User talk:OperationOverlord

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try one of these four things: click on the blue "17" in my signature, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Cheers!

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Pearl Harbor edits[edit]

I noticed that your edits to the article have been undone with sufficient explanation. If you want your time as a Wikipedia editor to be worthwhile, learn to accept concensus. Please heed the editors' advice. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eaglestorm, for your patient, if slightly didactic, words. Look, the change I envisage is fairly important, but also relatively small. It is very difficult to achieve 'consensus', whatever that means in this context, on something like a line of text. Often, the best way (as with the successfully changed "Operation Barbarossa" article which was in a similar state of confusion but now has a one-sentence "result") is to proceed with a fait accompli and then discuss it. As others have stated, the current status of the article is absurd, but would take many paragraphs to explain, that no-one will read anyway. Remember though, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but an encyclopaedia dedicated to pursuit of knowledge. As a would-be historian, I take that very seriously. OperationOverlord (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what "consensus" is, see WP:CON. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read the archived discussion on this. It's been extensively (to put it mildly) debated. And your fait accompli looks just a little like you trying to impose your own view, which isn't how things are done here. Like it or not, WP is more democratic than that. (If it wasn't, I wouldn't have had to argue in favor of the existing language so long, or against including conspiracy garbage.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OperationOverlord - I agree with your point. However, repeatedly editing an article to insist on one version, when other people evidently disagree, is very strongly frowned upon here. The right place for the discussion is on the article talk page. Changing the infobox text back and forwards doesn't change anyone's minds - it is known as 'edit-warring' and can even result in you being blocked from editing (see WP:3RR for more details...).

Equally, to everyone else in this discussion, OperationOverlord has started a discussion on this subject at Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#The_Result_of_This_Attack and, frankly, "oh we've already discussed this, please go away" isn't a good enough response. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]