User talk:Nanadiane

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. RedSpruce (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. RedSpruce (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * GENTLEMEN, as a new Wikipedian, I, too, am an editor. After reading the ridiculous bio on Joseph McCarthy, I took the appropriate steps to correct factual errors in the text.  You have read them and have chosen to see  my corrections as vandalism.  Yours is not a pursue of facts, but the continuation of a political lynching.  Please remove the white hoods and get a grip!  Might I remind you that according to Wik. policy, simply because you don't agree with me doesn't make my entry vandalism.  I am sure you are aware of that.  nanadiane


 * nanadiane, as a new Wikipedian, your first task is to educate yourself about how do things here. Wikipedia has a number of policies that you need to learn about. For starters, see WP:How to edit, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Attribution, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No personal attacks. Please also note that deleting random portions of an article because you disagree with the article's content is still vandalism. If you think that a whole article is "ridiculous", your first step should be to read the article's discussion page to see what other people think of it and how it got to be the way it is. RedSpruce (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Redspruce, as a new Wik, I was astonished a bio with such gross lies written as factual information. Clearly, who ever it was that composed that piece is simply repeating the mythology without researching the facts. BLACKLISTED BY HISTORY by M. Stanton Evans and the Venona Project would be excellent starting point for the editors of the McCarthy page to begin to learn the truth about the man and the hearings. Simply because your college professor told you McCarthy was a "bad man" doesn't necessarily make it so. Have you ever heard the expression "little pitchers" when it comes to children repeating what they've overheard. Its the same with college students and most people really, they simply repeat what they hear. What is poured in will pour out. Do yourself and all the wikpedia readers around the world an enormous kindness and do your homework. Thanks, nanadiane


 * If you read the policy pages I link above, you'll see that Wikipedia articles are required to present the majority view among scholars or authors regarding a subject. The McCarthy article does this, as you would know if you "did your homework" beyond reading Evans' book. In Wikipedia, what you or I personally think is "true" doesn't matter. the majority opinion of reliable sources is what matters. For more on Evans' book and this WP policy, see here.
 * BTW, since insults seem to be a part of your standard mode of communication, I think I'm done with this discussion. Respond below and you can have the "last word". RedSpruce (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There were no insults intended, I'm simply pointing out that no matter what facts arise in the case of McCarthy, for whatever reason, most people seem to parrot what they've heard. Nanadiane