User talk:Petergkeyes

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)

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 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)


 * Sorry, Dirk, but that makes no sense. We can and do include published information on safety limits ect., and since they are published by a third-party, it is not our fault if they are misused. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring over links
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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)

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)

WP:COI
Hi Peter,

I'm wondering if you are the same Petergkeyes as "Peter G. Keyes, Director, Water Or Waste, Sacramento, California"? If so, then it's possible that you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) with regards to fluoridation matters. Shot info (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shot. "Water or Waste, Sacramento California," does not exist. However, I am flattered that you took the time to search my name on the internet. I'm sure you have noticed by now that zoominfo is particularly unreliable.

I believe that Wikipedia encourages editors to focus on the material, not the editor. Would it be appropriate for me to ask you what your line of work is?

You also seem to be suggesting that safe water advocates are somehow not eligible to edit water fluoridation pages on Wikipedia. Hopefully other editors who favor safe water will not be put off by this misguided assumption. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, please focus on the matter at hand and please review Wikipedia's policy on the matter of a conflict of interest. In addition I recommend a review of WP:SPA .  Thanks --Shot info (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While I take an interest in some related topics, you can rest assured that I understand the concept of Single-purpose Account, and this in not one. Surely you would agree with me that the pages I have been working on have been in need of serious help. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Peter, with all due respect, it is a valid concern. First off, your editing pattern does fit several of the characteristics of a single-purpose account. Since resuming editing in April of this year, you have focused almost exclusively on fluoride-related issues. Much of the material you add tends to involve opposition to the use of fluoride, while much of what you remove is material endorsing its use. You have had to be cautioned regarding POV edits, and with regards to the reliability of reference sources, relying heavily on fluoride opposition pages. Further to this, the name "Peter G. Keyes" appears on a petition opposing fluoride use on one of the web sites you frequently use as a source. All of these combined do indicate a potential conflict of interest. --Ckatz chat spy  00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns, Ckatz. While my recent fluoride related edits have taken focus and much hard work, I will not always dedicate my time to this. Other pages will see edits from me.

I have certainly made substantial additions/changes to the water fluoridation opposition page. Before I began, it was woefully inadequate. It still needs some work, but it looks a lot better today than it did before April. Would you agree?

As far as the water fluoridation page goes, please note that one of my most recent contributions regards prominent, mainstream endorsements of water fluoridation. It is a difficult page to find consensus on, considering the passions it stirs up, and the range of positions regarding the practice. The page needs to be fair and neutral. Material culled from fluoridation promoters and opposers must be meticulously stripped of POV language. I am solely interested in Wikipedia presenting neutral, objective information, devoid of hyperbole, scare tactics, advertising, etc. I aim to provide reliably sourced NPOV facts, not opinions.

Please note the difference between the opposition of the use of fluoride, and the opposition to the addition of hexafluorosilicic acid to public water supplies, otherwise known as water fluoridation. The acid is not pure fluoride. Many folks have no problem with the use of fluoride, but oppose water fluoridation.

As an example, the petition you reference does not oppose the use of fluoride. I encourage you to read it. It is a very reasonable petition. It simply urges governments to bring scientific integrity to the issue of water fluoridation. The petition is not even in opposition to water fluoridation. It is a non-binding request for governments to examine all the literature, defend the practice in open public debate if it is defensible, and to avoid using untested industrial grade waste materials as their fluoridation chemicals.

Who would oppose that?

Again, thank you for your interest in me, my work, and fluoride. Please do not hesitate to continue to communicate your thoughts and concerns to me directly. I sincerely appreciate your observations. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, in all seriousness, I recommend that you look at broadening your horizon's somewhat such that you can divorce yourself from the labels of COI and SPA. While you may not intentionally be acting as a SPA with a COI, unfortunately your edit history suggests otherwise.  Just bringing it to your attention to help you become a better editor.  Thanks --Shot info (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you aren't offended by my jumping in here. I don't see anything above that looks like an actionable COI problem, not enough to even merit starting a WP:COIN discussion. I do think that editing a broad range of articles is a good idea though. Not that anyone needs to avoid being labeled a SPA, but to interact with different editors and different editing environments. I don't think anyone can learn how to edit cooperatively with other editors, building consensus, if the only articles they edit are highly controversial. --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch
Hi, and thanks for your edits to the Quackwatch article. As you may know, this article has frequently been the focus of edit wars. As such, it is currently under a kind of "article probation" to help stabilize things, and there are certain conditions for editing at the talkpage. One of those conditions, is that reliable sources should not be removed. I noticed that you removed a source recently, a health.gov site. If this is just an "interim" edit, please disregard this notice. Otherwise, it would probably be best to restore the source and to engage in discussion at the talkpage about how to proceed. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 03:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR
As a suggestion, you should review WP:3RR particularly in the light that you don't want to discuss improving the section in Water Fluoridation Opposition article at all in the talk page. Shot info (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My friend, you and I have plenty of discussions. And I am sure that we will have many more. You sure like rules, don't you? Petergkeyes (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
As Talk:Water fluoridation says, potentially controversial changes should be discussed on the talk pages before installing them. is obviously controversial, so please revert them and then bring the matter to the talk page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would removing someone's personal opinions be controversial? These are simple, common sense clarifications. Show me where I'm wrong before asking me to revert. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is controversial. There is a controversy right here, and these are not common sense clarifications. Again, please revert your changes and discuss them on the talk page first, at Talk:Water fluoridation . Discussing on the talk page first is standard practice in this controversial article. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 3RR. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatz chat spy  02:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ckatz. Are you referring to any individual specific edits?  If so, please provide details.  Looking forward to working together with you some more. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Opposition to water fluoridation. Your edits appear to be non-neutral and have been reverted. Thank you. The rewrite you made to the article do not reflect the ADA source you referenced, which does not even use the term "toxic". Ckatz chat spy  19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume best intentions, my friend. The ADA PDF states, "If liquid concentrate or powdered formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride-free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis."


 * Fluorosis is an adverse health condition that can result in cracked teeth, increased dental carries, and painful muscle impairment. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Per extensive discussions with regard to this subject, the fluoride opposition sites cannot be used as references for anything other than their own positions. Any government reports or other such documents need to be linked from neutral sites, such as the issuing body. --Ckatz chat spy  23:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, it might be best if you vetted those sources son the main fluoride talk page. Again, we cannot use anti-fluoride advocacy siets as references for facts other than their own position; in addition, Answers.com is not a reliable source. --Ckatz chat spy  23:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kind sir, please take note that we are discussing opposition to/controversy over water fluoridation, not "fluoride opposion," or, "anti-fluoride advocacy." It appears as if you are misunderstanding a fundamental distinction in this area.  Glad you have so much time and energy invested in this.  It is clear you are taking changes to this page very seriously, and that your tendency is to be conservative, and to favor the status quo. Please be careful of inadvertently deleting work that may be salvageable, even if it does not live up to your strict standards right away.  I think that slowly, with our collaboration, these pages are gradually starting to improve.


 * That is a difficult feat with controversial subjects. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Quackwatch. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please be aware that 3RR is not a license to revert three times in 24 hours, and you may still be blocked for continuing to revert (even once) in a slow edit war. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to me that you sent that form letter warning while I was in the middle of a discussion on the topic's talk page, and while the edit that I do not favor is currently the status quo. Petergkeyes (talk)
 * And you continued same on Water fluoridation: see here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We can work this out. See you on the relevant talk page.  It is unfortunate that you waited to weigh in on the water fluoridation talk page until this block was implemented.  I assure you, I am not trying to war with anyone, nor violate the spirit of the project.  I will defend my edits, and I expect fellow editors to do the same.  The page has a star because of the collaborative work of myself and many others.  It is a shame that some are so quick to punish.


 * But why contest a 24 hour block? Is it really worth it?  Whatever.  See you tomorrow...or whenever.  Peace and love.  Petergkeyes (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 You have been blocked for edit-warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Water fluoridation. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  08:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring at Water fluoridation
If you continue to restore your preferred version at Water fluoridation, without being able to point to a consensus on the article's talk page to support you, you may be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if you find that you can't persuade anyone on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I followed CKatz's suggestion regarding the Armfield ethics comment. I deny that my behavior amounts to, "continuing to restore my preferred version."  Petergkeyes (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits have consistently demonstrated a POV, probable COI, and numerous other problems including single-purpose editing. Ckatz chat spy  08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, friend. My edits are across the board, and are specifically designed to be NPOV, as the project requires. The only single purpose to my editing on this project is to volunteer my time to help the project improve.  The accusation of COI was made earlier (by yourself, I believe) and summarily dismissed.  There is no merit to your suggestion of COI.  Now let's get back to work making this a better project. Petergkeyes (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on you comment here it appears you may be misunderstanding wp:BRD. Please read it carefully. The intent is clear. wp:BOLD is a means to identify points to edit. wp:REVERT is a means to identify lack of concensus. wp:DISCUSS is a means to reach concensus. Once there's something to discuss, there is no enduring value in being bold or reverting until editors reach a concensus. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources
I'm very concerned by your use of sources at water fluoridation. You have edit-warred to insert the following text: "A 2007 Australian study opined that ethical, moral and social issues regarding water fluoridation are legitimate, and that further investigation is indicated." The cited source is this article: Armfield J, "When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature." I would like anyone reading this talk page to take a moment and read the source you're citing. It is freely available in its entirety here.

The article is basically an all-out demolition of the claims of anti-fluoridationists. The source describes the use of logical fallacies, cherry-picking, intellectual dishonesty, and scare tactics among advocates who oppose water fluoridation. The abstract summarizes the source thus: "Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect."

It is a bit surprising to see this source, which unequivocally (even heavy-handedly) emphasizes the safety of fluoride and its importance as a public-health intervention, used to support the language in your edit. More to the point, since the source is devoted to exposing and countering the ignorance of anti-fluoride claims, it seems odd to use it as you have.

Let's compare your language to that used in the actual source: So you've used a source to support a point which the source itself notes is "outside of the intent of this current paper." If there is a clearer example of abusing a source to advance an editorial viewpoint, I would be hard-pressed to construct one. The way in which you've elided context from the quote, as well as the way you've flipped around the unmistakable emphasis of the source, increase my level of concern about the policy violation here.
 * Your edit: "A 2007 Australian study opined that ethical, moral and social issues regarding water fluoridation are legitimate, and that further investigation is indicated."
 * The source: "While the moral, ethical and social concerns over water fluoridation are both legitimate and fully deserving of further investigation, they lie outside of the intent of this current paper."

The article's main thrust is that antifluoride advocates cherry-pick material and strip it of context to advance their agenda in an intellectually dishonest fashion. It also bemoans the "spread of misinformation regarding water fluoridation on the Internet," adding an element of irony to the current situation. I'd like to hear your explanation of why you think it's appropriate to use a source in such a manner - to make a point which its authors explicitly state it is not intended to address. I'd like to hear why you think it's appropriate to try to edit-war this material into a featured article. Most of all, I'd like to know why you shouldn't be indefinitely banned from this site for abusing sources to advance an agenda. MastCell Talk 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome back. Let's start with what we agree on. I agree with you that the Armfield study is mainly heavy handed.  The ethics comment was one of the least heavy handed statements in the paper.  I understand your concern about it being explicitly stated as "outside of the intent of the current paper." But it was stated in black and white, and my summary of it had identical meaning.  If there is consensus that it is not appropriate, then of course it must go.
 * Now, to the chopping block talk. I should stay because I am sincere. My only agenda is to volunteer my time to help move this project forward, and allow it to flourish.  The water fluoridation page has a star because of the hard collaborative work of you, me, and many other editors.  Much of what I have contributed in years past is still there.  Of course, not all of it stays. That's the nature of the beast.  But a lot of my contributions remain, and you know that, because you have been there. And other pages are better, because of my assistance. I care.  I work hard to make these better pages.


 * And most of this drama could be avoided if 'yall would assume best intentions. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that we are talking about water fluoridation, and its opposition. We are not talking about opposition to fluoride. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't claim any credit for the featured-article status of water fluoridation. I assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, I personally see evidence to the contrary. Let's not play games. If a source says that X is "outside the scope of this article", then it's wrong to cite that article in support of X. It's wronger to carefully excise the disclaimer about scope from the sentence you quote. It's wronger still to summarize the entire article as if it were about X. Accurately and honestly representing sources is essential on this site. In some online venues, it might be OK to filter through a hostile source and cherry-pick the one half-sentence that supports your agenda. Here, doing things like that strikes at the basis on which this site operates. If you summarize a source, then you need to make sure you're accurately and proportionately reflecting that source's content and emphases, rather than using it as a hook for your own agenda. If you can imagine the author of a source being horrified at your usage of it - and I can imagine that here - then something is fundamentally wrong. The other behaviors, like edit-warring, add an additional dimension to the problem. There is, clearly, consensus against your edit, but you keep reinserting variations of it. At this point, it's been made clear that other editors don't think it's a good edit. The onus is on your to marshal some convincing arguments, pursue dispute resolution, or otherwise demonstrate that you're making the article better. If you edit-war again without a serious attempt at those things, then I will block your account. As an aside, it's fine to continue protesting that your intentions are good, but at some point your edits have to make that case for you. MastCell Talk 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Prop 19 and D.A.R.E.
The statement from Louis Miller does not reflect D.A.R.E.'s stance on the issue as a whole. They would need to come out with an official statement, as a group, against the prop, like M.A.D.D. did for example. If you can find a legitimate article with a statement like that, then feel free to add it back. Yonskii (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the cite, which clearly lists D.A.R.E. as an endorser of No on 19. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There would need to a be a legitimate article, from a news agency or the like, with a statement from the organization. The only thing like that I can find is this, which is from the No on 19 site, but it does not cite any resources. I cannot find anything that backs up their article anywhere on the web. Yonskii (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)