User talk:Superastig/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nomination of List of Las Hermanas episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Las Hermanas episodes 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/List of Las Hermanas episodes 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.

TheHotwiki (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hello, thank you fo the head's up. I notified the Teahouse about these nominations, and since they were started by someone who was a sockpuppet, their nominations have been cancelled. Koikefan (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Koikefan, thanks for informing me. I believe the nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE with the artists he nominated for deletion. I also found out that he's a sockpuppet of SeanJ, if I'm not mistaken. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Viral Scandal list of episodes

Please add List of episodes article for Viral Scandal. Thank you. 115.147.35.78 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Viral Scandal episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Viral Scandal episodes 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/List of Viral Scandal episodes 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.

TheHotwiki (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

FM stations in Cebu

According to Sydney Rae Micua's post on PHRadio's FB group last March 1, there will be two (2) stations in Cebu such as Hope Radio 103.1 in Minglanilla, Cebu and 105.5 Dabig C Radio in Talisay, Cebu has a legit station, illegal "pirate" station, or low-power station? Then, why? Hoping that you'll answer. 49.145.172.221 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

49.145.172.221, sorry. I don't understand what you're saying. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LoboCalumet.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LoboCalumet.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Able To Semi-Protect an AfD Discussion Page?

I've never really been active on AfDs, and I've only recently really done a lot of work on one article, I always used to just clean up typos and vandalism. This one article I spent a lot of time on was marked as an AfD. You relisted the discussion, so I though you would be most knowledgeable with it. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, and I don't know all the rules, but I was wondering if AfD discussions could be semi-protected. The article is on a living person who happens to be campaigning right now, and his campaign published a statement about the article being marked as an AfD. Personally, I think the article should be kept, was the first person to edit it, and I'm alright with it being an AfD, discussion is good, and I'm inexperienced, but the inordinate amount of SPAs that may have resulted due to this statement is, bluntly, damaging to my case. So, I was wondering if it is within the rules of WP to semi-protect a discussion like this. Js22003 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Js22003, there are a few cases where AfDs ended up being semi-protected when a ton of IP and SPA users bombard them. The only way to semi-protect the discussion is to take it to the WP:RfPP and request for the AfD to be semi-protected for at least a few weeks to prevent SPA users from participating. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Low power FM stations in the Philippines

Hi, Superastig!

I really wanted to ask you. If the low power (LPFM) stations here in the Philippines with a very low power than 100 watts (0.1 watts) are illegally operating, the same as other illegal radio stations without any licensed or permit by the NTC? (e.g. Radyo Katipunan 87.9 (Quezon City), The Anchor Radio 101.5 (Parañaque City) Then would putting up LPFM stations to the market research along with all FM stations in the Philippines like commercial radio stations? And why?

I know that you'll removed these LPFM and illegal radio stations from the List of radio stations in Metro Manila to Wikipedia.

Hoping that you'll answer to this questions. Thanks and God bless you!

Boombastic061, I am not responsible for adding or removing those LPFM stations. And not all LPFM stations are unlicensed. However, unlicensed stations automatically fail WP:BCAST (and WP:GNG), unless any of them has garnered enough coverage. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 13:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ravenswing 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

So here we are ...

I recognize you have some strong language at the top of the page about people raising such questions with you, but I'm required to make the attempt all the same. Anyway.

If you glance at the deletion review listed just above, you'll see that quite a few editors think you ought to be taken to ANI over your AfD closes that are against consensus, made without explanation, that user talk pages are intended for reasonable questioning of an editor's behavior and actions, and that the hostility of your warnings subverts that. Some examples of past problems with your closes were posted, and in reviewing your recent closes, several other questionable ones turned up, including a tendency to close as redirect no matter the consensus.

So. I am urging you to address these problems: to remove the language insisting that you not be questioned for your actions, to resolve to better conform your closes to the stated consensus, to explain your reasoning if you close against the stated consensus, and to leave the more contentious AfDs to regular admins to close. Your response will determine where we go from here. Ravenswing 11:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I can't believe one thinks it's a sin for me (or any editor) not to tolerate people who question/re-open my deletion closures. I received a few messages in the past from editors forcing me to re-open certain discussions. And one of them ended up as a heated argument, it drew my ire. I even took a certain deletion discussion to the DelRev without leaving a message to its closer. Anyone has the option to either convince the closer to reopen a discussion or take a discussion to the DelRev himself without bothering the closer. It's not much of a big deal for me.

Sorry. I'm not the type of editor who wants to be involved in any heated argument. I don't wanna end up losing my cool. If you want me to remove my rule where I don't tolerate editors who question/re-open my deletion closures, then fine with me. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 13:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

since you are apparently not following the del rev, I'll repeat here one sentence of my comment there: " If someone doesn't want to discuss what they say at WP, they can avoid taking actions that might possibly be disputed; if they do get involved in disagreements, they need to be willing to explain themselves". If you want to see why I said it, read what I said after that at DelRev, DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig: Tough luck bud. You should be lucky that the discussion ended up as no consensus. SBKSPP (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

SBKSPP, sorry for the late reply. Someone took that discussion to the DelRev 3 weeks after I closed it, but I didn't bother to waste time on it. I honestly find it pointless to make my closure on that discussion a big deal when in fact it's a WP:BARTENDER close. What matters is that the redirect stays. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig: That's right. What also matters is that people agree to not keep the article. Since your closure is valid, a redirect won't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ekis: Walang Tatakas

The article Ekis: Walang Tatakas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as all citations are passing mentions, no reviews found in a BEFORE.

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dos Ekis

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as all citations are passing mentions, no reviews found in a BEFORE.

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Croatia–Philippines relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Croatia–Philippines relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dalawa Man ang Buhay Mo, Pagsasabayin Ko

The article Dalawa Man ang Buhay Mo, Pagsasabayin Ko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews are present. All citations are about the actors. None found in a BEFORE.

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NE Negros Radio

Template:NE Negros Radio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

DWJE

I am doubting that this radio station exists: DWJE. Do you see it in your listings? --Bluemask (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Bluemask, the station does exist. However, I'm not sure if it's licensed or not. It's not listed in the 2020 NTC listing. I'm not sure if it's listed in the latest NTC listing since I don't have a copy of it. I suggest you ask JaredKennethFerrer who created the article. Perhaps, he has the copy of the latest NTC listing. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the recent NTC listing, the station is licensed. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lucy Bella Earl

I want to understand why the result is keep and how it is notable. Please explain, I request. Juggyevil (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Juggyevil, the "keep" voters agree that the sources indicated and mentioned in the discussion are reliable and make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. Therefore, their arguments are strong enough for the article to be kept. I hope this answers your question. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Foschi

No, that's not the consensus. Please self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot. The "keep" votes are strong enough as they cite WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC and rule #3 of WP:BLP1E, except the first one which only cites WP:FAME. And only one voted to delete the article. Therefore, I see no reason for me to revert the closure. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have raised a deletion review here.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig You in the hot seat again? I think he meant that you should revert yourself. Lol. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

That was what I thought at first. Hahaha. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 But seriously, he should've said Can you revert your closure on this discussion? along with a brief explanation in the first place. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig Tough luck again bud. I'm kinda disappointed that it was relisted. The consensus is so clear, the relist is really pointless IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's relisted, the consensus is really clear for the article to be kept. As for the DelRev, I didn't bother much to look into it. It's not my problem if the nominator refuses to drop the stick. Since it was relisted, there's nothing we can do about it. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig Yeah. The nom was butthurt that he refused to accept the consensus to keep the article. Anyway, there are a few delete !votes as of recent. He could've just renominated it in a couple of months or so instead of taking it to the DRV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Web life

Hi,

There are 3 votes to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web life and 1 to merge. So, I don't understand how you interpret that as a consensus to merge. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe there's anything worth merging, as explained by 1 "merge" voter. And 1 "delete" voter states that some parts of the article can be merged to the target article. WP:PRESERVE applies here. Therefore, merging is a valid WP:ATD. I hope this answers your concern. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Batas Ko ay Bala

Hello, Superastig,

Thank you for creating Batas Ko ay Bala.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

References that mention individual actors in an old film do not give notability to this film, as per WP:NFO. Appreciate this is an old film, hoewever, references that directly address this film are needed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Superastig

Thank you for creating Frame Up (film).

User:Whoisjohngalt, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for adding this article to Wikipedia. I reviewed the page and only hoped you could add a plot overview and use some of the references used in the Lead.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whoisjohngalt}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Mumbaki (film). — Diannaa (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dream Focus 19:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD intersection with SBKSPP

While looking into WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20#List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila, I noticed that your close matched User:SBKSPP's redirect recommendation. I remembered their comments above and that you seem to be acquainted. I skimmed your recent AfD closures focusing on redirects and found similar instances.

The Intersect Contribs tool returns 535 results including 275 AfDs. I looked at the AfDs through C – 45 if I counted correctly – and I found several cases where you closed with SBKSPP's sole redirect against multiple deletes (including the nominator):

• WP:Articles for deletion/Adventist University of the Philippines Ambassadors 2
• WP:Articles for deletion/Ang Tagatuklas 4
• WP:Articles for deletion/Ateneo de Manila University Archives 2
• WP:Articles for deletion/Best Life (song) 2
• WP:Articles for deletion/Central Philippine University Bahandi Singers 3
• WP:Articles for deletion/Cervini-Eliazo Residence Halls 4
• WP:Articles for deletion/Chaos in Flesh 3, with a specific objection to the redirect
• WP:Articles for deletion/Christmas with the Yours 2

Would you please explain? Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, SBKSPP has understood WP:ATD and he believes that the titles are viable search terms. The user should be reminded that he should explain some more whenever he votes, though. In most (if not all) of the AFDs you indicated, no one contested his "redirect" vote. What matters is that the nominators proved that those titles are not notable in their own right and not a single of them opposed a redirect. I hope this answers your concerns. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. As in the case of the DRV – which currently has a majority supporting overturn – I believe that these closes extend past WP:NACD (guideline). You are unduly affecting the outcome, as some of the regular admin closers would close instead as delete or delete and redirect. An alternative is participating and leaving the close to another editor. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

TBH, I don't see a point on how my closures on those discussions go beyond WP:NACD. It's not much of a big deal if the outcome of a certain discussion was redirect after only one redirect vote over a handful of delete votes since the consensus is clearly against having an article and a redirect is their typical ATD. This has happened in some discussions in the past, not only the ones I closed. Take the case of the AfD for Paul Heitz, in which my closure was contested. I don't like the idea of getting them closed as delete and redirect because no one can add some content from their history in which they believe are useful to the respective target articles. I follow ATD and PRESERVE, which are both policies, before closing their respective discussions as redirect. You make me think it's a sin for me (or any editor) to use ATDs. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Restating my previous comment, I think that overruling the deletes is not your call to make. I participated at the Paul Heitz DRV, which was closed as no consensus. I recommended "Overturn to delete or relist", and I noted that I would have done the same for an admin closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

So, what's the use of ATDs, specifically ATD-R, if you think that overruling the delete votes is not every non-admin's call? In short, you believe that it's a sin for non-admins like me to use ATDs. Sheesh. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Superastig He really believes it is a sin for non-admins to use any ATD. You should be thankful a few people, including the nom, commended your closure on this discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a good thing some of the editors, including the nominator, endorsed my closure because they believe it's a valid ATD-R. And since no one in the discussion objected a redirect, overruling the delete votes is my call (or any non-admin's call) to make. It's never a sin to use ATDs at all.

And again, the discussion was finally closed as "no consensus" after an unexpected relist. At least it's over. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Flatscan I don't understand on why you have to make this an issue. Whether it's Astig or any other user who closes every discussion I was part of, I honestly don't care. Not all of the discussions where I was the only one who !voted redirect were closed by Astig. There are discussions where I was the only voter that were closed by various users as redirect. There are some where I was the only one who !voted redirect over a handful of deletes, but was closed as redirect. Enough of this judgmentality. SBKSPP (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kasalanan ang Buhayin Ka

Hello, Superastig,

Thank you for creating Kasalanan ang Buhayin Ka.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Sources in the article are mainly passing mentions and likely don't combine to pass WP:GNG - also a project tag on the talk page would let others find the article and potentially contribute.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

88.7 Brigada Baguio and 999kHz/93.7Mhz Radyo Pilipinas Baguio

Hi, I lived in Baguio, but these two radio stations 88.7 Brigada and 999kHz/93.7Mhz Radyo Pilipinas Baguio are not heard within the whole city of Baguio. Do you think that these 2 are low powered radio stations? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

They may be considered low-powered, but I highly doubt if they're licensed. 88.7 is assigned to neighboring La Union. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just heard 93.7 MHz via moderate signal for some areas here in Baguio and 999 KHz cannot be received just this week. And what do you mean that 88.7 is assigned to neighboring La Union? What area can 88.7 be received there? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As per NTC listing, 88.7 is a licensed station based in La Union. You should know that magkatabi ang La Union at Benguet. It takes around 90-110 minutes from Baguio to either San Fernando or Agoo. If a station in Baguio broadcasts in 88.7 even if it's low-powered, then it's not licensed and there's a high possibility that it can cause interference with the station in La Union. Gets mo? ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then why the branding is 88.7 Brigada News FM Baguio since the station is based in La Union? Is this true or not? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what you're saying. I searched "Brigada News FM Baguio" in Google and Facebook and got 0 results in return. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh that's weird! I got this information from russel.fandom.com/wiki/DWBN-FM, a hoax website. By the way I am an editor here as a tread and content moderator, meaning I can delete, protect and move pages there. Please tell me that this station is false so I can work on it there. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I don't rely on RusselWiki because it contains a lot of hoax stations and it's closely related to Bertrand's works As far as I'm concerned. As for Brigada News FM Baguio, there's no sign of its existence based on my research. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Been to Baguio a couple of weeks ago and I received nothing on 88.7 FM. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HAHAHAHA your right! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

That frequency was only interrupted by other stations (Easy Rock 91.9 and Love Radio 95.1) via wave interference (some areas in Baguio). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hanggang sa Huling Bala

The article Hanggang sa Huling Bala has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFILM. Zero reviews found in a BEFORE

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Faulkner

Just a heads-up re: FYI and it's picking up steam on HN. MollyRealized (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cara Y Cruz: Walang Sinasanto

The article Cara Y Cruz: Walang Sinasanto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All citations included are about the actors, with passing mentions of the film

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

UP Halcyon

Hello SuperAstig. You recently closed an AfD for UP Halcyon. I think the AfD should have been continued, reposted, for another week on this basis: The original article, while well-written and non-promotional was lacking any citations. When it was suddenly PRODed I objected, desirous of fixing it. The proposer then placed it in an AfD vote. In that single week I cleaned up the page and added two references. Another editor added six more references, all of them correctly cited.

During the brief vote period, several editors voiced a short opinion, "Delete, no sources" or something like that. Since we have fixed the page, addressed the original (valid) concern about a lack of sources, and have established notability and validity (~the group exists) and are an important part of their community, I'd like to give time for cooler heads to reassess. See, a REDIRECT doesn't do much good for those researching what this group is. It should be Kept, but I hoped the voters would come to that conclusion after seeing our improvements. The last six references were added only a couple of days ago - maybe 30 hours ago (I cannot see the page history to check). Voters didn't have much of a chance to see the improvements. Would you re-list, and give this time?

I see you are active regarding Philippine articles. I was falsely accused of being closely aligned to this group, and further, told I was bludgeoning by commenting and noting rebuttals. I was cordial. For the record I have no connection with the Philippines, speak only English and French, with a few words of Spanish and Greek. I am not connected with Halcyon in any way. I actively participate in the Fraternities and Sororities Project, and in many cases have edited and trimmed back obvious cruft and bloat for other Philippine-related fraternity articles. Similar to Lenticel, the OP, I push for better citations, too. I've left some of these go to be deleted where I agree with that decision. After volunteering to work on several thousand similar articles I simply get the sense that this group is legitimate, notable and worthy of an article, and have expressed that opinion as an expert for this type of page.

Our AfDs, for fraternity and sorority groups, typically are extended to a second week, as they don't get a huge amount of voting either way.

Since we fixed the page and addressed the OP's concerns, would you revise your closure to either allow the page, or at least allow the AfD to continue a week? Jax MN (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• It is very disingenuous to say you "fixed the page and addressed the OP's concerns" considering that the discussion is poised at analysing sources and we've not yet identified *any* sources that meet NORG criteria for establishing notability. That all said, I agree with you that it should not have been a non-admin closure and should have been left to an admin. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I know you're not part of UP Halcyon and I believe you've done your best to improve the article. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I cannot relist the discussion for another week. The two "keep" votes, including yours, were refuted a number of times. Consensus is strong that it does fail WP:ORG. Of all the others who voted to "delete" the article, there's one "redirect" voter, in which the other "keep" voter is also in favor of. Therefore, a "redirect" is a valid WP:ATD and the organization is a viable search term since it's part of UPV Tacloban. The page's history is preserved rather than to be deleted. So, it's best for you to drop the stick and accept the consensus. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the dialog and your work. I disagree on the outcome of this situation, as "consensus" came from early (unimproved) versions of the page, and these were essentially "me too" votes, i.e.: less substantative. Therefore I have proceeded with a DRV. Jax MN (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The "delete"/"redirect" votes are not essentially me toos. They're indicating agreements with the nominator because they did WP:BEFORE and barely found anything about the organization aside from mentions. Therefore, they were able to conclude that it doesn't pass WP:NORG. A couple of them managed to analyze the sources added to the article. I don't think every participant has to put forward their own assessment if they read over others' analysis and find it convincing. Don't be judgmental with how they vote. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for UP Halcyon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UP Halcyon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Hut

I don't think this AfD should be closed by a non-admin. It is not clear cut, especially the decision to redirect considering that only one !vote recommended that result and we have to consider that the other !voters (including me) discarded that as a viable option. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's not clear on whether to keep or merge the article. No one was able to discuss about the merger in more depth after the 2nd relist. Therefore, I don't think it's a sin for any non-admin like me to close it as "no consensus". Besides, anyone is free to continue the merger discussion in the article's talk page. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the other AfD above and mixing these two up. A no consensus close is the right call in my opinion. Thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

DWHI/DWKP

Regarding Special:Diff/1104698699, you may just put the former owner at the |former_owner= parameter. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No need a separate article since the branding is the same hehe :) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's not necessary for me to insert that parameter since it's the management of the station changing frequencies, not the owners of the respective frequencies. 100.3 may be occupied under different management in the near future. Hence, there's really a need for a separate article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

DYLS-FM Radyo Bandera Sweet FM Negros Oriental?

Special:Diff/1105710472, is it true or not. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the edit summary, it came from Facebook of a living person. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, those stations using 88.3 and 97.1 in the northern part of Negros Oriental are on test broadcast, but I don't think they're using the respective call letters DYAP and DYLS. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

DWLU 88.7 La Union

Regarding 88.7 La Union on this reference on its location San Fernando City, I think it is already off-air because I went there and as I heard, the station is not on-air/receivable. Is it low powered? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

From what I know, it occasionally goes off the air. I have no idea if it's low powered or not. Being off the air is different from being unreceivable Gets mo? ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know kasi if it's off-air or unrecievable lang talaga siya. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Then, leave the template as is than to be judgmental about it. We have no choice. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Question on Draft:Mallu Traveler

Hello, saw yours and @Northamerica1000:s' comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakir Subhan. I came here to create an article on Mallu Traveler (Shakir Shubhan), but it is already on draft, Draft:Mallu Traveler. DavidEfraim declined the draft. There are lots of sources are present online about Shakir aka Mallu Traveler, but the reviewer says they do not show significant coverage.

Sources present from The New Indian Express, The Hindu, CNN-News18, Malayala Manorama, Deccan Herald are reliable sources? Can you please have a look at them? Thanks you so much in advance 117.230.19.104 (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I browsed through the sources in the article, including the ones you mentioned and the one from Edexlive, and they are indeed reliable for the article to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Tagging pages as Philippine-related

Hello. I can see you're dedicated in Entertainment articles and pages in the Philippines. If I may respectfully ask, can you please help in tagging talk pages of articles you create or come across with {{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines}}? In the template {{Kidapawan Radio}}, for example, the template has not not yet been tagged as Philippine-related; there may be others. Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of the Philippine radio templates already have the "WP Philippines". I'm currently adding that tag to the other templates one by one. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious anthem redirect

I don't intend to challenge your close at WP:Articles_for_deletion/State_anthem_of_the_Luhansk_People's_Republic, not worth it, but you may want to reconsider that result. There is absolutely no content or mention of the anthem at the target - meaning the redirect itself is likely eligible for deletion. In theory a mention of the anthem could be added at the redirect target, but no one proposed merge and in my opinion it would not benefit the destination page to shoehorn in a mention of the anthem. Alsee (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot. I know no one voted to "merge" the article, but two of the editors voted to "redirect" it because they believed that it's a viable search term and therefore is a valid WP:ATD. The section of its target article mentions Its anthem is "Glory to Luhansk People's Republic!". Anyone is free to add a little more content about the state anthem. It's no big deal at all. Therefore, I see no reason for me to revert the closure. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DYNG

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. Three of the sources are just passing mentions and/or not independent or reliable. The second ref is the kind of coverage needed, except that it is written by PIT where the station is located and is therefore not independent.

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. MB 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I add a couple of sources to the page you created. I believe it meets GNG. SBKSPP (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of DYNG for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DYNG 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/DYNG 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.

MB 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

FM Stations in Davao (Limited Schedule)

Please do not change or erase this operates daily Kearl Lago (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For the nth time, it's not necessary to indicate the broadcast schedule of every station. It is never required per WP:NOTDIR. So, don't you dare revert my edits on DXAC. Or else I'll report you the admins. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Just listen to Q Radio 93.1 Davao from 9:00 PM Kearl Lago (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I said. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Since March 17, 2020 as Covid-19 Pandemic from 6:00 AM til 8:00 PM sign off, before Q Radio Davao 93.1 schedule until 10:00 PM as Pre-Air and Streaming on Q Radio 105.1 Manila (May 2, 2022) Kearl Lago (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Alam ko na yan. No need to tell me that. It's not necessary to indicate that on every article. Sheesh. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

About Radyo Pilipinas Baguio and DZRH Baguio

On your edit summary Special:Diff/1111888671, I am currently at Baguio, and on my observation, 612 AM is off-air and user Boombastic061 made an edit summary (Special:Diff/1056049581) about this, I think it is really off-air. For DZEQ, the operations of 999 AM was transferred to 93.7 FM on late July 2022, so 999 AM is left off-air and 93.7 FM is already the original frequency of DZEQ. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you ask them on their respective FB pages regarding your concerns. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

DWEC-FM

Special:Diff/1116563511, yeah fine! But the frequency is currently used by Favorite Music Radio Baguio, the station is also heard within the whole Pangasinan including Dagupan, aside from the word "Silent", what word we will use on the format section since FMR 94.3 Baguio is also heard at Dagupan? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

FMR Baguio never acquired any equipment from MOR Dagupan, making them different from one another. They have different radio markets from each other, despite having the same frequency. So, it's best for you to leave the "format" section as is that to waste your time arguing with me about it. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

But FMR Baguio is heard at Dagupan, the location of the defunct MOR 94.3. I know that these two stations are in different radio markets, but minding the format silent at DWEC, it is like FMR Baguio's signal at Dagupan is REALLY SILENT, but it's not. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

FMR Baguio does not carry the call letters DWEC and, like I said, never acquired any equipment from MOR Dagupan. Therefore, MOR Dagupan being off the air does not make FMR Baguio off the air because their broadcast licenses are different from each other. Have some common sense, men. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Gokongwei

With 4 keeps and 3 delete/draftify you closed this as keep. One of the keep editors is the page creator, another was warned for unconstructive AfD participation and another was a vague reference that WP:BIO is met. Can I ask how did you came to the conclusion that this should be a keep? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

1 "draftify" vote only stated Wikipedia:PERNOM, while the other one was from a sockpuppet, leaving the remaining "draftify" vote a reasonable one. The "keep" votes believe the person is notable, with most of them vying for the article's improvement, and therefore have merit. It's not an issue at all if one of the voters is the article creator. I hope this answers your question. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

All right, I will start a WP:DRV. VickKiang (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lance Gokongwei

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lance Gokongwei. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. VickKiang (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Tough luck again bud. I'm kinda disappointed that it was overturned as NC. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

So am I. It sucks that it was overturned, but we can't do anything about it. Glad two of the editors, including you, believed that I did a good job in closing the discussion. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You really did. What bothers us is that a user who popped out of somewhere questioned your closure. He wasn't even involved in the AfD, he didn't even vote in there either. WTF does he care? SBKSPP (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SBKSPP: If you looked the page history I edited the discussion twice and watchlisted the page. Not sure if that's popping out from somewhere, perhaps watchlisting a page is inappropriate? Anyways, Superastig, your efforts are of course valued, IMHO you got this one wrong but overall you are a quite bold NAC which is still laudable. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, as someone who (unfortunately) sometimes comment/participate in DRV and other dramaboards, IMO DRVs have a very high level of scrutiny towards the closer and participants, so your sentiments are understandable. Superastig, apologies this resulted in any inconvenience, I still appreciate the bold work you do in closing AfDs, despite that I sometimes disagree. SBKSPP, I get that I (and other users) questioned or criticised your vote in the AfD, so of course it's fine that you passionately disagree with my DRV, which is definitely helpful as it helps to establish a broader consensus. I disagree with your previous comment critiquing that WTF does he care but I guess I'll take that criticism and respectfully disagree with you. Astig, these are just passing comments, if you don't want this discussion to continue per WP:OWN you can ask me to stop commenting on the talk page or archive the discussion or just modify my comments, which is fine as well. Thanks and have a nice day. VickKiang (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not my problem anymore if anyone wants to take any of my closures to the DelRev. I can't even stop them from doing so. If they disagree with my closure on a certain discussion, then be it. I usually don't participate in the DelRev of any of my closures unless necessary for me. I'd rather let it run its course and read the editors' thoughts from time to time. But regardless of the consensus of every DelRev, I respect it. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging my closure despite disagreeing with it. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh shoot. I saw 'em. But still, you didn't vote in the AfD. SBKSPP (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

SBKSPP, how did he "pop out of nowhere" if he only tidied up the discussion by putting reminders there? Common sense, men. He's still involved with the discussion whatsoever. Better look at the discussion's history first before you judge. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

All right all right. I saw 'em. SBKSPP (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Power Radio DXLL Update October 2022

New Top 40 CHR from 2010s to present with Kpop songs from 3 PM to 5 PM and replace to Retro Records (MOR Classics) Kearl Lago (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Those segments fall under its is mass-based. Therefore, DXLL still airs a mass-based format. Don't you dare specify its format any further. Or else I'll report you to the admins. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Superastig,

I just wanted to thank you for your sensible closures in AFD discussions. I can't think of one I disagreed with. It's just an observation but it seems to me that editors are more likely to close a discussion as No Consensus than admins for some reason...maybe admins want to make a more decisive closure, I don't know. But sometimes, a discussion isn't going anywhere and it's time to pull the plug. You seem to know which discussions are suitable for NACs and to stick with those which makes things easier for us so thank you for your good instincts. Have a pleasant holiday season! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. The closures I've done in various AfDs (except one) are well thought of. Though, I'm aware that there are editors who disagreed with a few of my past closures. Some of them tend to take their complaints to the DRV instead of accepting the consensus. I find it a bit bothering, but I'm getting used to it in the long run and I can't do anything about their decision. Anyway. Happy holidays as well. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 09:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

IPs of Verificado039095

hi. User:Verificado039095 continues to make disruptive edits in several pages of films released by octoarts and regal by changing the distributor's name to gma films through these IP addresses: Special:Contributions/209.35.165.196 Special:Contributions/124.104.122.229 can u help me clean up his mess and report those IPs? tnx. 112.204.164.28 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'll see what I can do with some of his disruptive edits. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 16:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)