User talk:Petergkeyes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Petergkeyes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] Fluoride therapy

Note that I reverted your edits with an explanation on the Fluoride therapy talk page. - Dozenist talk 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits related to hexafluorosilic acid are misleading

I find your edits bordering on unethical, but the records show that the Wikipedia is well populated by folks that think and edit like you - folks that that are willing to bend the truth and exagerate to promote the idea that the chemicals used in fluoridation pose extreme hazards at the low concentrations employed in treatment of public water. I lack the time to compete with your campaign of misinformation. But I wanted to go on record that I find your edits intentionally misleading. One has to hope that readers of Wikipedia are aware of the zealotry associated with this theme. Your contributions illustrate some of the worst in this project.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out that HFSA comes contaminated with traces of lead and arsenic. I added a few safety precautions for handling this chemical. I fail to see how those actions bent any truths, or promoted any ideas related to water treatment. But I appreciate your most recent edits to said page at press time. Thank you for helping to contribute to this wonderful resource. Petergkeyes (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter, let me expand on this. The information you add is correct, but such information does not have a place on wikipedia. I would be in violation of Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not, not a manual section. We are not supposed to offer, and I think it would also not be wise to do that, information which can be used negatively. For KCN we say that it is toxic and we explain the mode of action, we do not say how to avoid being intoxicated, etc. (we do link to an external MSDS, which may contain that information ..), as that information can also be used the other way around (see WP:BEANS; though that is about disruping wikipedia). I see no-one left you a welcome message, I will insert one above. May I ask you to discuss further (controversial) additions/changes either on the talkpage (Talk:Hexafluorosilicic acid), on the wikiproject on chemicals, or here on your talkpage (especially when your edits are reverted), before (re-)applying them? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dirk,

Thanks for the welcome. Let me try to follow your logic. You believe that providing little to no safety data may actually be safer than clearly indicating the potential hazards of handling this material. You suggest reverse psychology, wherein folks would harm themselves with HFSA in ways they would not if Wikipedia had not spelled out the dangers. It would seem to me that doublethink of that sort would have a self cancelling feature built into its very mechanism. I am optimistic that we can improve this page constructively as a team. Cool heads will likely prevail, and we should be able to come up with something that accurately describes safety precautions without overly disturbing the natives. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as wikipedia has as disclaimer "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" NOONE should use wikipedia for finding this data anyway. We are not to give medical advice, or manuals to create explosives etc. Both for positive reasons as well as possible negative reasons. That has been established by editors in the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Off course this information can be formulated in such a way that it does not read like legal/medical/manual-like information, and in that way it is fine (we do describe biological mechanisms of toxins, etc.). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Expand: If Wikipedia would state that 1 gram of X would be toxic, and someone dies after eating 0.9 gram .. that may have a very bad effect on Wikipedia, and could possibly result in legal actions. It is a thin line, but still. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-warring over links

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on water fluoridation opposition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. No worries. Compromise (consensus?) has been achieved. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.fluoride-journal.com/

It claims that The Fluoride Journal has MOVED to http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ Please click the link to update your Favorites.

and

The Table of Contents link for this site will take you to SOME past issues that are still available on the site. However, the Fluoride Journal does have a NEW homepage where current and past issues of Fluoride are available. Click the link to go to the new home page for the FLUORIDE Journal.

Ta Shot info (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)