![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 11 September 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | The contents of the List of AT&T U-verse channels page were merged into AT&T U-verse. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Important history notes about the page Note this page was previously deleted per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. It was then userfied by request to
User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels and then moved here via user name change from User:IP XXXX to User:The "good guy". --
The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
After further development and related AFD discussion, the page was then merged and redirected to
AT&T U-verse#Television. This page history here at
List of AT&T U-verse channels is required by the site license to be retained for attribution of the merge as well as for the history of the deletion and userfication discussion. (The prior notes have been edited.)
216.152.208.1 (
talk)
14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I should let you know, Investigation Discovery is not a family channel. It's a channel that deals with real life crime and forensics, about as un-kid friendly as you can get. Violet yoshi ( talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I am untroubled by threats of blocking my IP based on my constructive edits, which stand on their own merits and are mostly corrections taken from the source already provided. After corrections from this source are completed, other sources should naturally be consulted. Please remember that supplying sourced data in lieu of unsourced errors is not vandalism and should not be reverted en masse.
I am restoring the corrected channels, packages, colors, callsigns, and other data to the article and keeping the other changes made by other editors in the interim. The corrections represent several hours of research. I also intend to complete the corrections from the original source and look for other similar AT&T channel guides for other cities. Further, there are any number of news stories about AT&T negotiations with various providers that indicate the varying status over time of the channel provisions, and this is a significant neglected aspect of this article. I am hopeful that this work can be completed over a timely process.
I will be happy to answer questions posed to this shared IP's talk page. Since I began editing through this IP I acknowledge it has let 3 nonconstructive edits through from another party, but I believe the IP's contributions taken as a whole are noncontroversial. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) It appears I also have a potential conflict of interest as I have disclosed at "my" talk page. This should not affect any consensus judgment on the reverted edits themselves. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, you are misreading WP policy in multiple ways, as well as misreading the nature of IP contributions. The proper topic for this page is whether the corrections improve the page, which I can demonstrate later. IP 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 14:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I have located the nonanonymous user's concern, namely, that I was restoring 'titles of networks like "SciFi Channel" (now just "Syfy") and "Fox Reality Channel" (no longer on the air)'. It maybe true that I restored outdated information among the many corrections and improvements, but WP policy is that the datedness should be proved from an additional source. Until that happens, it is appropriate to continue conforming the article to the first source at hand, with no prejudice against corrections made by consultation of other sources, while it is still inappropriate to revert a large set of improvements over two quibbles. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 15:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears the nonanonymous editor is continuing the policy of reverting a large pile of helpful changes because of one or two unsourced disagreements with the primary article source. This is not a good idea for the nonanon. I will return to restore the sourced information (recognizing the possibility of a historical section for this article later) and to make additional improvements. Correcting unsourced info from a valid source, even a dated source, is not vandalism, but supplying unsourced info could be construed as harmful to the encyclopedia if the nonanon's logic is followed. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't just two "quibbles", it is a whole swath of them. Nothing in your "helpful changes" or "corrections" is correcting or "helpfully" changing anything. Knowingly and blantantly removing current information and replacing it with information from May of 2007 is vandalism. In case you are in the dark on some things:
What you are doing, reverting back to 2007 information, is repeatedly adding inaccurate and incorrect after being told it is inaccurate and incorrect and that is considered vandalism. Knowingly doing makes it clear you are vandalizing. You have been issued many warnings for vandalizing articles on your talk page, follow them. Any further vandalism to List of AT&T U-verse channels or any other article will result in a block. This is your final warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the other editors who have interacted with my review of the Detroit source. I am continuing to note it as historical for now in lieu of better information. My notes:
Your last revert regards my edits as vandalism. Can you point to specific vandalism in that edit? I have not removed your stations or inserted false or misleading data. I don't believe that your argument that "historical data is rejected" will hold up. I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of vandalism (as well as of socking) and I would rather interact with you. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As you can see my latest changes to this article are minor and performed for synchronizing the various lists involved. I trust we can now recognize that this kind of change is not vandalism (for one reason, it does not change any of the stations or positions and only makes the most minor and obvious of corrections). The remaining changes to be done fall in the following categories.
Discussion of these changes can be continued here or at the userfied version; but if nobody userfies the current version and it is deleted, the changes will be moot because the only userfied version already has these changes made. I trust this breaks down the changes well enough that they can be looked at and discussed now. As I said, I do have access to the most current static source (2012) and will be adjusting from that source as well. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has once again reverted good-faith edits that attempt to make only minor changes (such as capitalization, whitespace, commenting, and obviously incorrect numbers). I have asked above for recognition that such changes are not vandalism and have by this reversion been refused. Neutralhomer has proposed the issue be taken to ANI. As the article and history is ripe for userfication to Neutralhomer anyway, I see no alternative to concluding that talk-page discussion has failed and dispute resolution is indeed appropriate. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 13:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we are now at the place where we can consider the relevant questions: (1) This is not vandalism; (2) Commented text for discussion, which does not affect the external appearance, is not vandalism; (3) The content dispute can be localized to my list above. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
For reference, Neutralhomer will steer clear of this page and has preemptively removed it from his watchlist. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels:
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article? -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Crossposted to AfD article -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has been indeffed in my absence. It appears that consensus favors the view that my changes are not vandalism and can be reinstated. Due to my admitted COI, I want to still proceed slowly with new information and not ruffle any more feathers. I will start by swapping back in my current preferred version, which afaik also includes all the unsourced 2012 data Neutralhomer was favoring (but tagged as unsourced where fitting) and all interim edits from other editors. The next step is to take my static 2012 source and update the article again. It is probable that supplemental sources can be used to verify (or on occasion correct) all Neutralhomer's content.
To resolve AFD/MFD concerns, we would next add significant prose here and at AT&T U-verse indicating the historic details of channel lineups and changes and significant contract histories. It is also my belief that the list should become one sortable table, which would significantly improve the TOC as well. Eventually the article can be submitted I guess to AFC. Please post any additional questions here. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Changing format no longer matters; such edit is an insubstantial improvement from the main article. Even this doesn't erase the G4 criteria. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) -- IAmCoolForever2023 ( talk) 01:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) -- IAmCoolForever2023 ( talk) 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In related news: Anyone who may be watching may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 11 September 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | The contents of the List of AT&T U-verse channels page were merged into AT&T U-verse. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Important history notes about the page Note this page was previously deleted per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. It was then userfied by request to
User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels and then moved here via user name change from User:IP XXXX to User:The "good guy". --
The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
After further development and related AFD discussion, the page was then merged and redirected to
AT&T U-verse#Television. This page history here at
List of AT&T U-verse channels is required by the site license to be retained for attribution of the merge as well as for the history of the deletion and userfication discussion. (The prior notes have been edited.)
216.152.208.1 (
talk)
14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I should let you know, Investigation Discovery is not a family channel. It's a channel that deals with real life crime and forensics, about as un-kid friendly as you can get. Violet yoshi ( talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I am untroubled by threats of blocking my IP based on my constructive edits, which stand on their own merits and are mostly corrections taken from the source already provided. After corrections from this source are completed, other sources should naturally be consulted. Please remember that supplying sourced data in lieu of unsourced errors is not vandalism and should not be reverted en masse.
I am restoring the corrected channels, packages, colors, callsigns, and other data to the article and keeping the other changes made by other editors in the interim. The corrections represent several hours of research. I also intend to complete the corrections from the original source and look for other similar AT&T channel guides for other cities. Further, there are any number of news stories about AT&T negotiations with various providers that indicate the varying status over time of the channel provisions, and this is a significant neglected aspect of this article. I am hopeful that this work can be completed over a timely process.
I will be happy to answer questions posed to this shared IP's talk page. Since I began editing through this IP I acknowledge it has let 3 nonconstructive edits through from another party, but I believe the IP's contributions taken as a whole are noncontroversial. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) It appears I also have a potential conflict of interest as I have disclosed at "my" talk page. This should not affect any consensus judgment on the reverted edits themselves. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, you are misreading WP policy in multiple ways, as well as misreading the nature of IP contributions. The proper topic for this page is whether the corrections improve the page, which I can demonstrate later. IP 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 14:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I have located the nonanonymous user's concern, namely, that I was restoring 'titles of networks like "SciFi Channel" (now just "Syfy") and "Fox Reality Channel" (no longer on the air)'. It maybe true that I restored outdated information among the many corrections and improvements, but WP policy is that the datedness should be proved from an additional source. Until that happens, it is appropriate to continue conforming the article to the first source at hand, with no prejudice against corrections made by consultation of other sources, while it is still inappropriate to revert a large set of improvements over two quibbles. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 15:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears the nonanonymous editor is continuing the policy of reverting a large pile of helpful changes because of one or two unsourced disagreements with the primary article source. This is not a good idea for the nonanon. I will return to restore the sourced information (recognizing the possibility of a historical section for this article later) and to make additional improvements. Correcting unsourced info from a valid source, even a dated source, is not vandalism, but supplying unsourced info could be construed as harmful to the encyclopedia if the nonanon's logic is followed. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't just two "quibbles", it is a whole swath of them. Nothing in your "helpful changes" or "corrections" is correcting or "helpfully" changing anything. Knowingly and blantantly removing current information and replacing it with information from May of 2007 is vandalism. In case you are in the dark on some things:
What you are doing, reverting back to 2007 information, is repeatedly adding inaccurate and incorrect after being told it is inaccurate and incorrect and that is considered vandalism. Knowingly doing makes it clear you are vandalizing. You have been issued many warnings for vandalizing articles on your talk page, follow them. Any further vandalism to List of AT&T U-verse channels or any other article will result in a block. This is your final warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the other editors who have interacted with my review of the Detroit source. I am continuing to note it as historical for now in lieu of better information. My notes:
Your last revert regards my edits as vandalism. Can you point to specific vandalism in that edit? I have not removed your stations or inserted false or misleading data. I don't believe that your argument that "historical data is rejected" will hold up. I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of vandalism (as well as of socking) and I would rather interact with you. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As you can see my latest changes to this article are minor and performed for synchronizing the various lists involved. I trust we can now recognize that this kind of change is not vandalism (for one reason, it does not change any of the stations or positions and only makes the most minor and obvious of corrections). The remaining changes to be done fall in the following categories.
Discussion of these changes can be continued here or at the userfied version; but if nobody userfies the current version and it is deleted, the changes will be moot because the only userfied version already has these changes made. I trust this breaks down the changes well enough that they can be looked at and discussed now. As I said, I do have access to the most current static source (2012) and will be adjusting from that source as well. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has once again reverted good-faith edits that attempt to make only minor changes (such as capitalization, whitespace, commenting, and obviously incorrect numbers). I have asked above for recognition that such changes are not vandalism and have by this reversion been refused. Neutralhomer has proposed the issue be taken to ANI. As the article and history is ripe for userfication to Neutralhomer anyway, I see no alternative to concluding that talk-page discussion has failed and dispute resolution is indeed appropriate. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 13:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we are now at the place where we can consider the relevant questions: (1) This is not vandalism; (2) Commented text for discussion, which does not affect the external appearance, is not vandalism; (3) The content dispute can be localized to my list above. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
For reference, Neutralhomer will steer clear of this page and has preemptively removed it from his watchlist. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels:
End copy -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article? -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Crossposted to AfD article -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer has been indeffed in my absence. It appears that consensus favors the view that my changes are not vandalism and can be reinstated. Due to my admitted COI, I want to still proceed slowly with new information and not ruffle any more feathers. I will start by swapping back in my current preferred version, which afaik also includes all the unsourced 2012 data Neutralhomer was favoring (but tagged as unsourced where fitting) and all interim edits from other editors. The next step is to take my static 2012 source and update the article again. It is probable that supplemental sources can be used to verify (or on occasion correct) all Neutralhomer's content.
To resolve AFD/MFD concerns, we would next add significant prose here and at AT&T U-verse indicating the historic details of channel lineups and changes and significant contract histories. It is also my belief that the list should become one sortable table, which would significantly improve the TOC as well. Eventually the article can be submitted I guess to AFC. Please post any additional questions here. 12.153.112.21 ( talk) 01:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Changing format no longer matters; such edit is an insubstantial improvement from the main article. Even this doesn't erase the G4 criteria. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) -- IAmCoolForever2023 ( talk) 01:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) -- IAmCoolForever2023 ( talk) 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In related news: Anyone who may be watching may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)