User talk:Keepemhonest2

November 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ronald Reagan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SeanNovack (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean, Please refrain from calling me names. My edit was constructive, as it replaced facts with fictional data.

Here is my reply to you within the talk section of Ronald Reagan, subheading Reaganomics

SeanNovack, your comment to me is intellectually dishonest.

1) Putting in the correct "annual high" data under Reaganomics is not a "substantial" change, rather it is a factual correction to false, misleading information that for some reason you want to stay out in the public domain to hide the fact that Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate. In other words, the change is "minor" and is also historically correct. (Why do you object to facts being provided?)

Wiki Help:Editing describes:

Thus, correcting false "unemployment annual high" does not change, nor affect, the "meaning of the article." Hence, as I said, my edit was not a substantial edit.
 * Major Edit as:
 * "any change that affects the meaning of an article is major (not minor), even if the edit is a single word."


 * Minor edits
 * "... signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The "minor edit" option is one of several options available only to registered users."

Presenting facts on Reagan's "unemployment annual high" is not something that anyone, including you, should dispute. In fact, keeping misleading, false information on Reagan's "unemployment annual high" is disputable, as I am disputing it right now.

2) You are also wrong - the link I gave above here, is not a dead link. I notice from your talk page and your edit comments that you have a habit of: falsely accusing people of vandalism and maliciously calling disparaging people names.  Thus, I find it despicable that you now falsely accuse me of supplying a "dead link."

Not only did I provide a working link for you (above), I even supplied step-by-step instructions in the event someone, who is not familiar with the cite (Bureau of Labor and Statistics), could easily go to the cite and find the correct, factual, information.

3) You are also wrong as wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia, not even close. An encyclopedia is a reference tool where people go to find information they can trust as being truthful and factual. An encyclopedia is not reference place where people refuse to let facts be presented.  Unfortunately, wiki seems to be a place where facts are not always welcome.

Also unfortunate, is when people like you, here on wiki, refuse to let facts replace false information, then wiki becomes a "propaganda" cite as opposed to a reference cite for historical, factual information as an "encyclopedia."

a) Definition:


 * i) PROPAGANDA: misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.
 * ii) FACT: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.
 * Encarta ® World English Dictionary All rights reserved.

4) You wrote (above):
 * "If you have an issue with the facts presented then discuss them here first"

Look, I made a minor change to correct false information - which has no affect on the meaning of the article and as such, I did not, and do not have to "discuss them here first." In other words, I don't need your "permission" to let facts replace false data. I suggest you re-read the rules on editing in wiki.

Sean, I proved to you (above), and anyone reading this, that the data, which you refuse to accept, found under "Ronald Reagan" (prior to my edit) and subheading "Reaganomics" is 100% FALSE - as in NOT TRUE.

I also proved to you that the factual "annual high" unemployment rate for Reagan was 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).

Therefore, I am left to believe that you are not a spreader of fact. Rather you are a person who enjoys keeping false information in the public domain. As a result of your taking down facts and then accusing those (me and others on wiki) who supply the facts of being a "coward" or "vandalizing" and then falsely saying "you supplied a dead link" - people like you - give wiki a bad reputation.

I was trying to make wiki a better place, where accurate information can be found - but you refuse to allow that.

I am going to "edit" Ronald Reagan's page, subheading "Reaganomics" one more time, with factual information. If you insist on taking down facts, so as to leave propaganda up - I shall follow the step-by-step instructions found here> WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments. If you persist, and continue to call me names, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution.

To re-iterate FACTS I posted earlier:
 * A) WIKI: "the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.[116]
 * That sentence if factually wrong because the link, or citation [116], is NOT a link for "annual rate highs" rather it is a link whose Title is: "Annual average unemployment rate"
 * '''KEYWORD in link's Title: "Average"
 * NOTICE: the words "annual high" nor "annual rate high" are NO WHERE in the title of that link.
 * NOTICE: the words "annual high" nor "annual rate high" are NO WHERE in the title of that link.

Sean, I intentionally made the below, (and above), step-by-step instructions very, very simple. I urge you to try again:


 * 1) Here is my proof that the "annual rate highs" are 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983)
 * i) Go to: US Bureau Labor & Statistics, Link: http://www.bls.gov/data/
 * a) Click on "Database & Tools" where you'll see "Data Retrieval Tools - Top Picks"
 * b) Under "Top Picks" Check the box "Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted) - LNS14000000"
 * c) Click "Retrieve Data"
 * d) Go To "Change Output Options"
 * e) Put in 1981 - 1983
 * f) Click "go"
 * g) You now see Title for Table:
 * Series ID:           LNS14000000
 * Series Title:        Unemployment Rate
 * Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
 * Type of data:        Percent or rate
 * Age:                 16 years and over
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:
 * h) Below the Title in g) above is the Table which shows:


 * 2) You can clearly see, the factual "annual rate high" is, in fact, 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).
 * 2) You can clearly see, the factual "annual rate high" is, in fact, 10.8% (1982) and 10.4% (1983).

If you are still unable to follow those step-by-step instructions then feel free to go to this cite:


 * U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics via The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis"
 * Link to cite>: ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
 * Title of Page: Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population, 1940 to date, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Finally, I refuse to let false information stay on wiki page under Ronald Reagan subheading: Reaganomics. Please stop taking down my factual, historical data - or as I stated above, if you persist, and continue to call me names, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution. WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments.

--Keepemhonest2 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Arcayne
Arcayne hasn't edited Wikipedia since April 2010 so I wouldn't expect a response to your note on his talkpage anytime soon. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks --Keepemhonest2 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend that you keep comments on the article talk pages. That IP that you just posted to is a shared IP in Tokyo and you aren't likely to have the same person who was using it post back. You may want to remove it. Let me leave you a welcome with several links to help you out on Wikipedia. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Keepemhonest2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 16:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)