User talk:Topazg

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 :)

Hi, I noticed that you have an interest in electrical sensitivity and that your involved with powerwatch. There is a considerable amount of changes that I have made to the article which are being debated. The two revisions are:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electrical_sensitivity&oldid=219166365
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electrical_sensitivity&oldid=219165795

If you could spare the time to take a look at these changes your views and comments would be much appreciated! --Randomized (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, I've just had a look and Wiki seems to be making a right hash of explaining exactly what has changed and where, making it hard to see exactly what the two versions look like. I'd make a couple of the edits at a time (per day perhaps), and I'll involve myself if he starts just reverting without justification again. Topazg (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the other editor being referred to, and I haven't reverted without justification. One main reason was the one you state yourself - it was almost impossible to tell what had been changed. Some of the other reasons have been/are being discussed on the talk page. My advice to the user above was also exactly the same as yours: reintroduce your changes slowly, and justify the larger ones on the talk page. I'm glad we agree here. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's made more difficult as the article itself is looking quite good at the moment. This certainly seems the safest way to make adjustments if they are needed Topazg (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good work! Thanks. I'd give you a barnstar if I knew what they were. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topazg,

I know you haven't edited for a few months, but if you get this note in the next few days, I'd love to have your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Usability_of_Keiffets_review. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pere et fils editing, wow! ;-) All kidding aside, welcome back to WP. --papageno (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, nice to see you too ;) topazg (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Mobile phone radiation and health: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 11:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Most of the previous edits by the IP in question are cosmetic but seemingly genuine edits. Generally I don't open correspondence on vandalism issues unless a) it is repeated by the same IP on the same article many times, or b) they have a registered username (even one with a blank talk page). Still, many thanks for mentioning these. topazg (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. And thanks for offering your reasoning; I've not considered that line of thought before.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 11:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]