User talk:Joseph T McCarthy

How and where to post comments to wikipedia
You posted the following to my talk/discussion page: ''Mr. Broughton, The names and identities of these state chairs are, in fact, plenty newsworthy. There is an abundance of information regarding the CRNC available and so there are actually countless experts on the CRNC these days. Sir, it is those experts who made the page the way it is today. And they will accuse you of defacing it too. Joseph T McCarthy 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[Joseph T McCarthy]''

I note the following: John Broughton 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The posting should have been to the College Republican National Committee talk/discussion page; posting to individual user talk/discussion pages should be of a personal nature (which this posting is).
 * It is a courtesy, when posting to a user's talk/discussion page, to provide a link to the article in question. Some users do a lot of editing, and may not remember where a particular edit has occurred.
 * There is no need for you to post your name twice.
 * "Mr. Broughton" and "Sir" can be seen as pretentious by a lot of people. Like me.  You come across (here and in the Articles for deletion/Paul Gourley comment) as someone who likes to hear the sound of your own voice (so to speak) and thinks that wikipedia is some sort of debating society.
 * In your last edit summary, you said Reverted Broughton's edits. The norm is to mention the FULL user's name (that would be John Broughton).  A lot of people (like me) don't like to be referred to only by their last name.
 * You've used the word "vandalism" and "defacing" in your comments about my edit and possible future edit. You should read the Good faith policy and follow it. You might also want to think about what Gamaliel said in response to one of your comments: Do you think insulting people is an effective way to change people's minds?
 * You might want to keep in mind that you are NEW to wikipedia, don't (apparently) know the policies; and certainly don't know the norms. You're probably going to have to decide if you want to keep doing what you're doing, and not make much difference here (you're certainly not winning any converts to the Republican cause among the regulars here, so far, and you're unlikely to win any edit wars), or if you want to contribute useful information.  For example, you might make sure that Democratic politicians who have been accused of corruption or other misdoings have that information (objectively) included in their articles.  Fighting about inclusion of a list of state chairs isn't where you can add value.

I respond in kind:
 * John, there is simply no need to open a new discussion page on the CRNC article regarding your changes. This issue is trivial.
 * You write that some users do a "lot of editing" and it is a courtesy to provide a link to help them. I am all too happy to take this into consideration for next time.
 * You say "Mr. Broughton and Sir can be seen as pretentious by a lot of people." There is nothing pretentious about it at all, and I know plenty of people who use it all the time and have the best of intentions.
 * But here was your opening salvo, the reason we are having this conversation:
 * "State leader names are NOT newsworthy (they change all the time, among other things). Info should be easily found on organization's website (if not, it's even LESS newsworthy)"

In doing so, you ripped away half the CRNC page. Thanks for educating us, John. In capital letters, no less! If your post had stood, it would have wiped out months of edits - from contributors who felt the state chairs do belong listed there.

And at the same time, you admit you hadn't even looked up the state chairs on the CRNC's website. You forfeit a presumption of good faith by lecturing us when you, honestly, do not know a whole lot about the subject matter. Surely my reaction was cordial and measured! You write that your post did not vandalize, but what other explanation can there be for lecturing us on a topic that you (honestly, John) do not know much about.
 * I did not insult you, and I did not insult Gamaliel - or anyone in that article. Wikipedia is under constant attack by persons who feel strongly on certain issues, see their edits rebuffed on one topic or another, and respond by holding other articles accountable to their versions of those standards.  I intended to protect Paul Gourley's article from such reactions, and I intended to protect the CRNC article from such reactions.
 * Your last bullet is the most telling. You say I am not winning Republican converts.  Yes, I am.  (Do you mean to admit that you had a political agenda when you went in and changed half the CRNC article?  Not cool.  That admission shows you had plausible intent to vandalize the article.)

Joseph T McCarthy 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Joseph T. McCarthy

Your recent edits - please be mindful of Wikipedia policy
Please review Wikipedia's policy on "Neutral point of view" (NPOV).
 * Your recent edits to Rick Santorum's article take the negative statement about approval ratings and make it into a positive. NPOV indicates that his increase in approval points AND his low approval rating should be in the article.  (Citations should be provided.)
 * Your recent edit to Robert Menendez's article includes a detailed section on a recent news article. A short summary with the link is sufficient.
 * I have removed your recent addition. You may re-add the information from a NPOV. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You, no doubt, can be a valuable Wikipedia editor &mdash; but please keep in mind that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of advice
Joe, you might not recognize my username (same as my AIM sn), but we're facebook buddies, and fellow Rutgers CRs. I know well that you fight passionately for what you believe in, which is a good thing and I never fault that. But here, at Wikipedia, that gets you into trouble. Quite a few liberals and anti-American foreigners around here, in addition to the sensitive types who when they're losing a war of words (and principles) will always go retreat to regroup behind something that makes them feel safe and attack you in ways that even your being right won't work against. The problem with this world is people won't fight, especially the tarts around here and that safe retreating-and-regrouping tactic is managed from behind the policies and rules. No Teddy Roosevelt's to be found here, only Wellingtons. Remember, in Spain and at Waterloo...Wellington couldn't defeat Napoleon on the open field, so in Spain he resorted to terroristic guerilla tactics (similar to insurgents using IEDs in Iraq today), and at Waterloo, he seduced Marshall Ney to follow his retreat over a hilltop where the reserves wiped out the French cavalry and the Old Guard...So if you go in as you are, you're bound to pick a fight and a fight you will ultimately lose...and a lot of the admins who would decide your fate fit in those categorizations above. I should know, I stirred the shitstorm several times here with my passionately-held beliefs and ways of doing things and almost got banned on several occasions. Remember, as someone whose seen this in the field...the cool and calculated always win...hot and heavy only (and often) get you dead. The only way to win is to think or act like your enemy. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (Christopher D. Thieme)