User talk:Gologmine

Hello, Gologmine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to The Mongol Khan. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gologmine! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:36, Wednesday, November 22, 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Mongol Khan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don presume my content as unreliable and change the template of contents just because you dont like it. For a fact I am more sourced than you on the matter. Gologmine (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CommissarDoggo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Khorgo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. To clarify, although the source you used seemed to be valid to the topic, the source did not mention any of the content you used. As stated in my edit summary this could be an issue in translation, but it has been removed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its written in Mongolian and you cant trranslate it, it does not mean its unreliable. https://www.mongolianguideschool.com/info1/detail/107 you read the article until the end. It has clearly mentioned the 4 versions of folktale. Gologmine (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's an unreliable, in fact it seems quite reliable indeed, what I am saying is what you inserted with your edit is not on that page and thus cannot be added. That large of an inconsistency between any 4 folktales cannot be drummed down to a simple translation error. Based on that alone, I believe it'd fall under Wikipedia:SYNTH. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Spinixster (chat!) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gologmine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Some random dude keep denying my source and attacking me from her/his second account. I have provided reliable source and pls check it. Other dude is claiming my source is not legit Gologmine (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The conversation below convinces me that you don't understand the reasons for the block and that the poor behavior would resume if the block was lifted early. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• You have not been attacked, nor was your edit removed in bad faith. Thus, you are involved in a content dispute. If you are willing to assume good faith in your fellow editors and engage in civil discussion, then I will reduce your block to a partial block, which will allow you to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, my edit was removed in bad faith. Read the log. I have provided legit source for the content. The other editor keep laying messages like UNRELIABLE SOURCE, Self Promotion etc. How can the other editor prove it was bad source? I had never ever bad faith to someone for some article. I was doing my job as a editor, who is maintaining that article. The source was clearly proving my content. I am wondering how I am the bad guy here? Gologmine (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are the bad guy here because you have responded to concerns about your sourcing with bad faith responses, including accusations of sockpuppetry. Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks. Instead of discussing the matter civilly at the article's talk page, you doubled down on attacks in your edit summaries and at other users' talk pages. That is what led to both the WP:ANI report being filed against you and to your account being blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I am guilty of not self defending myself and my article according to community rules. But how about other editors accusation against my source? Will you check that then? How do I even report such case properly? Gologmine (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)I have provided legit source for the content. False. See WP:UGC: "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources [include] Instagram." ontslog.com is clearly WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." If you disagree, make a post at WP:RSN when you are unblocked, or I will do it for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had never ever bad faith to someone for some article. False. You have accused fellow editors of vandalism, sockpuppetry, spamming, and falsely denying content.

  You must learn that Wikipedia relies upon consensus between editors communicating with civility to each other. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you are making accusations on ontslog.com. How will you prove that? Its fact that other editor was spaming me. Deestroying other peoples work is vandalism. You are for example keep sapming my articles repeatedly. Since you have bad faith in me, you are using this oppurtunity. Its aslo fact. Gologmine (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can confirm from looking at their edits that they do not seem to be acting in bad faith towards you or your edits.

  Ontslog.com, from their front page, appears to be a sort of Buzzfeed type site, with mostly lists of random information, such as this. This source and any information from it is entirely unusable on Wikipedia on this basis alone, as it is distinctly against our reliable sources policies. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, how am I gonna prove it then? Its like public knowledge and even TVs of Mongolia shown it to the public. My content is 100% factually correct. Since to English speakers, contents about MOngolia is very limited, users like me had to translate or interperate it. Her account itslef is the most reliable source. So I cant cite her accounts and cant cite website that does research on it. How am i gonna prove it then? If CNN or BBC publish this article on their website then it becomes reliable source? I just dont understand Gologmine (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  can I use it then as a source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JARgjt9-Us4 Apparently YT is the only option i left wtih aside from facebook. Or I have to beg for BBC to confirm my content. Gologmine (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have 23 hours of your block remaining. I suggest you use it to read the reliable sources guideline, especially the part titled "User-generated content". If you can understand what you have done wrong just from reading that page, you are ready to edit Wikipedia again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest you mind your own business and dont need your opinion on the matter. I am saying it in good faith. Cheers! Gologmine (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Translating is fine as a general rule, interpreting it is where you find issues. If you wanted to say that Dulguun Odkhuu is the most followed Mongolian on a single platform, you would require an up to date and (I cannot stress this enough) reliable source that states this. If you wished to state her follower count as fact on a social media platform, you would state what her follower count was at the time, then cite that from whichever social media page it is. As an example, see the infobox for Jacksepticeye.

  That being said, this information would have to be relevant to the article in question. As her acting career is the focus of the article, including such information as follower counts is unnecessary unless it's given its own section and its own infobox, of course assuming that there is enough information that you can provide from reliable sources to warrant a section on its own (more experienced users please correct me if I'm wrong). CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats why I put it into her personal life as a relevant information. No, aside from her acting career, she is more like a soical influencer. If i just stated that "as of 2023 she is the most followed Mongolian on Instagram", would that be ok, as you said?"including such information as follower counts is unnecessary " why do you decide that? Focus of this article is not about her acting career. Other editors narrating it so. I am just archiving all the information on her. This entire article is about her. Not about her acting career. She is more than a actress. Thats why i am trying to include as much as information on her. Gologmine (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's loop back. According to whom—according to what reliable source—is she the most followed Mongolian on Instagram? —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Check her instagram, she is the most followed Mongolian. If I pay to a certain news outlet to say this one sentence and publish it online, then is it a reliable source? I did my own research by listing all the famous Mongolian instagram accounts and read their account follower numbers. If i publish this list in PDF and publish it on open Onedrive then cite to this information, is it legit reliable source? No newsoutlet gonna make an article on her Instagram, cause its pretty much useless information to the public. Simply saying, unless its a private researcher like me or Yellow news outlet, no publicly recognized news outlet gonna confirm it. my last resort is count list the social accounts my self. BTW I did that. I can cnofirm it. Or i should contact Instgram and get an confimartion email? so that it can satify wikipedia editors? Gologmine (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not what I said. If you were to state that she is the most followed Mongolian on Instagram, you would require an appropriate and reliable source. If you were to state that she has x amount of followers on Instagram as of y time and then provided a citation linking to her Instagram account, that would be acceptable. Again, please see our policies on reliable sources for more information on this, specifically under the section "Context relates to specific facts, not just the source". In the context given (that you are posting she has x follower count on Instagram, not that she is the most popular in y country), you would be allowed to use her Instagram account. The key here is what you are saying is an objective fact and you can measure that by looking at her social media account, "She has x follower count on y social media." instead of "She is the most followed user in x country."

  As stated prior, if you can find enough information on her social media activities from reputable and reliable sources, then you can post stuff about her social media while citing those sources. If you can't, then you can't. The point is that you currently do not have an adequately reliable source in order to state this information. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  She is the most followed Mongolian on the Instagram, everyone knows it. If you want, you can check all the Instagram accounts of Mongolians. I did btw. Since my word is not enough. https://starngage.com/app/global/influencer/ranking/mongolia Check from this waebsite. I assume that is also not a reliable source. I dont know what is reliable source on Internet. lets be honest almost 90% of internet is fake news or unreliable information. For a fact, I have seen many information on Wikipedia itself from unreliable source. Volunteers dont or cant check those informations and cant do the fact checks. For instance, why Buzzfeed is unreliabe source, just because it does yellow news on public celebrities? If I want to create article about myself, it will be immedeatly deleted, since strangers or media outlets cant confirm it? Censorship on Wikipedia is coming from indvidual people not from certain standart. I must say, I am so disappointed in users with superior access to the platfrom. Each user has own standart of creating article and will immedeatly change or delete it, instead of improving it, if new motivated users want to contribute. I am done. Gologmine (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since my word is not enough. https://starngage.com/app/global/influencer/ranking/mongolia Check from this waebsite. With all due respect, did you check the website? It does not have Dulguun ranked #1. That's the key point with verification: sometimes the facts aren't what we assume them to be. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew you would write something like this. Micah Enriquez "@makeitwithmicah" is not Mongolian. Aside from her account listed to Mongolians rest seems legit, i have checked my self. With all due respect, you dont even fact check it yourself. Gologmine (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that she's not the most popular social media influencer in Mongolia, regardless of nationality. Pointing out that she's the most popular Mongolian social media influencer in Mongolia seems... Distinctly pointless.

  Additionally, something you said in another reply really caught me, "No newsoutlet gonna make an article on her Instagram, cause its pretty much useless information to the public." In that case, could you explain to us why information that is of no immediate interest to the public (or those learning about this person) beyond "huh, neat, she's the 2nd most popular social media influencer in Mongolia, but the 1st most popular Mongolian social media influencer in Mongolia" would belong on Wikipedia? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  She is the MOST FOLLOWED MONGOLIAN on Instagram. Did you see the list? first person appears on that list is not Mongolian! She is an AMERICAN who lives in NJ. Gologmine (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Yes, that's exactly what I said. That she is the 2nd most followed person in Mongolia on Instagram, but the 1st most followed Mongolian in Mongolia on Instagram.

  My question is why you believe that difference is relevant, and why you believe that this information belongs on Wikipedia when even you said that the information has no relevance to someone researching about the subject. I draw your eyes again to a direct quote from you: "No newsoutlet gonna make an article on her Instagram, cause its pretty much useless information to the public." Can you please explain why this information should be on Wikipedia if even you say that it's useless information to the public? Why should it be on Wikipedia if people who are researching about this person won't find the information useful in the slightest? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your second concern, cause wikipedia is not news outlet, but its a encyclopedia, where all sort of information should be available to the public. Public might not interest her social life. But there are other people, who want to know that information. I myself very interested that kind of information. Since editors like you prevent that kind of information to be public or think its inferior knowledge, you are trying so hard to dictate what should be on wikipedia. Gologmine (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And if people are interested in this information, they can find it on sites such as that. If people are interested in her public life, they can see this on her Instagram, or any particular social media platform of their choice.

  Nobody is preventing this incredibly public and easily found information from being public nor is anyone trying to declare it as "inferior knowledge", we are simply trying to explain to you why this information is unnecessary on Wikipedia. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See, I dont understand this part. Who is dictating what is necessary or unnecessary? This entitlement is outrageuous. There is a certain editor who is constantly editing my every article, cause he/she thinks his/her way is right. Then I cant fight that person over my work, cause he/she apparently dictates what is right or wrong. Is not that prevention? Then this Follower thing apprently pissed off entire community of editors, cause this sort of information dont interest them. Gologmine (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because I am interested in finance or politics or current hot event, it does not mean I do research on the topic on various news outlets. I go to wikipedia and read them, cause all information that i need is summarized already on Wikipedia. I do that all the time. Thats why Wikipedia is for first place to get information for me. For example, I just read an article on Wikipedia on her/him, if I interested to learn more about a certain public figure. Gologmine (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, that's not what editors are doing; it's a fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". WP:NOTEVERYTHING states: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." These are fundamental values that provide the foundation of Wikipedia, and they do not get thrown away because you want to know "pretty much useless information". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  this is what self promotion looks like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireedui_Gantogtokh There are thousands of article like this, why you keep bothering yourself on my articles? Will you look at this article and fix it will ya? Gologmine (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. WP:OTHERSTUFF (Not a deletion discussion, but the point still stands.) You've said it several times now, so I feel like it's important to point this out to you. This is not your article. You don't own it. You don't get to decide any more than any other editor. Your comments in this discussion lead me to believe that you're going to continue to edit war once your block expires. That would be a mistake. --Onorem (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who said I own it? I am simply questioning my contribution to the article. Your random entry to the discussion made me believe you don’t even understand the point and kinda sending threat message to me out of nowhere, which also makes me believe you kinda oppressing my existence on the platform. I suggest you mind your language. Gologmine (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And according to what reliable source is the person listed #1 on the list not Mongolian? Or, if the site you're trying to use as a source isn't getting nationality right, how to we know they're getting the follower count right? Or, for that matter, that the list is complete, and that there aren't any Mongolians on Instagram that are omitted from the list?

  Thus, as an administrator, I now have an additional concern that not only have you been edit warring, but you also have a lack of understanding of core Wikipedia policies such as WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research. It is critical for an editor to understand these if they want to be a productive member of the editing community. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just did. This is what a poorly-written article looks like; will you look at it and understand what you shouldn't do again? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yours look poorly written. wait a minute, you did not write anything, you just deleted it instead of improving it. I will keep writing articles and improve it unlike some self entitled editors, who think themselves better than others. Your opinion dont appreciated. Gologmine (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW you did a spledid job in Ireedui's article. For that I can appreciate. Keep up the making Wikipedia cleaner as before. And of course correcting grammer mistakes. Gologmine (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know Dulguun Odkhuu was in 1990? https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/04/politics/obama-comments-israel-palestinian-conflict/index.html read this article. how do we know if the publisher of this article wrote Obamas words correctly? Who can prove if this article is legit? You are asking identical question. Instead arguing why am right or wrong, why dont you just fact check yourself? How do I know if you are the real adminstrator? If you dont have the better source, then fact check somebodys source, instead of assuming or questiong its legitimacy. I have a additional concern for editors with superior access to the platform that if they qualified for the the exclusive rights to the platform. As far as I can tell you have yourself no legit ground for questioning my contribution. Gologmine (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps because CNN is an established and reliable news network listed in WP:RSP, and onstlog.com is not? Plus, this is not merely the same topic here. That article is about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, not a living person. You still don't seem to understand the rules that many of us have told you to read. Spinixster (chat!) 03:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you dont seem to understand the discussion here. This cnn article is used in this discussion as an EXAMPLE. I suggest you read the discussion. Plus, I have read the WIKIPEIDA RULES that you keep sending me. You are all narrating wikipedia policy based on your assumption. And yes I dont understand the rules, cause you are not pointing out specifics. You all sending me bunch of wikipedia policy links and tell me read. I am really really trying to understand what am I missing. Ontslog.com is not listed there, because no one is discussed this source. So does ikon.mn, gogo.mn, which are publicly recognized and trusted news outlets. Just like CNN. As far as I can tell ontslog.com is run by professional journalists with specialty on entertainment. It does even have an editorial. If ontslog.com was not trusted by the public or notorious for spreading false news, it could not be operated. Simple as that. FYI, CNN is widely blamed by public for spreading false. Many recognized public figures question its source or narrative. its basically ignorance problem of you. https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.cnn.com look its trust score is 1.2 out of 5, based on 1800 people reviews. Ontslog.com is not publicly recognized, specially outside of the country. A one user/ CommissarDoggo/ from above stated that mecc.mn [url edited out: the site is currently hijacked my malware] is realiable source, even though its not publicly recognized and is not listed on WP:RSP. You all judging book by its cover. Based on what specific ground you are denying Ontslog.com's legitimacy? Specially for this specific case of Dulguun, what reason or evidence you have not to trust this article? I trust this article, cause I did the fact check myself. You don't. Simple as that. Gologmine (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  RSP is not an exhaustive list of sites that are publicly recognised, it is a list of sites that are frequently discussed in regards to their reliability. As you may remember, I made the comparison between Buzzfeed and Ontslog based on their appearance and based on their reporting on their home page - both are very similar in that regard.

  If you would look to WP:BUZZFEED, they too have a dedicated news page which is marked in green - designating it as a reliable source. Buzzfeed however is marked in yellow, meaning that no consensus regarding it has been reached, however it is listed as one of the least trustable sites in the US. As a general rule, Buzzfeed is not used as a source because it is still deemed to be unreliable.

  My reasoning for believing what little I saw of mecc.mn to be reliable is that it seems to be a pretty trustworthy site regarding what it presents. It's well constructed and seems to be primarily based around tourism and events going on within Mongolia; of course, correct me if I'm wrong.

  You can of course fact check if you want (remembering WP:OR exists, even if you fact check it you cannot use that as confirmation that it is a reliable source for that information), but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is run on consensus. In this certain case, the consensus here on this talk page is that Ontslog.com is not a reliable enough source to use on Wikipedia.

  I was going to point you towards WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss the matter more definitively, but evidently you've already found it. If it's deemed there to be reliable by consensus, then by all means use it, but until that consensus is reached it cannot be used as a source. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take CNN as a reliable source, I don't thnik we can debate on this matter. Gologmine (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://opendatalab.mn/search/6865917 I have even fact checked their legitimacy. Its 100% trusted news agency that is recognized by Mongolian government. Ontlog.com has even their owen social accounts on various platform, which clearly shows their transparency. Just because you don't know it, it does not mean its not unreliable. Gologmine (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Transparency does not equal legitimacy, nor does recognition from any figure mean legitimacy.

  Well known pundits such as Alex Jones with his site InfoWars have social media sites. That site in particular has also been recognised by the US government in the past through Donald Trump. That site and him have been deemed unreliable, and his antics both on the site and off it have led to several court proceedings. Additionally, are you sure that Ontslog specifically has been recognised by the Mongolian government and not their specific news site that you brought up above? Additionally, do you have a source to back up the fact that they were recognised by the Mongolian government? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have provided the link above. Opendatalab.mn is operated by Mongolian government according to Transparency law. It sole purpose is reveal all all the information of companies that registered to the state. Therefore, Ontslog.com is not unreliable news source. If it were, its operation would be ceased to exist according to law. Cause as any other countries news outlets by law obligated to spread news 100% correct. Who would register a company to the state to break law? Does it make any sense? its not a random piracy page and plagiarize someones articles, who has no public information about themselves. As I mentioend above, there are other mainstream news outlets such as IKON.mn, GOGO.mn, which are equivalient of CNN or BBC, in Mongolia. They are not listed on WR:RScause they are not known to the wikipedia community. They are also obligated to publich factually correct articles. Appearance of Ontslog.com could be fishy to you. If you we cant use ontslog.com as reliable source. Then we should remove all the articles that taken ikon.mn and gogo.mn as source. Gologmine (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ontslog.com's Company name is Ontslog news " Онцлог ньис" LLC. Which is registered to state on 10 of May in 2022. You can see it's company registration number from this data base. There is nothing to back up. This is the most legit source of information. All you need is study the Law of Mongolia and use some translator to check out, if you dont beleive me. Gologmine (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gologmine! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:50, Thursday, November 30, 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Tushig (YouTuber). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Andre🚐 04:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Which part of the article should be sourced? I provided enough sources, that directly comes from th subject Gologmine (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need sources independent of the subject for notability. Andre🚐 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ARandomName123 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Refs 1, 3 and 4 are not independent, and ref 2 provides insufficient significant coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tushig (YouTuber) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gologmine! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tushig (YouTuber) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How this article qualifies then? just asking Gologmine (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPLACE: as that article is on a popular, legally recognized place, it is automatically notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no I meant it lacks sufficient coverage. Gologmine (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation shows it is a legally-recognized, populated place. That is significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, nothing in the exchange above qualifies as a personal attack, so this warning from you seems to be out of line. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that was for an AfD the user is involved in, which notice has been deleted from this talk page. Spinixster (chat!) 14:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You too according to WP:Hound. I feel very annoyed by your presence too. Whenever I am persecuted, your comment is also there. Gologmine (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  for example what is the purpose of your comment here? Why do you say something like that? Yes I deleted it. How does it connect to this discussion? You are trying to influence someone by using other discussion. Why it is so important to you anyways push this hard? My Zolbootv article annoys you this much? I will give you also a warning, if you keep following me around. Gologmine (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This user is involved in almost every discussion I had. Plus he has also edited few articles that I was editing. I feel very annoyed by his presence. He apparently follows my logs just to criticize me. I take it as personal attack against me,cause I am very annoyed by him. How come this is out of line? I kinda feel very bullied by this community recently. That was not out of line!!!! Gologmine (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:hound is not a thing? Gologmine (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  courtesy ping @C.Fred @AirshipJungleman29. Also, you (Gologmine) should know that warnings don't do anything, especially if it's a wrongful warning. I'll let others decide what's going on here, since I haven't spent enough time on Wikipedia to know. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, this again? This editor's userpage says "I from Mongolia and would like to contribute to the articles that related to Mongolia in my free time". A quick look at my userpage shows how much I have contributed to Mongolian-related history. I watchlist pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mongolia. It is not a surprise we regularly encounter each other. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gologmine. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Baatar Batülzii, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gologmine. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Baatar Batülzii".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gologmine. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tushig (YouTuber), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]