User talk:Equazcion/sandbox2/2013 22 10 October Oct

82.42.182.178 "submitted" dozens of existing pages in the last few days
Special:Contributions/82.43.182.178 says it all.

This user is blindly (?) submitting pages with an edit summary of " ".

It's hard to tell if this is well-meaning or not but it's likely distracting. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a few. The earlier revisions had no AFC submission. This activity looks constructive. &mdash; rybec   02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of these had declined AFC submission templates in the past which were later removed. I think the general consensus is that a declined AFC template and an AFC comment should generally not be removed, and if it is removed, it should generally be restored.  Restoring the declined templates restores the "resubmit" button, so the original editor can easily re-submit it at his leisure (until it dies at G13, of course).  davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with submitting old drafts is that after they declined there may be no user on line to follow up on the suggested improvements. It's probably better to just restore any declines, or if there aren't any, add a draft template.  If the original creators are still around, they may take notice, and if not, either someone who wants to work on the article will submit it or it will fall under G13.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. However, I'm not going to tell someone they can't resubmit someone else's submission (I may tell them that they *shouldn't* but I won't tell them they *can't*), assuming of course that the issues raised in a previous decline have actually been addressed.  davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 04:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that one of tasks is designed to restore decline templates that were removed from drafts... Technical 13 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but that's not any of the bot's tasks. The bot flags pages that are missing a AfC template that are in AfC space as part of Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 5 so that an editor can evaluate the page to determine what needs to be done. Appropriate results for something like that might be CSD:G7 (Author Request Blank Delete), Restoring AfC banners and removing the category, Slapping a Draft template on it, or submitting it on behalf of the page creator.  It's really a judgement call to determine if you think the page is ready for an AfC submission or not. I'd probably slap a 48 hour block on the IP address to coerce some discussion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)