User talk:Some Gadget Geek/2016/September
142.12.254.12[edit]
Hey my dude, the bad edits coming from this IP are because it's a public network at a university residence. It's probably safe to just block it from editing outright. 142.12.254.12 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Dutch blocking[edit]
[1].
Looks like I'm playing games :)
jps (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: Sorry for the late response! I know that NLWIKI has a policy disallowing such random strings of characters for a username. If you are concerned you may talk to MoiraMoira or post at WP:UAA. Best, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
PowerTV...[edit]
I don't disagree that the subject was probably not notable enough for a standalone article but the content has been completely lost from readers' view - I see no mention of this product at the target page. Shearonink (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I won't argue with you here. If you absolutely want to keep this content about a topic clearly unnotable for a standalone article, feel free to take it to WP:AFD or WP:RFD and who knows, the community might agree to merge the apparently "lost" content into the target page. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- What?... I'm not arguing with you about your redirect, I think it made sense and agree with you that the subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Besides, at this point, it would seem inappropriate from a procedural point of view to take the matter to AFD/RFD - I'd vote for AFD myself. I was just wondering - since you seem to have an interest/knowledge of this general subject - if it might have been possible to place some of the content within the target article, (the PowerTV "box" seemed like possibly a pioneer or an early entry in this area...). That's all. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree As you like it! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- What?... I'm not arguing with you about your redirect, I think it made sense and agree with you that the subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Besides, at this point, it would seem inappropriate from a procedural point of view to take the matter to AFD/RFD - I'd vote for AFD myself. I was just wondering - since you seem to have an interest/knowledge of this general subject - if it might have been possible to place some of the content within the target article, (the PowerTV "box" seemed like possibly a pioneer or an early entry in this area...). That's all. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
