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.
Hey, about these AFC submissions I've been submitting
Before you realize what I'm doing, and then talk to me on my talk page, since I see you're doing the job of rejecting a lot of these submissions, I thought I'd talk to you directly about what I'm doing. Essentially, I'm trying to get these marked "rejected" so they can be eligible for {{db-g13}} in the future. However, I realize that this is causing an additional workload in the WP:AFC queue, so I was wondering if there is a quicker way to get this marked. And if not, if you see any more submissions by me, no need to send me that notification template: unfortunately, I'm not a good judge (yet) if these are good articles to be used on Wikipedia or not, but am trying to learn as I'm doing this ... since I'm seeing there's a lot of these. Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, if the submission has not been marked with an "awaiting review" (yellow AFC) or "draft" tag (grey AFC), I wouldn't think the submission could really be considered part of the AFC project, even if the article is in the Wikipedia:Articles for creation workspace. The original creator (whom the AFC project seeks to help) has abandoned the project y this point. If you're aim is to get the submission deleted easily, odds are that it is eligible for deletion under 3, 7, 7, 8, 10 or 14 of WP:DEL-REASON anyway. I would add a proposed deletion tag ((subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion)) to the top of the article with the reason. I can't see anyone really opposing a non-speedy proposed deletion of an article of the quality of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/53,594 for example. Adding a pending tag essentially just passes that ^^^ job onto someone else which in turn makes what you're doing rather redundant. That's really about as much as I can advise right now. If you need any more help, I'd ask at the help desk WP:AFCHD, they're far more knowledgeable that I am :D Charon123able (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, thanks for the question. When I came across the article there were actually two AFC tags on it, the "Article not currently submitted for review" (grey) tag and the "Review waiting" (yellow) tag. This is (obviously) a contradiction so I removed the review waiting tag assuming that it was an old tag and the article was still a draft. According to WP:BRD, the creator need simply revert the edit or, to prevent contradiction within the article, replace the draft tag with the review tag (as he has done), so the article is now queued for review again and will be reviewed in good time. All the best. Charon123able (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is quite normal, the grey and yellow templates co-exist. Please don't remove the submission template just because the grey template exists on the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why not? You then have a page containing templates saying that the page both is and isn't for review. Surely that stops or at least confuses potential reviewers? It certainly confused me. Surely it's far easier to remove the tag and have the creator resubmit as necessary by replacing the tag? Charon123able (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution would be for the grey box not to appear if a yellow box is present. But this is not currently the case. There is supposed to be a bot that goes through removing the grey boxes in cases where a yellow box is present. Reviewers are aware that the presence of a yellow box means the article is submitted for review, even if a grey box is present - so it does not stop or confuse them.
I wasn't aware of this. And it did stop and confuse me. Removing the yellow box seemed like the most constructive solution at the time. Thank you for letting me know.
If you wish to assist in making the pages less confusing, the best course of action would be for you to remove the grey boxes, not the yellow ones.
Surely this is unconstructive considering, as you mention above, there is a bot that can do this likely far more efficiently than I can?
"Have the creator resubmit as necessary" does not make sense - submitting the article is what the editor just did, right before you removed their submission. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say submit, I said "resubmit" (as in to submit after the first submission). Makes complete sense. The editor did submit it. I deleted the submit tag. If the editor resubmits the article it's then queued again. This shouldn't cause a problem.
The problem is that this puts us in an infinite loop. The editor submits it. (with the result that there is now one yellow and one grey box on the page). You delete the submit tag. The editor resubmits it (with the result that there is now one yellow and one grey box on the page). Therefore, you delete the submit tag again...
The current process is not ideal, and does indeed cause confusion on a constant basis. However, this is not the right way to address that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't do infinite loops. As I mentioned briefly above, according to WP:BRD: The creator submits it. A editor removes the tag (bold). The creator resubmits the article by adding the yellow tag (revert). A discussion takes place (as it has) determining that it was the grey tag that needed to go and so (as had happened since before I replied to your first message) the grey tag is removed leaving the yellow one behind leaving a submission free of contradiction. Why would I "delete the submit tag again" once the grey one is gone? Charon123able (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An initial AfC, written in October, was declined - due to a lack of citations. We've since resubmitted the AfC, with lots of citations from national UK media.
I had flagged the article as a resubmission and had asked the original declining editor to relook at the page. The last declining editor has deleted his profile, however - but I saw you had been on the page on Friday.
That said, all I could see in the AfC history was this:
(cur | prev) 02:18, 12 April 2013 Charon123able (talk | contribs) . . (11,259 bytes) (-57) . . (Submission declined on 20 October 2012 by Gwickwire, remove pending tag) (undo)
...which has confused me somewhat...
It says "remove pending tag": not sure what this pertains to.
Obviously if things need adding/clarifying, the sooner I can do this, the better!
This is your final warning. Please stop removing submit templates from any AfC submission that is not yours. When people follow instructions to (re)submit (and especially if it was previously declined), it adds it to the bottom of the page, and it gets cleaned up later by either a bot or reviewer. If you continue to remove submission templates, I will ask for you to be blocked from editing. gwickwiretalkediting18:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if there are two or more seemingly-conflicting AFC submission templates, the next time someone does something with the script, the conflicts will be "cleaned up." The script even has the option to "just clean" a submission. Cleaning a submission involves bringing AFC submission templates that are at the bottom "up" to above the submitted article, removing older "draft" templates if there is a newer "submission" template, and possibly other things that I'm not aware of.
With the possible exception of tweaking the text in a "declined" "afc submission" template which you wrote or text in an "afc comment" which you wrote, please avoid manually editing "afc submission" and "afc comment" templates until you have a firmer grasp of how they work and how they interact with the scripts. Please DO continue reviewing articles and, if you have the interest, take the time to study how these templates and scripts inter-operate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
