User talk:Superastig

Welcome to my space.

Drop me a message.

Userboxes you're free to use.

Additional guidelines in creating an article for any radio station.

List of Philippine radio markets per region.

Don't touch.

Philippine Radio Directory

Trap

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Note: If you're not using visual editor for replying, always sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Nomination of Talakayan Ng Bayan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talakayan Ng Bayan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talakayan Ng Bayan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KKGU

The article KKGU has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of KKGU for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KKGU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKGU until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KMOP

The article KMOP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacking secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"DZHH-AM" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect DZHH-AM has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § DZHH-AM until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello I'm Matthew the user who helps editing articles i noticed you added a episode title in the header called "Episodes" or "List of episodes of X" nice job. have fun editing. Matthew24kyle (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Lyme

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Lyme, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the real branding for DXKR 95.5 FM Davao? Retro Davao or Retro 95.5?

As I've listened to their station on DXKR-FM, they aired two brandings namely Retro Davao and Retro 95.5. Why do you revert my edits on that article? I heard that 95.5 in Davao both mentioned Retro Davao and Retro 95.5 on their station IDs. What is the real main branding for this station? CryingSulfur (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retro 95.5 is what the station usually carries. I've been to Davao a few times before. So, I should know. And Retro Davao is just used for location purposes since there's Retro Cebu. One brand is only needed for most parts of the article and that is Retro 95.5. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whos the real owner of DWPM?

Who is the real owner of DWPM, baycomms or PCMC? Is the list of NTC updated? 120.29.79.79 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the FOI and ask. There's no other way. ASTIG 😎🙃 14:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source trusted? https://philippines.mom-gmr.org/en/media/detail/outlet/dwpm-radyo-630-3/ it says under the license of baycomms 120.29.79.79 (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret. 🙃 Just leave those pages as is. You have no choice. ASTIG 😎🙃 05:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I use Cut-and-Paste Move?

Excuse me. Why do you revert my edits on DWAQ? I need to distinguish it from DWAQ-DTV. And by the way, how can I properly use Cut-and-Paste Move? CryingSulfur (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CryingSulfur, you were told in your talk page before not to move pages manually using the cut-and-paste move and you failed to listen. The cut-and-paste move is not allowed because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Never ever move a page manually.

To properly move a certain page, use the "Tools" tab at the top of the page and click the "Move" tab. This is the only way and it's that simple. ASTIG 😎🙃 07:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of DYWC-AM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DYWC-AM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYWC-AM until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Fields (TV series)

Please don't remove the two genres added here as these are the official genres confirmed from Netflix which is soap opera and thriller from the ABS-CBN programs website. Hope you understand. 122.55.235.124 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to remove them because having more than two genres will make things more complicated. And soap opera is usually classified as drama. So, better leave the two genres as is than to waste your time adding more. Simple. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wasn't able to explain in the ANI, I'll explain it here.

I don't see the need for episode titles to don't match up with the references I added. The episode titles came from GMA Drama's social media accounts, such as Widows' War. And since you discouraged me to use those sources from there, I had no choice, but to resort to using GMA Network's website. I don't see the point as to why this should be made a big deal at all. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's get this right. You were asked to stop using unreliable sources, so you had no choice but to carry on using them but pretend you were using reliable sources. Is that what you are saying? And it's unfair to block you? What fucking planet are you on? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I pretend I'm using reliable sources. I'm really (and I've been) using them as per advice. No hard feelings about it. And I didn't say it's unfair to block me. It's unfair that I wasn't given the chance to explain at the ANI since I was about to post my long explanation when I got blocked. Superastig (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If you are using these sources why are the titles not matching up with the sources? By using RS we mean you take details from the RS and no where else that you don't cite so what you are adding should match the RS. If you are adding the titles along with the RS this should be obvious. But even if the titles are already there whether added by you or someone else, it's your responsibility to check it when adding the sources that the details match and if they don't then correct our articles. Adding something as a source rather than further reading or generic external link means readers are supposed to be able to check them to confirm our article is correct as what they say matches what we say. If there are multiple RS used for some part of our article and they give conflicting information then generally this should be noted somehow whether by giving both or perhaps a footnote explanation of why one is used with the possible exception of when it should be obvious. But in any case only arises when the is a conflict. If there's no conflict then it's very unlikely our article should be different from what the one or more sources say. Even for something non-English while I guess in some rare cases there might be reason to use a editor translation over that provided in the RS this would require that it's made clear to the reader this is what's done and the RS is only used to verify the non-English original (which needs to match) or whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at a simple examples. Here [1] you added two numbered episodes to the table along with a ref and air date for each. The air date matches the ref, so that's fine but the title does not. Since the title seems to be embedded in the URI, I doubt that it's change since you added it. So where did the title come from and why didn't you add this as a ref? If you believe you that you have a more reliable source for the title, then you should be adding it not hiding it. If the consensus from other editors is it's not a reliable source then regardless of your personal belief, you need to stop using it point blank for our articles rather than using it and pretending your not by not adding it. And what did you add the GMA ref for anyway? Just for the airdate? That's might be fine but by adding that single ref, people are going assume that all details you added match that ref rather than only part of it, that's why you need to add a second ref and frankly leave a note somewhere that there's contradiction between titles but the titles in source B were chosen for whatever reason. Although frankly in a case like this if at all possible it would be better if you find one ref which gives both the preferred title and airdate rather than confusing matters by adding the other ref. (Although it might still be helpful to add a note if there are conflicting titles out there.) The specifics could be discussed, probably on the article talk page if you were being upfront about what you were doing and better engaged in discussion including being willing to accept when consensus was against you. Instead you hid wherever you got those titles from, and when asked about it just insisted you were right and even now haven't provided a satisfactory explanation of where those titles came from and why you didn't add whatever source they came from. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Teleserye expert and I have no interest in editing articles of Teleseryes, but based on how I understand what Astig said, WW's episode titles for 67 and 68 are "Killer Umbrella" and "Aurora's Fury". Those came from the GMA Drama FB page ([2], [3]), which in turn are recognized by the IMDB page ([4], [5]). Since Astig was advised not to use social media as sources, he used WW's GMA website as sources ([6], [7]).

However, HotWiki reverted Astig's edits in WW and reprimanded Astig in the talk page, saying they shouldn't post references next to your edits, that don't line up with each other. Take in case Episode 67. Should the episode title be "Aurora knows the truth" instead of "Killer Umbrella"? No. IMDB recognises the episode titles given by GMA Drama's social media accounts. I really don't see an issue with the "episode title" not lining up with the "title" of the references Astig is using. What matters is that Astig is using third party sources, not social media accounts.

In short, I really see nothing wrong with Astig's edits on the episode lists of the shows. I'll have to side with Astig on this one. SBKSPP (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HotWiki reprimanded Astig before for using GMA Drama's social media accounts as his sources, saying I noticed you mostly copy and paste facebook links directly from GMA Network's Facebook account to Wikipedia's television articles for GMA Network's shows. This breaks the rule of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Astig followed HotWiki's advice eventually. SBKSPP (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

I have just blocked you indefinitely for breach of the unblock conditions that you agreed to from your last indefinite block. You have continued to violate WP:OWN and your incivility to other users is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. You knew the conditions of your unblock. You agreed to the conditions of your unblock. However you have fallen back into your old patterns. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't given the chance to explain on the ANI sent by HotWiki. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation required. You agreed to the terms of your unblock, which included being blocked by any administrator without warning if your behaviour reoccurred. It reoccurred. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair. I know I broke my promise, but you could've given me enough time to explain in the ANI at least once. I'm not active all the time. 🙄

I was about to post my long explanation when you blocked me. Superastig (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's not how any of this works @Superastig and is not the route to a successful unblock either. You've returned to the exact same disruption and there's no indication you wouldn't continue if unblocked. Star Mississippi 16:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, so, you're telling me that there's no way for me to appeal the block again? Oh, well. Superastig (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to file an unblock but "I broke my promise but can explain" isn't going to lead to a positive outcome. So I suggest thinking long and hard about how you'd convince someone you're not going to do the same thing when you're unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I have to go way beyond my first block appeal, including dealing away with the rules in my talk page, my choice of words in edit summaries and dealing with IP users? Even if I deliver a way more convincing appeal like I mentioned, I even doubt that they'll accept my request to be unblocked. All I know is that once I broke the rules, that's it. Game over for me. Superastig (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there that rule about waiting six months and clean start? Borgenland (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:Clean start which isn't valid for someone with an outstanding block. However the WP:Standard offer would apply. Personally, in this case, I'd suggest the taking advantage of the standard offer would be the OP's best hope for a return to editing which does mean staying away for 6 months. However even after those 6 months, I would expect any admin assessing an unblock would still need to be convinced that the OP isn't going to go back to their same behaviour like they did last time they were unblocked by more than just the time away. This would likely include some clarity on what they were doing before and recognition why it was harmful. I wouldn't say it's easy but I'm fairly sure editors with most misbehaviour have successfully appealed their block before. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the standard offer. To be honest, I can stay away from Wikipedia for a week or two, but I don't think I can wait for half a year. By that time, I may have forgotten about my presence here and focused on other places. Superastig (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit other projects where a clean record might help your unblock request here. It's not about what you say in the unblock but how you change your behavior. If you're not willing to do that, this isn't the space for you. Star Mississippi 13:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I believe it's part of the Standard Offer. I'm currently working in a couple of Wiki projects. Superastig (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tough luck bud. I recently realized that you're blocked. Was about to ask you something. I know you've been in bad blood with HotWiki a number of times. They may be in the wrong in your convo last week, but you could've toned down your response in the first place. Your recent addition of a rule makes you go back to where you are last year. It doesn't sit well with me either honestly. SBKSPP (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nominating

Hi. I know you're blocked, but I hope you don't mind if I ask you. I'm thinking of nominating a handful of pages for deletion. I've already read the procedure in this page, but is there an easier way to nominate any page for deletion? I don't wanna stick to voting in AfDs for good. SBKSPP (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Preferences in your profile, go to Gadgets and check Twinkle. This works if you're an autoconfirmed user.

Once you activate Twinkle, in every article you nominate for deletion, click TW on the right side and click XfD. State a valid reason for deletion. I hope this works. Superastig (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. The Twinkle gadget works. And the procedure you gave to me works as well. I'll use it when needed. SBKSPP (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, don't expect me to respond to your replies immediately. I'm currently more focused on other Wiki projects. Superastig (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If ever I'll ask an advice from you, I won't mind if I wait. But like I said before, I'm only active when I find available time. SBKSPP (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aliw Channel 23

The article Aliw Channel 23 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough sources, nor being notable in nearby areas. The existence of this station is not having reliable sources to say that this station is really airing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PandaB31 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]