User talk:12.153.112.21

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Manticore 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Jah Cure. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Psychosis. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TYelliot. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to 1990, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1990. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pinethicket (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough it appears this IP is being used by more than one person at a time. As a constructive editor I apologize for the 2 nonconstructive edits made by someone else from this IP within minutes. Sorry this doesn't provide any assurances but it's the first time I've noticed this quirk. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mr. Vernon. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from AT&T Worldnet without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was explained at the time as being due to a requested merge and Mr. Vernon has dropped the issue. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make edits as a registered Wikipedia user to protect yourself against being blocked for vandalism, and to mask your location. SalineBrain (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered as User:IP 12.153.112.21 in case I need to make such edits or to distinguish myself from other parties that may use or have used this IP. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of AT&T U-verse channels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 04:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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 as I will indicate at the talk page. Please remember that supplying sourced data in lieu of unsourced errors is not vandalism and should not be reverted en masse. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the pseudo-IP-address-named account User:IP 12.153.112.21 as account names similar to, or named after, IP addresses are not allowed: please could you create another account which does not reference an IP address? -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop, sorry, missed that one. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this and edited the article anyway because I returned more than 1 day after this was issued. I believe the block was in error because this is a content issue, not a vandalism issue. The single party objecting to my edits is not supplying any sources whatsoever, while I am working from a source. The party has now stated the source is 5 years old, but that does not impeach its validity for historical information, especially when no other source is being brought forward. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your "corrections" is correcting anything. Removing current information and replacing it with information from May of 2007 is vandalism. In case you are in the dark on some things:

• "Fox Reality Channel" is no longer on the air, it was replaced by "National Geographic Wild" (otherwise known as "Nat Geo Wild").
• "SciFi Channel" is now simply called "Syfy".
• "Spike TV" is simply called "Spike".
• "Sleuth" is now called "Cloo" (pronounced "Clue").
• "Court TV" has been "truTV" for a couple years now.
• "SuperStation WGN" has been "WGN America" for at least 3 years now.
• "AZN Television" has been defunct for at least 5 years now (it wasn't replaced or renamed with anything).
• "MSNBC" is stylized as "msnbc".
• "Discovery Times" has been "Investigation Discovery" (after being something else before that) for at least 3 years now.
• "Toon Disney" was renamed "Disney XD" about 2 years ago.
• "Noggin" and "The-N" were renamed "NickJr" and "TeenNick" respectively about a year and half ago.
• "Discovery Kids" became "The Hub" at the beginning of 2012.
• "WE: Women's Entertainment" is now called simply "We TV".
• "Fine Living" is now the "Cooking Channel".
• "Discovery Home" is now "Destination America" (it was "Planet Green" in between).
• "Fit TV" is now "Discovery Fit & Health" (the channel for "Fit TV" is now "OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network").
• "MTV Tr3s" is simply "Tr3s".
• "BET J" has been "Centric" since 2011.
• "Fox Deportes" is spanish for "Fox Sports"...and was renamed recently.
• "TV Games Network" is now simply "TVG Network".
• "YES Network" has been called simply "YES" for awhile now.
• All the regional Fox Sports channels are simply "FSN <region>".
• "Turner Classic Movies" called simply "TCM" now.
• "Discovery HD Theater" was renamed "Velocity" this year.
• "HDNet" was renamed "AXS TV" back in August.
• "MGM HD" was never called "MHD".

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. You have been issued many warnings for vandalizing articles, 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 • 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been blocked, consider this a deterent if you feel like vandalizing again. If you do, I will not hestitate to give your company a call and let them know an employee is using and abusing Wikipedia on company time. It is frowned upon to be goofing off on the internet when you are supposed to be working. So, get back to work and keep your job. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of AT&T U-verse channels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is your last and final warning. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia articles, you will be blocked. STOP NOW! Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

See the article's talk. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 03:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi. I am an administrator who has been asked to review your account for possible blocking. I see that you seem to be engaged in an editing dispute with other editors. We operate on consensus here and when we disagree, we use the article talk pages to discuss our disagreements.

Please make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages (such as Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels) from other, established editors. Otherwise, I or another administrator may block this account without further warning.

Thank you,
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your threat to create an account to circumvent semi-protection: That is still edit warring and sock puppetry. Both of those will get you blocked. As A. B. told you above, please discuss your edits on the talk page and get a consensus before you make the changes again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I did pass my own personal limit on edits to one article so I will hold back for a bit and perhaps edit the other noncontroversial articles that I've made constructive contributions to. Getting an account is not sock puppetry, if it is then discouragement of IPs is greater than I realized. Also, attempts at consensus-building are not judged by cursory review. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of AT&T U-verse channels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I'm tired of playing games. New references do not back up anything you have posted today, yet you continue to vandalize. Do it again, and I take this whole thing to ANI and request a long-term block from this IP. Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 Hours for Sock puppet while main account is blocked, User:IP 12.153.112.21. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GB fan 15:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

12.153.112.21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you, but a clearly identified doppelganger account is not a sock. The block on the doppelganger account is for invalid username while I am still thinking of a valid username, so that block does not apply to the IP. I grant there are charges of vandalism here, made by a single editor over a content dispute, but these charges fall apart upon review of any of the changes accused of being vandalism, as has already happened at one user talk to which I can point you. If this block is sustained, I respectfully request the admin point me to edits that indicate either actual vandalism or actual (deceptive) socking.

Accept reason:

Your account was "soft" blocked, meaning the blocking admin explicitly allowed for you to continue using this IP. Also they neglected to leave a block notice explaining that. My apologies for the lack of due diligence in this incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove other people's postings, as it's usually a violation of WP:TPO. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but your removal of my comments wasn't one of those exceptions.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my posting, yet again in violation of WP:TPO. Do it again, and you WILL be reported for Edit warring. Knock it off  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, we have differing views on the oversight policy. I am not certain of the correct forum for learning the correct view. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a request for oversight, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. If you want to discuss the oversight policy, try Wikipedia talk:Oversight. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21. Thank you. Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your named account has been unblocked and renamed, I assume you understand that you are expected to use it for editing and that if it is blocked for any other reason using the IP instead would in fact be block evasion/sockpuppeptry. This doesn't mean you absolutely have to log in all the time, although that is certainly preferred, but the IP should not be editing in the same areas as the named account whether it is blocked or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I understand that a block for bad behavior on either the account or the IP would naturally apply to both and I will not evade or puppet, though I would likely appeal properly. I have always indicated that I prefer to edit by IP, and only to use the account for maintenance situations in which it is required and clearly linked to the IP, and I believe this is permissible according to WP practice and the puppetry article. If you are aware of anything to the contrary, please let me know. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT remove another editor's comments, as you have done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before - do not remove another editor's comments. I inadvertently removed yours while undoing your edit without noticing - apologies. If you remove again, further action will be considered. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to reconcile what you say with what Elen of the Roads says on her talk. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that oversighters are allowed to remove other editors' comments (if they believe it appropriate to do so), but that you are not. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the legitimate Sock allows redirecting user account page but by definition and IP page is NOT an account and redirecting your user account page here is NOT ALLOWED. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing, but you didn't allow my revert to stand as per BRD, which is borderline. Per the sock page, an IP address can be treated as an account, it is in fact an unregistered account (because it speaks of "only one (preferably registered) account"), and it's clear that notification of the link between an IP and a registered account should be handled in the same way as notification of a link between two registered accounts. You are not relying on a WP policy for your broad disallowance, you are only saying it should be done one way and I am saying I read policy as allowing it to be done another way. And it is "my" userpage after all. Where would you like to resolve this dispute? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(breaking the sound of crickets with a couple undos) 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat and enlarge the data under this heading:

• Policy treats IPs as accounts implicitly, such as by saying "(preferably registered) account", indicating there are unregistered (IP) accounts.
• Policy treats IPs as accounts implicitly by saying they are treated the same way as accounts.
• Policy explicitly allows linking doppelganger accounts to main accounts by redirects; the alternate account started out as a doppelganger account. On this explicit point, certainly the account "IP 12.153.112.21" should link to the main account.
• Policy recognizes the right to edit primarily or exclusively by IP as one's main method (i.e., account).
• Policy recognizes the greater latitude a user (or IP) retains over the user and talk page with that user's account name (or method name, i.e., IP).
• It appears the ANI thread, reopened by TheRedPenOfDoom, closed without comment, indicating no community support for extensive reversion of my edits.
• My presumptive statement asking for policy-based correction at User talk:Beeblebrox, if any exists, was also uncommented, indicating no community support for extensive reversion of my edits.
• Not one reversion or objection to my edits has been accompanied by a policy citation.
• The general objection that we just don't do that (redirect alternate accounts to main IP pages) does not seem to be borne out by consensus or any WP pages I can see.
• The reversions are continuing without any additional explanation and with increasing incivility. Since I have been warned not to template the regulars, I am unsure of how to handle this.

However, all in all, it appears safe to revert "my own" pages to my original versions under WP:BRD and to await the ensuing discussion. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you if you've said this somewhere before, but could you explain to me why you prefer to edit primarily with the IP address, rather than the new account? The only benefit I can see to IP editing is to gently poke people who you feel have been unfair to you in the eye a little bit; I can sort of understand this, but don't want to just assume that's why you're doing it. In many ways, it seems like IP editing would be more annoying than using an account, not less. I'm fairly agnostic about how far people should be allowed to "make" you do something; on the one hand, it feels like a kind of bullying; on the other hand, I hope you can see that it's not really being horribly dictatorial. So my main question is: why? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I have been telling myself that I am exerting the right to edit by IP to find out what it's like, but on the second level what that means is to assist in improving the Wikipedia community's treatment of IP editors via awareness, and on that level I see that it could be perceived as gentle poking in the eye. I am discovering some useful points by this method. First, if you don't edit any articles with ownership problems, everyone ignores you and your edits process happily. Second, if you do, you get the expected extra plate of presumptions against you and editing challenges, which experience is worth all editors keeping an eye out against. Third, the guidance being developed at the current board discussions seems to trend toward the idea that an IP getting an account at all and linking it in any way will eventually lead at least some subset of established editors to support the idea that the whole account should be chucked, which of course seems to be an internal bias or conflict that would encourage IP editors toward the direction of illegitimate socking instead (i.e., unlinked accounts that could be said to be editing in the same areas). This self-education process continues to be interesting enough to continue the experiment, and I believe this is the kind of educational experiment that Wikipedia encourages rather than classifies as editing to prove a point. (But WP:POINT is yet another charge that is a double bind impossible to defend against, which is why I mention it before anyone else does.)

However, I have no intent to poke anyone, as I believe maturer consideration of the motives above puts them in the category of nudge (encouragement) rather than poke (vituperation). I have attempted to assert IP rights without lashing back against editors who challenge them, unless there is an extremely clear case to appeal (8 undo-button reverts plus IRL harassment by Neutralhomer, and now perhaps edit warring by TheRedPenOfDoom as judged by Beeblebrox, but TheRedPenOfDoom may be ready to stop reverting and to discuss at some user talk page). If there is something about IP editing that creates an inherent perception of "poking" when a user is merely attempting to continue IP editing, there is a system failure somewhere, n'est ce pas? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" I am exerting the right to edit by IP to find out what it's like" - kind of implies that you have previously edited under a different account. Is that true or is this your first editing foray? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the reply, it was useful to me (if not to you). This whole thing has been pear-shaped for days, with frankly a lot of foolishness being thrown at you, and I was weighing getting involved. Yes, we treat IP editors poorly. If there were some reason that IP editing was "legitimately" important for you (where, since I'm deciding what I want to do, I get to define "legitimate", probably differently than your good faith definition), I'd go to bat for you. But if you're using it mostly to "self-educate" on how we handle IP editors, well, you're certainly finding out, aren't you? Lots of good data!

There's been so much edit warring and admin disagreement about this redirect now that it would take quite a bit of time and argumentation to help you get to a conclusion satisfactory to you. For example, I couldn't revert Kosh Vorlon's idiocy without being accused of being in an "edit war" myself, and God forfend if I reverted and then protected it in the "right" condition. In theory, we should all stop reverting, have a calm rational discussion somewhere, and hammer it out. In practice, you're probably going to get blocked by someone who thinks they're defending Wikipedia from disruption, or there will be a consensus on ANI that IP's are always wrong. If you're just proving a point (intentionally not blue-linking that, although some people I respect probably disagree), I'll spend my time, energy, and what little political capital I have built up here on more worthy causes. So good luck, but I'm sitting this one out. I'll be watching and absorbing the data the same as you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my statement alone implies what is inferred above, but please see this link for an answer. Yes, Floquenbeam, "legitimate" is the issue here and I have been assuming that what is permitted and not prohibited is legitimate. But if I provided a reason based somehow in my person or in the Whois data or in the relationship between the two, I don't think it would be either very helpful to me personally or very readable as more than "the story that came over the wire", so I don't know that it would be considered "legitimate" either. What, I should say that I have to edit by IP to protect my real-life identity and that makes people more sympathetic?

My line of thinking was: here I am editing peacefully by IP before I stepped on an apparent ownership article, why may I not continue to do so after? If the system requires an IP to go to account-only editing merely to defend in a content dispute, then WP is flawed and I want to know that. The only way to defend WP as not flawed is to prove that I can continue to edit as an IP merely by virtue of what little grace and charm I can affect. And if I can tell myself and any witnesses that WP is not flawed, I want to know that. And if consensus is that my attempt to determine whether WP is biased against IPs is itself point editing, why then that would be a proof that pursuing justice on WP is out of encyclopedic scope and that deciding disputes rightly is not an element of building or improving the encyclopedia, and pfui goes the project after enough additional degradation. The project must welcome civil, constructive IP editors or it is no project.

I am going to try not using the named account for a time. The debates have been rightly decided by consensus plus wise admins so far, and I trust that will continue. the "good guy" aka 12.153.112.21 22:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The "good guy" (talk • contribs) Oops! See, I was logged in to use this crutch of a watchlist, so that is an embarrassing attempt to not use the named account, and SineBot doesn't like my sig either. Shaking my head. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people are saying you can't edit as an IP; there's certainly no consensus for that point of view. The crux of the disagreement seems to be whether the account's pages can have just a plain redirect the the IP's pages or not, and there's reason behind each side of that argument. I've proposed a compromise at ANI, which so far has the support of two one of the people who were reverting you there. Would that be OK with you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like TheRedPenOfDoom will go with a soft redirect without the note (which I've moved to this user page). Thank you, your judgment was timely! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user talk:the "good guy":

It's easy to edit anonymously, just using an ip address. It's easy to create an account, and edit using that account, too. Using an account is more convenient if you are a frequent editor, or if you want to be able to collaborate more effectively with other users. Editing anonymously is more convenient if you don't edit often, or if you want to avoid collaboration. What you're doing now doesn't appear to be easy or convenient for anything. You might find it a lot easier to participate in a positive and useful way at Wikipedia if you choose either your registered account or anonymous editing. There's no good reason I can think of to have an account if you're going to be editing anonymously, and redirecting this account to an ip address would be confusing if a time comes when that ip address is used by someone else, or if you are editing from a different ip address. Would you consider stopping the redirect and choosing either to edit while logged in, or to edit anonymously? Not because I'm telling you to, not because there's a rule about it, but just because it will be easier and more convenient for you, and less confusing for people with whom you are collaborating? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This view seems to have the support of a plurality. I am considering the option of abandoning the "benefits" of the named account in favor of the unconsidered benefits of the IP "account". 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you intend to move AT&T to AT&T, Inc. over the redirect, your edit summaries for the last 20+ edits you've made are completely misleading. You're not disambiguating the links, you're doing the opposite. If you are plan to attempt to have AT&T moved to the AT&T, Inc., you should obtain consensus to move the page first, perform the move, and then change the links to the appropriate page to avoid redirects. Altairisfar (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue at Talk:AT&T where I have explained the proposal. I apologize if the shorthand misled you, but I am not "doing the opposite" (ambiguating) by any stretch. There are many AT&T links that should properly point to AT&T Corporation, and the best way to find these as they are created is to redirect the others to [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]] instead, and this is allowed per WP:NOTBROKEN. This has nothing to do with moving the page but with disambiguating the incoming and newly created links. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 12.153.112.21. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups.

I would also recommend making a Wikipedia user account! Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]