Talk:History of Russia/MetaDiscussion

message: :I think this is pretty much a matter of sourcing- it appears that piotrus and cholchicum have a source - and if you can find one (which should hopefully be easy) then we can simply present alternate opinions.--danielfolsom 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the issue winds up to: is it a common held opinion. If it is - then we have to include it, per WP:NPOV, however if it is a minority opinion, then it needn't be included.--danielfolsom 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Woho - there's a lot of room! Irpen i've been in these debates before - I'm aware of this. However the first step to finding out if the material should be included is to see if it's a minority view.--danielfolsom 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I wasn't aware that slight sarcasm wasn't allowed. I am aware that comments like this "Since you seem to see yourself as an expert in civility" aren't either - so I guess we're even. Seriously now - calm down, I have no clue why your freaking out about this - I made a joke because you were saying obvious statements to me like "Facts and opinions are different things.". However, as to the sourcing it seems three editors are interested in finding out and you're not - I'm just saying that if Colichrum and Piotrus find a source- then we can easily include both arguments. And (I'll ask you again) stop saying I have a lack of interest in the subject - check my edit history I edited a lot of this and it's kinda ridiculous for you to make snide (uncivil) comments just so you can exert whatever dominance you think you get by pretending to be an expert.--danielfolsom 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from main talk to a subpage

message: I reverted what seemed to me a premature good-faith archiving as threads as recent as less-than-an-hour-old were archived. Let's not rush into that. The off-topic discussion is moved to my talk for anyone interested. --Irpen 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry I didn't notice that you had commented in an otherwise dead discussion, well we'll see what happens - but if no one responds by tomorrow (which is reasonable to assume as there haven't been any responses in a while) then we can archive the whole thing.--danielfolsom 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind, please give it somewhat more time than one day. Talk pages are not supposed to be archived at such pace. Also, the problem with excessive tagging is not resolved. Removing/adding the tags that some see unwarranted and some see necessary may well continue and the users could use an explanation of what is going on here. --Irpen 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that's fine - although again, you kinda commented on a dead discussion, and even then it was kinda open ended - "I'll see what I can do" is your closer - so just don't expect a response, but who knows, you might get lucky.--danielfolsom 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's usually done by date - you can typically assume resolution by the fact that no one has responded - but repeat (in case you didn't see it) Ok that's fine--danielfolsom 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving