User talk:Topazg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice to have another significant contributor on the Electrical sensitivity page, it's particularly good to have input from the IT industry that is balanced and open-minded. Hyperman 42 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 June 2007 2 Electrosmog 3 ES and topazg 4 Powerwatch 5 Thanks

[edit] June 2007

Thank you for making a report about 82.10.209.215 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Please also see WP:3RR Waggers 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. Also, 3RR noted, many thanks for your time. Topazg 10:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrosmog

Hello there. Sorry that I've probably come across as a bit forceful over the last few days - I've calmed down a bit now :) I've put a definition of electrosmog on the EM radiation page, could you check it? I'm not sure what to do with the rest. The (supposed) effects on human health are gone over elsewhere, and the effect on the natural world is just a typical media non-story. Any thoughts? Thanks, and sorry again if I wound you up (I was wound up by some other people, shouldn't have vented here) 128.243.220.41 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, no problem at all, you cannot go near this subject without being accused of a "conflict of interest snake oil woo seller" or an "insensitive bigot determined to make people suffer (forgot to add -- in the pay of the mobile phone industry as well of course ;)" or any other number of objectional things, and it does become tiresome for both of us I suspect :). Your description on the EM radiation page looks excellent, and is the only thing IMHO that deserved to move over from this article anyway. I still think that this page should now be purely a redirect, as there is nothing left to merge - I am unfamiliar however in how to recommend a "redirect and remove" (which would obviously result in a deletion of material). Many thanks for this comment by the way, and you might want to register a username to have all the edits you are making attributed to yourself (for one thing, many Wikipedians find it easier to trust the edits of registered users as being non sock-puppetesque). Topazg 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ES and topazg

Hello. Just in case your ears are burning, you're being talked about on the ES talk page. I hope I haven't got my facts wrong, a quick Google of you gave me the information. I'll remove it if you like - I should have asked first I guess so sorry about that. I intentionally didn't put your name in as there was no need. I think the wikipedian I was replying to has an odd opinion of us both (although he likes you!) Cheers. 82.10.218.4 09:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are spot on - I do quite a lot of work on the side for Powerwatch as the area interests me - Alasdair Philips (the man who runs Powerwatch), is my father, and thus I started by helping out with the technical aspects of the site, and then began to get very interested in the subject. I have no relevant post A-level qualifications in any of the major science fields, but I am considering doing an M.Sc. at some stage as, if I am to comment on these issues, it would benefit me greatly to have some paperwork to support my opinions. The difficulty, as always in life, is generating the time and money to do so whilst holding down a full time job :)

Sorry about the delay in replying, I have not been on Wikipedia for a few weeks! Topazg 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the other wikipedian I think .. don't think I have an odd opinion of either you or him! But I would be interested to know if you are indeed who he thinks you are (sorry, can't think of a way of putting this without compromising anaonymity) - for obvious reasons! Hyperman 42 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd just like to point out that I never mentioned your name, and I don't think that's on - it's your choice. I'd be interested to know if you are a scientist, but only out of interest. You seem quite scientific in your general approach, although you come from a different direction to me. I'm not in the industry, and I am not a member of any lobby group (except Liberty - but that's hardly relevant). I'm sorry that your anonymity has been compromised by the previous edits of the other person. Maybe you can get them removed if you like. I am open minded, and presented with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence I'd believe ES existed. As it is I see no harm, and perhaps much good, in qualifying statements either way. Sorry to have dragged you into this, I only meant to make you aware you were being talked about - I have no problem with you or any other wiki-person. This will be my last post here about this, as I feel it is highly inappropriate for many reasons - that is why my original post was so vague. 82.10.218.4 17:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Going immediately back on my word, I have no problem with you deleting this. It was just to make you aware. 82.10.218.4 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is correct, I made a mistake and went back and edited it, but could not remove the history. Very sorry about this, but it was a genuine mistake - it was fairly clear from his comments who he thought you were, and I put this in the comment without thinking. Hope you can deal with this OK. Hyperman 42 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powerwatch

Just to inform you that user 88.172.132.94 or its sockpuppet 80.229.27.251 has made an allegation against you in Wi-Fi talk page. IS that true? 88.76.52.104 (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for delay, not been on here for a while. I have responded, thanks for bringing it to my attention :) Topazg (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind remarks on my talk page. They speak well to your admirable view as to the conduct and discourse that should be employed on Wikipedia. There are many active, thoughtful and courteous editors on WP (even more so than I!); I am hopeful they also receive encouragement from time to time like that you have provided. papageno (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)