedia - с олсон юм аа. Өөрөө их сайн contribution - ууд оруулсан байна гэж би харлаа. Надаа тусламж хэрэгтэй байна. Би сая бүртгүүлсэн article - үүсгэх хэрэгтэй байна . Яг сайн учирыг нь олохгүй л байна. Хичнээн зааварыг нь уншаад байгаа ч . Надад туслаач мэйл бичээрэй crys29feb@gmail.com Болороо Bolortsetseg Crystal (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you say something on this edit war? user Rajmaan is claiming Oirats Mongols are not Mongols and the "Mongol" identity was defined by the Qing. No one supported him, but he keeps posting his claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring Thanks.142.255.6.214 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GenuineMongol,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 16:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)