Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mongols/Members

I don't see that I need your consensus to play around with my name and the name of the other members. (You do like to invoke consensus since you noticed that you are three to one.) You have successfully brought this group into a shape that forced me to quit, and you want to retain the names of the members of the former group (facultatively including me, though I might indeed erase my name) just for your greater glory (and legitimation)? Not as long as I take part in Wikipedia. If those old members do not legitimize you to put their names here, you are not entitled to do so. What, do you think, gives you this right? G Purevdorj (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please try to talk nicely. Everyone can of course join or unjoin the project for various reasons such as inactivity or no longer interested in the project etc. But this project (as other WikiProjects) will of course thank everyone's support, and obviously no project would want any member to unjoin it, but if it becomes really necessary or you are no longer really interested in explicitly staying in it of course you can. In such case you can remove your own name from the list (or simply putting a deleting symbol around your name, just as I had done for myself [the reason is mentioned below]; more active people in general of course do not really want to see people leave the group and even in such case please do not remove/invalidate or play around with the names of other members on the list). No it is certainly not that the old members had "legitimized" someone (who?) to put their names here, but they had put their names here themselves previously and they had not "legitimized" other people to remove their names from the list. You had stated the opposite. The workgroup or project was renamed or reorganized with discussion (in the project talk page), but it is not that they are different groups even if there were a couple of expected changes (after all, you can not say some company for example has already completely gone or no longer the same company because that company has changed its name and with some re-scaling in its business accordingly after a major meeting where most people who participated in it had met no oppositions or conflicting opinions regarding the name change). And no please do not sound as if anyone is "controlling" or had tried to "control" the project in WP, but such a bold action (i.e. removing/invalidating the names of all old members, and without any prior discussion or consensus) itself is a very bad move and of course cannot be considered legitimate. As for myself I had hoped everyone who is interested in Mongol-related stuff to work together happily in the reorganized project (which is supposed to be national independent focusing on everything regarding Mongols as a whole; this was exactly why I had expressed support for the rename/reorganization, and initially had enthusiasm to join it), and did not really want anyone to leave it either. But if it is no longer such a place then I am not really interested to stay in it either (I would only be interested in (re-)joining it if it becomes what I had hoped [as listed above]; and I was not previously in any such group anyway). But even that no one (e.g. none of us) may have the right to remove or invalidate the names of other members unless having explicit permissions from themselves (or with discussion and consensus for such a substantial action in advance), as such a bold action (i.e. removal or invalidation of all old members) without prior discussion and consensus would obviously violate the general behavior guideline in WP, which would not be tolerant, no matter you (or another person) are a member or not. --Chinyin (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Staying" in this group is not a correct formulation of the issue. I joined the previous group, not this one. Did I support renaming the project? No. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you are replying to the previous message, then just compare with the example that I had already given above: you can not say some company for example has already completely gone or no longer the same company because that company has changed its name and with some re-scaling in its business accordingly after a major meeting where most people who participated in it had met no oppositions or conflicting opinions regarding the name change. Just think about you were a person who did participate in such a major meeting but did not explicitly expressed support or opposition or otherwise conflicting opinions regarding the name change. After the meeting you can of course choose whether to stay with the (renamed) company or leave, but this would be your personal preference and no one can force you (but at the same time it is also true that friends or some other members in the company may want to try [or have tried] to persuade you to stay in the company). --Chinyin (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In any case, try to follow the usual WP policy. Of course personal preference can be also a major factor for a few problems, but as mentioned earlier no project would want member to leave, unless really necessary. There may also be some other issues to be dealt with by existing members of the project or other people, but we'd certainly hope things would get along even better in the future. --Chinyin (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked any members of the Mongolia work group yet if they wanted to be part of your WikiProject? Your business analogies aside (How many Mongolia work group shares do you own?) I would assume that this is the least one could expect if one was supposed to give one's name to a new project.

Yaan (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, I have to emphasis the fact that I am currently *not* a member of the project for myself. So please do not describe as my WikiProject, which may be considered as a personal insult, even though personally I really respect you myself. I did expressed support for the *rename* of the project (not a creation of a new project), but that is because of the difference between the concepts of "Mongols" and "Mongolia". After all, the more common usage of the term Mongolia in English language refers to the state, as can be reflected by the link in Wikipedia. As I'm mainly interested in history, I want to focus on Mongols as a whole, instead of basing on any particular modern country. No it is not that it is required for anyone (including me) to join any particular wikigroup to do article editing etc; instead, I had just expressed my personal wish to join a group or project where editors from any country in the world who are interested in Mongol-related stuff can work together nicely. That is basically it. Please don't ever describe as my WikiProject. Thanks a lot. --Chinyin (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus seems to have changed, so revert the main page. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that it was you who mentioned in the project talk page about the differences between the concepts of "Mongols" and "Mongolia". You said that a term that is more obviously inclusive would constitute an improvement, and also mentioned some other people who had expressed a favor towards this solution (i.e. WikiProject Mongols). Only after that I had tried to explicitly mention my own support for the new name, which had gradually (and generally) become the consensus by that time. So the renaming (which was not done by me anyway) should be considered acceptable at that time. But as in this page, anyone can of course add or remove his/her own name as he or she wishes, but otherwise may still be considered as a problematic or aggressive action. In general nobody may touch the names of other people, but in very special cases it may be (such as with consensus to remove list etc). In Wikipedia it is generally a bad idea to make things black and white (or making weird discontinuities within continuous thing such as this: if it was a renaming [instead of a new creation] as previously done, then why its old members cannot be automatically transferred under the new one? Either done both of them, or done neither; it is bad to stay in some intermediate condition like this); it is also considered a very bad thing to do actions in an aggressive (and unwiki) manner towards any particular editor(s) [always try to think of better ways to handle or solve issues, and there certainly are]. Instead, cooperation among different editors is always the better choice in WP, encouraged by the Wiki spirit and policy too. --Chinyin (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

When the move took place, I had given up some of my resistance to it, but I was never of the opinion that this was sufficient to do the move, which took me by surprise (more or less so; I WAS aware of the inherent aggressiveness of the discussion in turn lowered the surprise factor somewhat). The renaming was, in any case, a major event that included changes in scopus, and assuming consensus for moving these names to the new group was never justified. It is those people that must consent, not the majority of those executing the takeover. Taking this view on things, the aggressiveness lies entirely with you who wants to hide this major divide within the member list. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I never supported "renaming" the group. Due to the ridicules, ironies and verbal attacks that followed my comments, I had to minimise my participation in the discussion about renaming the project. The atmosphere there was unfriendly. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I had not expressed my support before seeing G Purevdorj's explanation there either. But I do think you made such style of comments first. Nevertheless, by now I also admit I should have tried somehow more polite way too. --Chinyin (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not really a place for speaking like this here, but it is somehow interesting for you to have mentioned like something to give up some "resistance" etc, which I don't really believed that was what had really happened or expected, at least at that time. In any case please try to consider a talk in a more Wiki-style way， which I personally certainly highly preferred to avoid possible misunderstanding/misinterpretation etc. There may be some distinction existed among group members, but that is quite unsurprising. Wikipedians come from different countries in the world, and of course there may exist differences among them. That would be considered normal. But in Wikipedia we are supposed to make it work in a more Wiki-like way, that may be considered a usual thing. You had made a pretty good explanation in that page previously, which is a nice thing. I had expressed support after that, but there is no need for me to be initially enthusiastic like that any more, if that is no longer the case. By now I'm still no idea why you later decision happens, given that initially at least you did not seem to be exactly like such. If it is mostly a personal issue, then try to deal with it in a user talk page, and then it may turn out to by a misunderstanding soon. In any case, I myself have no interest or intention to behave as any party in the group, or even rejoining as a member of the group (at least for the foreseeing future), given that some unfortunate events seemed to have happened, and even you had tried to behave like this. That is basically the thing. (it may be possible for you to want to return/rejoin the group and become the renewed leader of the group in some near future, which I'm personally quite happy with, but that would be a different story. Even may be unexpectable at least for the time being). --Chinyin (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone in fact probably have acted aggressively in some way. But they should really not have been done in such an explicit way. Thanks. --

Anyone still around?

Hey guys, I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to help contribute to Project Mongols. Are there still many active members here? I live here in UB and am happy to contribute in whatever way I can.

I am looking towards starting a small program here at the University that I work with to find some students to volunteer their time to improving and adding pages on all things Mongolia. Thanks.

Robertritz (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still around, both on Wikipedia and in Ulaanbaatar (but I'll leave the latter in the course of November). Else, I'm not sure. At the very least, the project in the sense of a community of people working together is pretty defunct. Given that the renaming action was due to existing discord and resulted in additional discord, we probably cannot even say that the "WikiProject Mongols" (in contrast to the previously existing workgroup of the WP Central Asia) ever constituted a "community of people working together". But any new efforts are welcome, of course! As long as you are consistent in using reliable sources, any efforts to improve knowledge about things Mongol on WP will probably actually improve WP. We often had the problem of people contributing their personal knowlegde, something that should usually be avoided. G Purevdorj (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well good to hear it! I may try to revive the project in the near future however I can. Information around Mongolia is sketchy at best in English, so I want to do the best I can to make all the available verifiable information easily obtainable. I've noticed that most "information" I've gotten from people here in Mongolia is personal knowledge, and I really dislike that type of information. Things need to be verifiable. Quick question, since this is the English Wikipedia, is there any method for allowing translations of original documents to be added as references? Robertritz (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither a problem nor any routine. Just cite your original source. If you can read Mongolian, other users will usually have to be content with being given Mongolian sources. On the other hand, INTERNET sources in Mongolian are kind of a problem, because they don't exist long enough. If he had a way of archiving Mongolian internet sources we quoted, that might save us a lot of future work (as articles without accessible sources are rightly contested, and in the worst of cases deleted). G Purevdorj (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Solve the problem?

Considering the fact mentioned by G Purevdorj above that the renaming action was due to existing discord and resulted in additional discord, and that it cannot be even said that the "WikiProject Mongols" ever constituted a "community of people working together", should we try to actually solve the problem? I would suggest another open discussion and a fair vote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols. How about this? --Evecurid (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)