Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:56, 31 July 2023

Home

Talk

Userboxes

Station Articles

Philippine Radio Directory

Trap

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

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)

Welcome to my talk page. Take note of these rules before posting a comment.

• If you're here to throw hissy fits over any of my edits, get out. Ain't nobody got time for arguing with anyone.
• I have the right to end and delete any conversation which turn into arguments and are not worth continuing.
• If you're here to report disruptive edits from IP users and the pages involved, take them to the WP:AIV and WP:RFPP where they're better taken care of. I'm not an admin.
• I welcome good conversations, but I don't tolerate arguments. I don't wanna end up like a mastodon.
• Always sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/21 High Street Doha

Hi. There was no consensus to merge. The policy based responses were to delete. Please reconsider and revert your close. Onel5969 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot. Two editors voted to "merge" its content to the respective target because they believed that it's not notable enough to warrant a standalone article and therefore is a valid WP:ATD. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 16:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for 21 High Street Doha

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 21 High Street Doha. 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. Onel5969 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidering the close for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination)

Hey, I think you made the wrong call in closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Badnaseeb (2nd nomination) given that keep !voters were never able to substantiate an actual case for how notability guidelines were met (as well as the prevalence of SPA IPs on the keep side). I'd ask you to reconsider your decision to NAC the discussion. _signed, Rosguill 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot. I know that the "keep" votes are weak, but they still have merit whatsoever. And I don't see enough consensus for it to be deleted or redirected either. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 01:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Badnaseeb

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Badnaseeb. 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. _signed, Rosguill 02:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Fourteenth First Edit Day!

Thanks. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Superastig. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination)

Hi, I've undone your close of this AfD. For the rationale, see the relist comment. The BLP1E argument came late in the discussion, but merits to be addressed. --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Superastig non-admin AfD closes. Thank you. To be clear, I have proposed to topic ban you from closing AfDs. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

AfD trouble

Tough luck bud. I'm kinda disappointed with the outcomes of those 2 DRVs. What you received was a double kill, make that triple kill because someone reported you to the AN. SBKSPP (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So am I. Since the time I was scolded months ago in a previous discussion, I've been careful in picking which discussion to close and, believe me or not, those closures are really well-thought. Yet, a lot of editors seem to get triggered with some of my closures. Of almost 300 closures I've done for the past year, less than 10 of them were either overturned or relisted. I can't even believe an editor is making a big deal out of such. It's outright ridiculous. As for Badnaseeb, had anyone identified the sockpuppet IPs in the first place, then I wouldn't have touched the discussion at all. ASTIG😎🙃 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As a closer, you are expected to disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion. That AfD had two IPs geolocating to the same place, making the same poorly-supported arguments with the same glaring English deficits, and had already been flagged as SPAs. It should not take someone else formally tagging them as socks for you to recognize they needed to be discounted (not to mention their arguments were strongly rebutted). You also closed three AfDs after participants had been blocked for socking, including one where a sock's !vote had already been struck. If you can't identify obvious bad-faith !voting you should not be closing dicussions. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding You also closed three AfDs after participants had been blocked for socking, including one where a sock's !vote had already been struck.:

I even discarded those "keep" votes in the deletion discussions of "list of songs...". I even know they violate WP:NOT. Sheesh. ASTIG😎🙃 13:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So you've unilaterally decided that singular !votes for redirect should always override majority consensus for deletion, despite this not being policy-backed and such discussions being inherently inappropriate for NAC? JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's based on my experiences when I usually casted votes in various discussions before. Take example of these discussions:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christmas Day in the_Morning (Tabernacle Choir album)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankhiyon Ke Jharokhon Se (Song)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Another Sleepless Night (album)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dissection (album)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/What Are We Waiting For
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bridge over Troubled Dreams
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tu Jaane Na
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/All the Rage (EP)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Surface (Aero Chord song)

Of 1 or more "delete" votes in those discussions, I was the only one who voted for a "redirect". And all were closed as "redirect", with some of the closers mentioning WP:ATD. The closers of these respective discussions believe that it's never a mortal sin to use ATDs. Same case for this discussion, where only one voted for a "redirect". That said, those discussion indicated serve as my guide when it comes to closing various AfDs. ASTIG😎🙃 07:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Superastig I do agree with you. I believe most of your closures are right. It's just that some noms would rather send their booboos to the DRV than accept the results. But reporting you to the AN just because of the 7 challenged closures that are overturned/relisted takes their booboos to the next level. It's like an Asian parent getting mad at his kid for getting a 90-something in an exam instead of 100. LOL. SBKSPP (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't do anything about it if they decided to take any of my closures to the DelRev. It's part of freedom. I found it a bit bothering at first, but I've been used to that for months. ASTIG😎🙃 22:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm kinda disappointed that the consensus came out that way. I'm sure my fellow opposers are too. Consider yourself lucky that you still have the right to vote in AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks. Big time. I find it too much. I'm sure they're celebrating their victory about me being banned from closing deletion discussions. I can still cast votes on any of them, but because of that, I've lost my appetite to do such. This makes me want to take a break from AfDs. So much for a bad Valentine's day present. Sheesh. ASTIG😎🙃 06:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel bad the way I felt bad when a lot of my articles were thrown into the trash. Glad I was able to reinvent my use by participating in AfDs. But I still feel dissatisfied with just that. With the recent BS happening against you, I suggest you take a break for at least a few days or a week. SBKSPP (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I only take a long break whenever I'd be out for a long trip or holiday, but not whenever I get into these kinds of trouble. Life goes on.

I've created tons of articles for various scopes. An article about a radio station was sent to AfD a few years ago, which caused me to be involved in deletion discussions. Now that I decided to stay away from AfDs (for a while), aside from creating articles, I'll focus on mopping the floor. ASTIG😎🙃 16:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad you have other uses in Misplaced Pages at least. As for me, I'll stick to voting on AfDs. Unless it's the right time for me to create another article. I don't wanna close AfDs coz I might have the same fate as a bold closer like you. Hehe. SBKSPP (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And speaking of the Fatih Mehmet Gul DRV, I'm disappointed that it was overturned to delete. A lot of editors would rather take the shortcut than start a fresh AfD. SBKSPP (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, they should've renominated it in the 1st place rather than waste their time sending it to the DelRev. You're right that it's pointless since it's been a month since I closed it. Renomination makes more sense in a way to get rid of sockpuppetry in the first discussion. ASTIG😎🙃 10:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Question

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Superastig_non-admin_AfD_closes

Hi.

I have a question for you.

Why have you not engaged in the Administrators' noticeboard discussion concerning your AfD closures?

I now have this talk page on my watchlist.

I look forward to your response. - jc37 06:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What is there for me to argue about? I've been reading their comments from time to time, but I don't think I'm required to participate in that discussion like I barely participated in the DelRevs of any of my closures. Unless I have anything worth saying there, I'll remain speechless about their comments about me. ASTIG😎🙃 16:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that way to other editors. They'll think you don't care about their concerns and are purposefully ignoring them, which is why they're supporting a topic ban and aren't exactly agreeing with my proposal for a warning. You need to appear there to show that you aren't ignoring their concerns. That's just my recommendation. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If you say so, I'll try to think of something worthy for me to say in the discussion. I may include what I said here.

Just to let you know that some of the editors involved in the discussion are subscribed to a part of my talk page. ASTIG😎🙃 10:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a consensus has been made before I had the chance to break my silence. Anyway. I'm thinking of making an appeal someday, but not for this time being. Possible in a few months. ASTIG😎🙃 13:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your weakness is your reticence to explain yourself. When closing discussions, it is not good enough to be right, you have to be comprehensible by the uninitiated newcomer, and if challenged, or merely asked a question, you have to treat them seriously, humour them them if you must. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Following my closure of this discussion at WP:AN, I am informing you that you are now subject to an topic ban, restricting you from closing AfD discussions. You may still take part in those discussions as a regular contributor, but you may no longer close them. The restriction is indefinite, but may be appealed at AN no sooner than six months from today. This restriction is recorded at WP:EDRC. Thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Any guide on how I can appeal that topic ban? I'm planning to do so in the near future within 6 months. Thanks in advance. ASTIG😎🙃 13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You go to WP:AN, and start a new thread entitled something like 'Appeal of my topic ban'. Link to the original discussion that led to the ban (you can simply copy the permalink that I posted in my message above), and explain why you feel that the ban should be rescinded (ideally by describing how you would act differently in future). I'd advise you to do your best to demonstrate plenty of competence in the area between now and any appeal, so that people will be well-disposed towards lifting the ban. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion from me... In your forthcoming appeal, simply agree to change your response when a close is challenged. Instead of arguing that you're right (which you might well be) and making the challenger go to DRV, just revert it. If a close is challenged, that means it wasn't completely uncontroversial and maybe shouldn't have been a NAC, so just undo it and leave it to an admin? It would only apply to a small number of closes, and would leave you free to continue with all the good ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  You made me realize that I've taken freedom too far. Whenever anyone takes any of my closures to the DelRev, I thought that it's their problem and not mine. I didn't expect that this kind of mindset would create a negative impact on my contributions. ASTIG😎🙃 16:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I did not respond earlier, because others have well enough. But I thought I would offer a few policy links, which you may find helpful.

  First, the context that you link to freedom, is concerning. You may wish to check out WP:NOTFREESPEECH. We're all merely Wikipedians here at the service of building an encyclopedia. Nothing more.

  Second, if you are going to do "Non-admin closures", you fall under all the restrictions laid out at WP:ADMIN. Which includes WP:ADMINACCT. If you are going to close any discussion, then please understand that responding to good-faithed "requests for clarification" is a way of life. At any time, if you do not think you are comfortable responding to such a request, don't close the discussion in the first place. Yes, if you read the top of my talk page, you'll see some comments from (imnsho) some of the best closers we've ever had on Misplaced Pages. So yes, it is not uncommon that someone coming to ask you about a close is merely trying to "re-litigate" the close. But for you as a closer, the challenge is to be able to read past whatever enthusiasm, emotion, or even vitriol, and see if there is a valid point there to re-assess your close. User:Boing! said Zebedee makes good points above, but in a sense, that could also be seen as just dodging things by saying "well, I'm not an admin, so I'll revert" - which, in and of itself, could also be concerning.

  And finally, please take a moment and read User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria. The last few sentences may also help clarify.

  Anyway, I say all of this in hopes to help. That it could perhaps help you develop into being a better closer.

  (Yes, I took a lengthy tour of your edit history and closes. But no, I'm not going to comment on that experience at this time - I think we should just move forward from the past.)

  And I too am just another Wikipedian here. But if it helps, I've been involved with discussions, closures, and community consensus, off-n-on for well nigh 16 years, and have closed or help closed some of the most contentious discussions on Misplaced Pages (User:Jc37/Awards notes a few). I only mention this, so you don't think I'm merely "piling on" to the recent discussion. And yes, you not commenting there, did not do you any favours.

  Anyway, like I said, this is merely intended to help. Perhaps later, once the sting of recent events has faded a bit, this may help. (Or not, whatever the case may be : )

  In any case, I wish you well. - jc37 17:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll take note of what you said, including the others above. I'll make sure I keep those in mind, especially whenever I'm ready to make an appeal. ASTIG😎🙃 06:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fatih Mehmet Gul

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fatih Mehmet Gul. 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. _signed, Rosguill 18:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello @Superastig. I want to apologize for reverting your edits, I have read the MOS already, however, some things are still not yet clear to me. Is there a explicit statement in the MOS regarding the sub-section headers? If there is none, what is the reason why shouldn't put headers like "People related..."? Again, my apologies. Thank you! - jampol 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's based on my experience as a contributor on Philippine TV series. A few years ago, I tried applying the sub-header format in an article of a defunct TV series (I can't remember what series was that), but it was reverted by a veteran editor who told me that this kind of format for cast list is much neater and smaller per size. As for the term "People related to" and the likes, they're considered WP:FANCRUFT and not necessarily needed per WP:CASTLIST. ASTIG😎🙃 12:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:VOP Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:VOP Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 03:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello, I just want to ask is you know the new radio station in Baguio 106.5 MHz? I just observed this station two months ago and I cannot determine the stations name and format until now. As of today, the station has no bumpers. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Can it be heard within the entire city and nearby areas including La Trinidad? ASTIG😎🙃 13:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It can be heard within the city (Baguio). In La Trinidad, I don't know. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Keep on observing the station from time to time and if you still can't spot any SID, then it may be considered a pirate. ASTIG😎🙃 07:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Marist School (Marikina) deletion

Hello! I was surprised to see this article got redirected to its deletion. Last time I checked, it's the only Marist school article that got deleted. Is it because it's a school in the Philippines? I digress. Anyway, I was active in editing this article in my other account years ago (now in hiatus). Though a year late already, I disagree with the decision so I might make a draft of it in my Sandbox. I can't disagree though if I can't see the argument against the deletion though. I can access books and news articles supporting its notability like I did in the other school articles I edited. Hard to find articles on the school since it gets buried along with the other "Marist". Anyway, let me know if I can still help recover the article, make a draft on a sandbox to bring it back, or just let it stay redirected to its non-existence. Peace! — Brother Allen (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't make sense when you said that the article got redirected to its deletion. There are other types of consensus aside from "delete". I closed it as "redirect" not because it's from the Philippines (that's an invalid argument per WP:ATA), but because it fails WP:NSCHOOL based on the consensus in the deletion discussion. We follow policy-based arguments when it comes to such deletion discussion.

Since the page is currently a redirect, its history is preserved. It means anyone like you is free to scan for previous versions of the article. I suggest you read WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG before editing the article. If you believe that the school meets either of those said criteria, then look for secondary sources about the school. I hope this answers your concern. ASTIG😎🙃 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It answers my concern. I'll try to do what I can do from now on. Thanks! — Brother Allen (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD Issues

Hi. There are a few stations and TV channels that are up for deletion here. I know you're not in the mood to participate in AfD because of what happened a few months ago, but I hope you could spare some time to save any of them from deletion. SBKSPP (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This is blatant canvassing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How can that be canvassing if I distance myself from deletion discussions for a few months? Common sense, men. If I were still active in voting on deletion discussions, then he wouldn't have left me a DM in the first place. I don't think it's a mortal sin for them to pull me from "retirement" for this meantime. Even if we argue about this all day long, I don't think this is canvassing at all. ASTIG😎🙃 00:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not a "men". Asking someone to save articles at AfD is a bright-line violation of canvassing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you're telling me that it's a mortal sin for me to participate in deletion discussions after getting pulled out from my "break". I've stayed away from deletion discussions for a few months and never cared about a single article listed for deletion until @SBKSPP pinged me. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. It shouldn't be a big deal at all. It is never a mortal sin to be concerned about the articles listed for deletion, for God's sake.

You can hate, whine, cry, complain, throw hissy fits, say this, say that. But, my votes in the recent deletion discussions have (will have and still have) merit no matter what. ASTIG😎🙃 02:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They asked you to save articles on Philippines topics from deletion, and in response you !voted keep on multiple articles that they had already !voted keep at. That's canvassing, and it's especially problematic given your AfD interactions with SBKSPP have been called out previously.

Also, do not refactor my comments by selectively deleting portions of them.

Pinging @Girth Summit to weigh in as the admin who closed the AN discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They didn't ask me specifically what article to vote in. And don't bring that issue regarding my interactions with that user. I have already moved on from that long ago. I just made my views for the first time in a few months. It's no big deal at all.

It's clear that you're preventing me from participating in deletion discussions. ASTIG😎🙃 01:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Superastig, SBKSPP, JoelleJay - I have been offline for a few days, so apologies for the slow response. On the face of it though, this does indeed look like an obvious case of improper canvassing to me. SBKSPP should not have posted here asking a hand-picked person to look at a group of deletion discussions and weigh in to keep the articles; Superastig should not have responded to a request made in such a manner.

I'll add this, Superastic - your response to JoelleJay above is exceedingly rude and aggressive. Nowhere do they say that you have committed a mortal sin, that is ridiculous hyperbole, they have simply called you out for breaching the guidelines on canvassing, which you have, and your comments about how they can hate, whibe, cry, complain, throw hissy fits are completely out of line - comments like that will get your account blocked.

JoelleJay - you mentioned an AN discussion that I closed, and it's ringing a bell, but I don't think you provided a link - please could you do so to jog my memory? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not sorry, for going out of line with my behavior. It’s that I don’t tolerate anyone arguing with me about something small like this in my talk page, that would cause me to go berserk after a couple of lines. JoelleJay loves to make a big deal out of something small like this. And this argument they started is going nowhere because they refuse to accept my explanation. If it wasn’t for them, then I wouldn’t have gone out of line with my behavior. It's my first time participating on deletion discussions in a few months. I’ve been busy with other stuff and I tend to miss out on some articles.

Let’s just say two editors (or more) discussing in one of their talk pages about a handful of articles being poorly nominated for deletion. I don’t consider that canvassing. SBKSPP said a few stations and TV channels. They didn’t mention any specific article or say all of them. I only picked a handful of articles and one of them is outside their mentioned scope. Therefore, I also don’t consider that canvassing. Glad there are a few more editors who believe in me as well. ASTIG😎🙃 13:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for an apology, I was warning you that behaviour like that will get you blocked, and blaming someone else for it will not get you unblocked. The same goes for the canvassing concerns - I didn't ask you whether you considered it canvassing, I told you that I consider it canvassing. That too will get you blocked if you keep it up. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well then, although this happens occasionally, I'll do my best to prevent myself from losing my cool the next time I encounter this kind of conversation. As for the issue regarding SBKSPP, had they mention every article for me to vote for, then that would be considered canvassing. But, they didn’t mention any specific article and among the ones I voted for is outside their mentioned scope. Therefore, I believe what they did is not canvassing. I'll still stand by my views no matter what. ASTIG😎🙃 01:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Posting a partisan message on a hand-picked user's talk page asking them to contribute to AfDs to save articles from deletion is improper canvassing, regardless of whether the message concerns a specific article or a handful of related articles. Your decision not to accept that will not prevent an administrator from taking action if you or SBKSPP repeat this kind of activity. You are at liberty to monitor that deletion sorting page yourself, and contribute to any ongoing discussions, but this kind of selective notification is not on. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding You are at liberty to monitor that deletion sorting page yourself, and contribute to any ongoing discussions, I used to do that when I was active in deletion discussions. But not anymore after getting banned from closing deletion discussions, and that included being involved overall in such.

By saying that, you and SBKSPP are pulling me from "retirement" from participating in deletion discussions. Don't worry. I'll be back in God's time. Just give me a bit more time. ASTIG😎🙃 10:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, thanks for stepping in; this is the AN discussion I referenced. JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion was about closing discussions, so this recent activity is not a breach of the TBan. The above warnings concerning canvassing and incivility stand though. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't alleging that they violated the TBAN, I just thought it was standard to notify admins who had prior experience with a user in adjacent contexts. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit I'm sorry if what I did caused some controversy. I was just looking for help and I didn't know that this is canvassing. I'll not do this again and I'll leave Astig to figure it out next time. As for Astig who believes that what I did is not canvassing, you can never change his mind. Neither can I.

And sorry to @Superastig for bringing you out from the absence in AfDs. Same reason as Girth Summit. I know you're not ready to participate in AfDs, but I don't know whom to look for. SBKSPP (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I heard a radio station article is up for deletion. Just give me some time. I'll just pick a couple more aside from that, then that's it. ASTIG😎🙃 00:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hi, Superastig!

I'm so sorry for that because I wanted to trying added or edited the pages or articles for some Brigada News FM stations in General Santos, Olongapo and Zamboanga that are licensed to Baycomms Broadcasting Corporation without any permission, which already mentioned in that infobox for it's stations.

I hope that I decided to stay longer as a wikipedia user that I created a new one, but next time I will try my best to edit, added or fix information in each articles.

Thank you so much! 😊 Jemz2023 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of DXNG-FM for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DXNG-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 09:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969, you nominated the article twice at the same time. I suggest you procedural close either of them and focus on the other. ASTIG😎🙃

Hi. Yeah, I requested an admin to delete one of them. Something went wrong with the Twinkle process.Onel5969 10:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. ASTIG😎🙃 10:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is: 112.200.9.54 and perpetuating hoaxes?. LilianaUwU 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for editing the dzlc cool fm! Jairus Cambiado Ezekiel (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Philippine Collective Media Corporation

Regarding to your revert on Special:Diff/1159739033, the station already exists. The station already has a FB page (facebook.com/fmrquezon94.3). I restored the revert. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If you insist. A certain IP user who inserted that info should've added an edit summary about the station's existence in the first place. ASTIG😎🙃 09:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ben Balasador

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Citations are about the actors, except the book...which may or may not contain an depth review.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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 02:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello, where is the source that 105.1 Baguio will be simulcast Brigada Korondal? ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's part of the station's test broadcast, which included a simulcast of BNFM Koronadal's program. Not to mention technicians from BNFM visited the transmitter site a couple of months ago. ASTIG😎🙃 04:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you tell me the timestamp on that video where they announce that they will simulcast on 105.1 Baguio? LOL the video is too long that's why. And as of now 105.1 Baguio is silent. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just saw it in an FB group, but whoever posted it didn't provide a timestamp aside from a comment about it. Perhaps, the testing was done yesterday. Maybe the following days as well. Who knows? ASTIG😎🙃 10:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, do you know when is the exact launch of 105.1 Baguio? In DZBM it says there 1999, in DWBM-FM under the Crossover section, it says 2000. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It's 2000, based on the newspaper indicated in both articles. ASTIG😎🙃 10:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan

Hello @Superastig, you are now engaged in an edit war with me on the Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan page. I have explained to you why I reverted your edits. You are in contravention of WP:BRD. After an editor undoes your edit, you are meant to discuss the issue on the talk page, not continually revert back. Your argument so far has been to reference a previous editor's changes, which I supposedly left in place, with the contention that this somehow justifies your changes to remain in place. This is false, as the two are not related. You have introduced erroneous terminology into the article—title role—even though I explained that it is not applicable. Additionally, you have made the claim that imdb is verified, which is ridiculous, since it is a user-generated database. You need to stop this conflict and start engaging in a discussion, before this matter requires escalating into a noticeboard dispute. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You really act as if you own the article. I created the article, but I don't own it. Anyone is free to make contributions, with or without sources. Yet, you seem to get in the way of anyone's contributions to the article.

I have really explained more than enough in my edit summaries. So, I don't see a reason as to why I should start a discussion in the article's talk page. Borgenland made significant changes to the article, including bringing back most of the cast list (that you removed) with some descriptions and expanding the plot. Yet, they didn't provide references regarding their edits, and they didn't engage in a discussion in the talk page about it aside from describing Tino/Tina and you leaving the character description up to them. Borgenland knows what they're doing, and so am I. And it's true no matter what. Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is or this issue you started will get worse. The choice is yours. ASTIG😎🙃 15:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a couple of corrections, for your edification: anyone is not free to make contributions without sources. If you don't know that much, then you clearly don't know what you're doing.

Borgenland engaged in a civil discussion with me, and we reached an agreement. That is how Misplaced Pages works. Don't compare yourself to Borgenland, because so far, all you've done is revert.

The issue will get worse? That sounds like a threat. I will continue doing my best to improve the article, as will you. If we disagree and you refuse to discuss, as you're meant to, then I will escalate the issue; simple as that. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

because so far, all you've done is revert: How were my contributions considered reverting when, in fact, I mostly made changes in the cast listing? Common sense, men.

Moving on, I have no qualms about the current presentation of the cast list. though there's a very minor correction I pointed out in the article's talk page. ASTIG😎🙃 00:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Superastig, the attitude you show in your response here is utterly unacceptable, and I have raised it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Further battleground problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Per consensus emerging at ANI (link) regarding your persistent and egregious WP:OWN violations and other behavioural issues, I have indefinitely blocked your account from editing.

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

Daniel (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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

Request reason:

There are times when I have day-offs from Misplaced Pages at least once a week. Now that I came from my day-off yesterday, I was shocked to see that I'm blocked. I've read the recent replies in my appeal and I admit that I've gone way too far with losing my cool and creating a battleground, just like what happened in Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan, with this affecting my behavior, and I realized that I should not persist on my edits whenever I'm wrong in certain aspects. I apologize. Outside those issues, several of my other edits were done in good faith and in peace, like episode updates of every TV show and creating articles. I've been also reverting disruptive edits from various IP users several times. And I don't want my recent behavior to overshadow my said contributions in Misplaced Pages. I hope I'll be unblocked. And I'll do my best to be careful with my behavior and tone down my replies this time around. ASTIG😎🙃 01:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First of all, I'm rooting for you, because indeed you have done a lot of good here, and I have seen how much you care about this project. The main reason you were blocked was because of OWNership behavior. Please review it more carefully. You also should not OWN an article even whenever you're "right" in certain aspects. Or even most aspects. Barring vandalism, we have dispute resolution if you feel another's edits are not improving the article. Yes, you need to keep your cool, yes you need to avoid battleground behavior. But you'll need to show a better understanding of the OWN policy before you are unblocked. My recommendation is to try to reflect and figure out what motivates the OWNership reaction in the first place. I truly hope that is helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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, mind if I offer a bit of friendly advice? I can see you have contributed a lot of material to Misplaced Pages. And, like 78.26, I'd like to see you come back to editing. Firstly, generally, I'd say you need to listen to people a bit more rather than just arguing, and I think you can be a bit impulsive there. It sounds like you understand that from what you say above - but you had several chances to avoid a block over this, and instead of listening you just doubled down and insisted you were right. Anyway, we're here now, so what do you need to do? The main problem I see is ownership, and you really need to read and understand WP:OWN. You said that you found the idea of someone reverting your edits intolerable. But that does not fit in with what Misplaced Pages requires of editors, and I don't think you will be allowed back unless you can drop that attitude. You must be able to tolerate being reverted. Anyone is allowed to revert anyone else here, and the one who wants to make the change is then expected to discuss it in a civil manner at the article talk page and seek consensus. Consensus decides what goes into articles when there's a disagreement - not you, and not the other editor, but consensus. WP:BRD outlines the way to proceed - it's only an essay, but it's based on core policies and it's widely accepted as good practice. (There are other steps in dispute resolution if that doesn't work, but I don't think we need to go further right now.) So, for an unblock to be successful, I'd say you need to commit to a more civil and less combative approach (done above, good), make it clear how you understand the ownership problem and that anyone can boldly make any edit or revert they want, and explain how you will approach disagreement in future. I wish you well, and I hope that helps. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. I may have stumbled upon WP:OWN a few times before, but I'll do my best to understand it thoroughly because I'm sure there are some aspects there that I missed out on. ASTIG😎🙃 15:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Superastig: I understand how upset you are knowing that you're blocked. I believe that blocking you indefinitely is outright ridiculous, but we can't do anything about the consensus. Just like the others above, I sometimes observe that you have your WP:OWN problem. I admire your contributions in Misplaced Pages. But you have to fix your problem first by listening to Boing! said Zebedee and the gang. Once you understand OWN, then you can request for your unblocking in a week or the following weeks when you're ready. Hoping that you can contribute again soon. SBKSPP (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually see a consensus to indefinitely block at AN, User:SBKSPP. There were three votes, and this wasn't one of them. There was some chatter at the end, but there was little participation, and didn't seem that a consensus formed. I don't see why any admin couldn't lift this block if they were satisfied. Indefinite does seem a bit strong for a first-ever block for a user whose been here for over 14 years. There was no urgency. Nfitz (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, it's not a community block, so any admin can unblock without seeking a consensus. And I hope that will happen once Superastig shows a proper understanding of WP:OWN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  • It doesn't have to be a week, once OWN is understood, you have a chance of success in appeal. starship.paint (exalt) 13:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

    I'd concur with the above. Given an ongoing discussion, I'm not sure the indef was necessary (as opposed to the other aspects of the discussion I reviewed), but since we've reached that point (and it would be within a legitimate understanding of the final part of that discussion), I think Boing's suggestions have merit. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Community TBAN/TBAN appeal moratorium

Hello,

I realise this might feel either somewhat like piling on, but as I think you a likely individual to be unblocked and there was clear community consensus, there were other community consensuses to implement.

The most core of which is a 6 month moratorium from appealing your TBAN on AfD closes. The close can be seen here. I'll also add it to the list shortly. There was affirmative community consensus not to implement a more general AfD TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. By the time a consensus was made on my previous appeal a few weeks ago, I wasn't aware that I should appeal again after at least 6 months. ASTIG😎🙃 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request #2

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

Request reason:

Per WP:OWN, no one has the right to claim a certain article as their own. Whoever creates a certain article does not mean they own it. Every editor has the right to make changes to that article and, if ever any part of the article questioned, anyone can discuss it in the article's talk page to seek consensus. I realized that my recent involvement in editing Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan is a clear example of WP:OWN, where I went way too far with losing my cool and created a battleground. (No. 6 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) I acted as if I own the article by persisting with my edits. And blaming the reverter will not solve the problem. I apologize for such. The next time an editor reverts any of my edits in a certain article for a valid reason, I'll discuss in good faith regarding my edits in the article's talk page and respect whatever consensus we will reach. If I can't find a valid reason for my edits to be restored, instead of boldly standing by my edits and engaging in an edit war, I'll leave the article as is and respect the decision of the reverter. This is how toned down I'll be whenever I encounter such reversion this time around. ASTIG😎🙃 00:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the discussion with respect to stipulations and existing topic bans, and with the agreement below of the blocking admin. Superastig, don't hesitate to be in touch with any questions or clarifications. Star Mississippi 12:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me - you've taken your time and understood things properly. I support an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• I also support an unblock. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Superastig, I will note that in the AN thread, editors were concerned that your general conduct was not investigated sooner, leading me to believe that your wiki-behaviour is an ongoing problem. I think your words above show that you understand the problem, and if unblocked your actions are going to show if you truly understand how to avoid this problematic behaviour. If I unblock you, it will be with the understanding that this is your final warning: I will support any admin reblocking you for incivility without a warning. It will be your responsibility to avoid OWN, BATTLEGROUND and UNCIVIL behaviour. The topic-ban for closing AFDs and appealing the closure will still stand. Do you understand and agree to this stipulation?

@Daniel: as the blocking admin, if any concerns with unblocking if Superastig agrees to my stipulation above? Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

None at all. I fully support an unblock given the above. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand and agree to your stipulation. From hereon, I'll do my best to be civil in every contribution and give my replies in good faith to avoid being blocked again. ASTIG😎🙃 05:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)