Home

Talk

Userboxes

Station Articles

Philippine Radio Directory

Trap

Archives

Extras Archive 1 (1-50) Archive 2 (51-100) Archive 3 (101-150) Archive 4 (151-200) Archive 5 (201-250) Archive 6 (251-300) Archive 7 (301-350)

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The article Kaissar Broadcasting Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no notability provided, it is little more than a frequency guide for this radio network

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.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, DWAY-FM, likely does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Far_East_Broadcasting_Company#AM/FM_stations. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kaissar Broadcasting Network 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/Kaissar Broadcasting Network 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.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DWHL 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/DWHL (2nd nomination) 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.

Sandstein 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wish I'm still active here. But, unexpected circumstances led me to being blocked (again) months ago. Don't worry. I'm currently focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Superastig (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very belated Happy First Editing Day, Superastig. A lot has changed since you've been blocked. Vandalism in several pages within your scope has still persisted. Though it has been tolerated by a handful of good-faith editors, I don't think it's enough. I hope you'll be unblocked soon. SBKSPP (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Since the time I was blocked here, I've been focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. But, I stumble across this place once in a while. Whenever I check some of the pages I usually monitor and I find vandalism there, I can only hope that they will be reverted. Whenever I find out that some of the articles I created (excluding redirects) are being swept away, I feel disappointed. Anyway, thanks for doing your best in sweeping away vandalism in some of the articles. Superastig (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. A couple of my earlier pages were deleted 'cause I wasn't able to find more sources. So, F them. Can't do anything to improve 'em. Don't worry. I'll do my best to wipe out vandalism, though I struggle to find time fiddling with Wikipedia since I have a job. SBKSPP (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With that, I wish you luck in dealing with vandalism. Superastig (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. All along, I find my crusade in wiping out vandalism and organizing some articles frustrating compared to what I expected. I stumbled upon a user who has ownership problems. I edited a few stations and a Template for CDO, but that editor user reverting them because that he's "from origin". WTF? That reasoning is invalid and unacceptable. Even other users won't accept that kind of reasoning. My contributions to those pages are done in good faith since I follow the listing from NTC in compliance to WP:VERIFY. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of editors, whether IP or registered, who are into vandalism and disruptive editing. So, you have to deal with them, no matter how frustrating it gets. If they revert your edit, then restore them and warn them. It's part of one's goal in doing away with vandalism and disruptive editing. As for the editor you encountered, I'll get back to you ASAP. Superastig (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the editor you encountered in a couple of the articles you edited, I honestly see nothing wrong with your edits. Each of your arguments in your edit summaries is valid since you managed to present a reference or two in a an article and explained that you used the NTC listing. As for the editor who reverted your edits in a couple of articles and explained that they live in CDO, their argument is invalid. I strongly agree with your arguments. Being "from origin" or living in that place does not mean they're always right when it comes to their edits in articles related to places they're in. And using whatever recent NTC listing does not mean one works for the NTC. How judgmental that editor is. Data regarding radio stations here in this country is hardly available; the only way to get the recent NTC listing is through FOI. Yet, they fail to realize that. Unlike in the US, data regarding radio stations there is available through FCC's website AFAIK. The NTC listing is needed as basis regarding the station's call letters.

Thanks to you, I have two copies of the recent NTC listing: one from July and the other from December, both from last year. Regarding DXCO-FM in CDO, the callsign is mentioned in the July listing, but not in the December listing. The latter listing did not mention any of the station's info in contrast to the former listing due to unknown reasons. Both of the listings state that DXOC-FM is only used by a station in Bukidnon. Hence, by default, the station still uses the call letters DXCO-FM and the July listing should still be used in that article. And your edits to that article is more acceptable. Superastig (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for believing that my edits over those pages are done in good faith. Can't believe he's throwing insults at me. I ain't buying his boo boos. SBKSPP (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to go head-to-head with that editor. Then, keep on fighting for what's right. Besides, they're the one who's wrong.

But if they've gone too far, feel free to either warn them in their user page or take your concerns to the WP:ANI. The choice is yours. Superastig (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll choose the latter. I found out that warning that user is useless. But I'll get into that if he still persists with his hard-headedness. SBKSPP (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DYXV 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/2025 February 18 § DYXV until a consensus is reached. 120.29.79.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect == "DYXV" listed at Redirects for discussion == The redirect DYXV 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/2025 February 18 § DYXV until a consensus is reached. 120.29.79.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DZYT and DYKZ 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/2025 March 11 § DZYT until a consensus is reached. 112.207.123.170 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is actually Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#DZYT. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, i'm sorry 112.207.123.170 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DXMA (Digos) 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/2025 March 23 § DXMA (Digos) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DXMA (Iligan) 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/2025 March 23 § DXMA (Iligan) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DWAY-FM 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/DWAY-FM 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DWMS 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/2025 April 7 § DWMS until a consensus is reached. 112.207.123.170 _{Talk to me!} 12:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help from you sinced you're autopatrolled confirmed use - with a Wikipedia issue. A user who was previously blocked for editing vandalism is now back and removing information from the GMA Pictures filmography page. The user's reasons for removal are invalid, and their actions are disrupting the page.

The information there were all properly cited but then he remove it. Also the information was backed-up with third party souces.

Here are the links to the vandalized edits:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_produced_and_released_by_GMA_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1287123125

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_produced_and_released_by_GMA_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1287123251

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_produced_and_released_by_GMA_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1287123592

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_produced_and_released_by_GMA_Pictures&diff=prev&oldid=1287124006

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kutsero&action=edit&redlink=1

Given the user's history of vandalism and lack of valid reasons for removing content, I request that Wikipedia's administrators review this user's actions and consider blocking them again to prevent further disruption.

Unfortunately, I don't have the power to block users. I recommend reporting this issue to Wikipedia's administrators through their designated channels. 103.231.240.86 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not an admin. Second, after evaluating Kutsero's edits to those pages mentioned and some research, I see no vandalism with their edits. As per WP:USERGENERATED, IMDB is an unacceptable user-generated source. I won't rely much on IMDB either when it comes to making articles about films. The contents Kutsero removed are blatant hoaxes since GMA Pictures are never involved in any of the films added by various IP addresses to the list. That's based on their edit summaries, in which I strongly agree with. Therefore, Kutsero's edits are really done in good faith. And it's true since they've also done some research as well. So, it's best for you to leave their edits as is than to waste your time making a big deal out of it. Simple as that. Superastig (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you're currently contributing in Tagalog Wikipedia and Wikivoyage, here's the latest listing from NTC. You can use that source in updating articles that you created in Tagalog Wikipedia. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have time, you can check my contributions. I created a handful of articles in which you can content translate in Tagalog Wikipedia. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been looking for that copy for a couple of months already. I'm unable to access the website of the FOI. One of these days, I'll clean up some of the articles and templates I created using that source. Superastig (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found. The latest listing straight from NTC. Superastig (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. A friend of mine told me about that a couple of months ago. Anyone can easily access the listing without them going to the FOI to request one. SBKSPP (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DYDW-AM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 124.104.166.143 (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superastig. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DZPA-FM, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

A year ago, an editor reminded me not to use third-party references in a certain article. Instead of following them, I erased their message, in which I dismissed it as a "hissyfit", and brought back a "rule" (or two) that really doesn't sit well with fellow editors. I realized that I violated unblock conditions by going back to my old behavior, a clear example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (especially rule no. 6). As a result, I was blocked on October 4, 2024. Since then, I cleared all the rules in my talk page, which will remain free of rules and I've been open to any conversation and reminder. For almost a year, I've been focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia and WikiVoyage and I maintain a clean record in both of those projects. In Tagalog Wikipedia, I create and edit articles, mostly related to Philippine media. I also created articles of a few radio formats. I also raised a few issues, notably the unexpected changes in the navigation box used for templates, and made use of the Kapihan. In WikiVoyage, I create and edit articles of cities and towns in my country. I also make use of being a janitor in both of those projects. If ever my unblock is granted, I'm open to other unblocking conditions. Superastig (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you think the problem with citing Facebook and Twitter is that it is "third-party", I do not believe you are yet ready to return to editing. I suggest you review the guidance on reliable and independent sources to get an idea for what is and is not generally an acceptable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Superastig (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, can I ask how to would handle a similar situation in the future - so what would you do if someone makes edits you don't agree with and it becomes a content dispute? How would you avoid the same behaviour that led to your block? Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'll discuss in good faith the dispute in the talk page of either that certain editor or the page they're editing instead of resorting to personal attacks. I'll respect whatever consensus is decided upon.
2. I have the right to be told if ever I'm warned, for example, that I shouldn't use third-party sources. After all, no editor is perfect and no one has the right to claim a certain article as their own.

Superastig (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reviewing your request, but am not at all clear what you mean by that you "shouldn't use third-party sources". Could you clarify what you mean by that? Generally speaking, articles should be using independent sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was warned a number of times before for using Twitter and Facebook as sources for ratings and episode titles. Superastig (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Reliable sources. You should be using reliable third party source, not social media. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed through your contributions in TL Wiki and Wikivoyage and you seem to display a good behavior in those places. I believe you're ready to return to editing here, but you must've mixed up the terms regarding sources. I agree with Phil that you should read (or re-read if you've read it before) WP:RS. It wouldn't take much time for you to understand as much as you understand WP:OWN. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all of you are right. The time I wrote that request, I barely remember the messages I deleted in my talk page a year ago regarding that similar matter. So, I got the terms mixed up. I recently read that last warning regarding that matter and re-read about reliable and independent sources. I'll make another request once I have some free time. Superastig (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The World Between Us 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 The World Between Us 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 until the discussion has finished.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 (2nd nomination) 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.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of A Soldier's Heart 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 A Soldier's Heart 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 until the discussion has finished.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig, hi. As a participant in the AfDs mentioned above, the nom of those is spot on. Some of the similar lists you created fail the same criteria as the former. Instead of taking them to AfD, I redirected them to their respective pages. SBKSPP (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

A follow-up to my previous unblock request, which was declined. I should've browsed through the history of my talk page in the first place before making such request.

A year ago, an editor reminded me not to use Facebook and/or X in a certain article. They told me to use third-party sources and not self-published sources. Instead of following them, I erased their message, in which I dismissed it as a "hissyfit". I should've listened to their warning and used third-party sources in the first place. Facebook and X are among the user-generated websites and therefore deemed unacceptable as sources.

Reliable sources are published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. The reliability of every source depends on the context given. When it comes to independent sources, the topic should be covered from a neutral perspective and should not have any conflict of interest. Reliable and independent, third-party sources are what the articles should be based on. Superastig (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See conversation below. Welcome back, and happy editing. asilvering (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you address the WP:OWN issue? PhilKnight (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After deleting the message from that user, I brought brought back a "rule" or two that really don't sit well with fellow editors. I realized that I violated unblock conditions by going back to my old behavior, a clear example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (especially rule no. 6). After the discussion about my behavior at that time, I was blocked on October 4, 2024. Superastig (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Canterbury Tail, what do you think? I've just remedied my own concern, namely that Superastig still had the autopatrol right (SA, you're welcome to re-apply for this after you build up a clean article creation history post-unblock). -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've got lots of rope, and lots of eyes on them, I don't see why another chance can't be given. Any admin is free to lift my last block on the condition they will be reblocked if they continue the behaviour that landed us here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read both of your recent unblock requests. And I'm convinced that you're ready enough to return to editing here. SBKSPP (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. I may not be as active as I used to be nowadays, but I'll do my best in staying away from trouble. I have a planned article in mind, but I'll create it once I have free time. For the time being, I'll focus on my role as a janitor. Superastig (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome back, Superastig!

  And welcome to the club. I may have told you this before, I'm only active when I find available time. Sometimes, it's hard to find time to be active in Wikipedia since I have work. And I assume you do as well. So it's alright. No need for you to rush. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DWRT-FM, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DWPM (DZMM Radyo Patrol 630) 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/2025 December 15 § DWPM (DZMM Radyo Patrol 630) until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year, Superastig! ~2025-44223-52 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year too! ASTIG🎉 _{(DOOBIE • STEELY)} 16:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Superastig. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BozScaggsJojo.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superastig. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "DZPA-FM".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]