Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 July 14

Help desk
< July 13	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 14

usertalkpage

I have read this, but if it is <del></del>'d can I leave it? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, what is this in reference to? —teb728 t c 04:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What? No, I'm planning to add somewhat disputable content to my user talk page, and I want to see if I can strike it out and replace it with something else. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of your rude responses to good faith replies above, I am a little afraid to reply, but here goes: None of the kinds of content identified at WP:UP#What may I not have in my user pages? is appropriate for a user page. This is particularly so for a user talk page, which is primarily for other people to leave messages to you. Striking out suth content would not make it less unacceptable. (There might, however, be other kinds of strike-out content on a user talk page if you or someone else writes something and later retracts it.) And if you want to experiment with things like strikeout, you could create a user subpage and use it as a sandbox (with other kinds of content). —teb728 t c 08:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry (if I sound rude), but who are you to poke into others business? Just a question, and thanks for the answer. You are obviously not required to respond. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't express myself well in my two previous replies in this section: When I asked what your question was in reference to, I was not trying to poke into your business; rather your question did not provide enough context for me to know how to reply. When I mentioned "rude responses," it was not in reference to this section but rather to the previous section, #pay; your responses there made me think twice before responding here. —teb728 t c 23:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I fully understood you. Thank you for any extra explanation, and thank you also for the answer. I was just slightly taken aback somewhat. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed to "The Milpitas Monster" reference just to have it all deleted.

Back in February I contributed to the page "The Milpitas Monster" just to have it deleted by another user. The explanation by the user was "had to delete almost all of the text because it was unencyclopedic, unreferenced and violated a lot of Wikipedia policies". I do not understand the motivation for doing so and would like to have it restored. If it needs to be re-written, I'm willing to work with Wikipedia to do so, as long as the facts of the article remain.

How do I proceed to make this happen?

Regards...

04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlburrill (talk • contribs)

I understand your frustration with having your work removed. I personally did not remove it, but I have reviewed the work. Just a few points for you.

• Wikipedia has high editorial standards for material that is published here. While a cornerstone principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, that doesn't mean that "anything is acceptable".
• There are several issues with what you have added to Wikipedia which make it inappropriate. First, it consists entirely of you recounting your personal experiences in the first person. Wikipedia has a policy of no original research; that is because all Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. In other words, everything written in Wikipedia must have been written somewhere else first, ideally in highly reliable sources, so that everything at Wikipedia can be fact checked. Your personal experiences with the subject of the article may be interesting, but since no one can fact check them easily through citations to reliable sources, they aren't appropriate to Wikipedia.
• Secondly, Wikipedia discourages people from contributing to subjects that they have a personal stake in promoting; i.e. that they have a conflict of interest with. It is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and to write from that point-of-view requires a certain level of detachment from the subject. For this reason, Wikipedia editors are discouraged from writing about themselves, their relatives, their business ventures, or other organizations or entities they have close personal ties to.

All of this doesn't mean that your personal insight isn't valuable at Wikipedia. First of all, you can help Wikipedia by providing reliable published sources about the subject. For example, you likely have access to things about the movie in question which have been published in books, magazines, journals and things like that. If you can provide those sources to other Wikipedia editors, they can help incorporate the information into the article in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, and which is also written in a way which conforms to Wikipedia's manual of style. Furthermore, if there are inaccuracies in an article, you can ask others to help by removing the inaccuracies, and explain why the article is wrong or inaccurate. The proper place to do this is at the "article discussion page" for the article in question, which would be located at Talk:The Milpitas Monster.

Please read all of the pages I have linked here (click the "blue" text) as they explain a LOT about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you have any more questions, or need more help, feel free to ask. --Jayron32 04:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes not showing

Hi my changes are not showing up, though they showed at the time i did them and hit save page, any ideas as to where they are now?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan White (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were deleted by a bot because you linked to Pint Shot Riot's facebook page. —teb728 t c 08:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When did you make the changes? Are you referring to one edit? When you hit save page did it take you back to the article? If you do not provide an edit summary, you will be dropped back to the edit page. No changes will be saved unless you hit "save page again". To avoid this problem in the future, always provide an edit summary, even for minor edits. This helps when viewing the history of a page to see exactly what is going on without having to look at each edit. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Pint Shot Riot are not showing up, because they were reverted by XLinkBot. This is, because you added a link to Facebook (see Wikipedia:External links #Links normally to be avoided No.10). Links to facebook pages should normally be avoided. XLinkBot is an automated tool (bot) and it automatically reverts all subsequent edits of a user adding such a link. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Converting AfD to speedy delete

See AfD Mary Schoedinger. Seems to meet WP:SPEEDY db-person easily to me. However since it is already listed under AfD is that a little too hasty? If I think it meets the SPEEDY criteria, should I "Just do it"? --TimL (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• If it is on AFD, it's usually a sign of someone being unsure. I'd respect the decision and wait for others to chime in, especially since you can't really remove an AFD template without causing trouble. Let an admin handle it. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You could contribute to the AfD, suggesting a speedy delete and stating you reasons for this being a no-brainer as far as you can see. Astronaut (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If the article warrants deletion, it will be deleted in a few days. There is little to be gained by trying to speed up the process, unless leaving the article up any longer would harm Wikipedia. I suggest letting the AfD process take its course, and work on something else in the meantime. Note that in a typical AfD discussion, everyone who votes "delete" probably thinks they should delete an article immediately, so there are probably some people who think every article in AfD warrants a speedy delete. The point of AfD is to give other opinions a chance to be heard. --Teratornis (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, being the subject of a current AFD doesn't prevent you from speedying a page. (Being the subject of a previous AFD does, with the sole exception of a newly discovered serious copyright problem). But since the point of speedy is to do what AFD would unquestionably do (only without requiring so much effort), and the fact that someone starting AFD suggests that s/he didn't consider the case absolutely unquestionable, then I'd personally be inclined to let it run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Breaking story hatnote

Where's the hatnote for breaking story? Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal needs it. --Pawyilee (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Try {{Current}} or one of the others mentioned on that page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No Clue???

I'm not clear on how or where to place my bio, name etc. I think Wikipedia is great and I want to be part of it. I'm 40yrs. old but can some one break this down for me as if I was ten. Thank you so much. If it makes a difference I'm using a mac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshelton777 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, you shouldn't place your bio as an article of Wikipedia. If you are the sort of person who merits a Wikipedia article, then outside of Wikipedia there already exists a lot of magazine articles about you, books written about you, etc. etc. so it should be easy for someone who doesn't know you to learn all about your life even without Wikipedia. You may, if you like, create a userpage where you can write about yourself, but this is not an article and generally isn't the same thing as a biographical encyclopedia article like George Washington is. You should also read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more background. --Jayron32 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is no place for your bio in the traditional sense of a bio.

There is a place for information about yourself—it is called the user page, and yours is here. When you click on it, you'll come to a blank page, which is a bit intimidating for a new editor, even one with a lot of experience elsewhere.

The user page is the place for information about you and your relationship to Wikipedia, which is probably quite limited at the moment. Established editors often add information about themselves that doesn't exactly relate to their Wikipedia presence—this is acceptable, but if an editor with virtually no edits adds something that looks like a bio, it will not be viewed positively, and may be removed.

Read more about what belongs and what doesn't belong at Wikipedia:User pages.

A place to help you create a page is Wikipedia:User page design center.

Another alternative is to look at the user page of someone else, and use it as a model.--SPhilbrickT 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some links to the pertinent pages that will explain everything you need to know.

WP:FIRST - A page about writing your first article

WP:Autobiography - A page about why you shouldn't write about yourself

WP:Notability - A page about the general notability guidelines for article inclusion

WP:Notability (people) - A page about the specific notability guidelines for people

Now that you have those, here is the bottom line as I see it, You should not write an article about yourself. For an article to be written about someone there needs to be significant coverage about that person in reliable sources that are independent of the person. In other words, reliable sources need to have noticed the person and written about them. If you meet that requirement, you can ask for the article to be written by posting it at WP:Articles for creation. Hopefully I simplified this enough, if not ask again. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be overwhelming to a newcomer, so I recommend you also read the following pages first:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Wikipedia:Tutorial

And don't be afraid to ask questions.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be part of Wikipedia, the best way to start is by editing articles about subjects that interest you. The easiest edits to make first are purely formal edits such as correcting typographical errors, adding links, and other minor changes. Writing about yourself in articles is much trickier and in most cases is inadvisable even for highly experienced editors. On the other hand, anyone is free to write about himself or herself on his or her user page, to the extent that such information is relevant to your work on Wikipedia. I and millions of Wikipedia readers and editors agree with you that Wikipedia is great; unfortunately, as is true in virtually all of life, greatness comes with a steep price. On Wikipedia the price of admission to greatness is that a person has to learn a lot to be able to edit competently here. That means reading lots of friendly manuals. If you would like to read all the basics in a book format, see The Missing Manual. --Teratornis (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Two identical articles, how to merge or remove one?

The article Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook‎ and Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook‎ are essentially the same article, other than images. How can they be merged under Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook‎, the most familiar or common name associated with the historical figure, the modern counterpart to today's Rupert Murdoch? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

I have redirected the former (the newer article) to the latter (the older one). – ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked! Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CASEY ANTHONY

HI I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND ANY INFORMATION IN YOUR ARTICLE REGARDING THE PUNISHMENT ON COUNT 1,2, AND 3..........

IF the jury didn't want to find her guilty on count 1 becauswe of the death penalty, then why not count 2 or 3??? am I missing something.

Please let me know what the punishment would've been for count 2 or 3

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.159.110 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are for reporting verifiable facts, not for speculation. It is inappropriate for the text of a Wikipedia article to speculate either a) why the jury may or may not have decided her "not guilty" on counts 1, 2, or 3 and b) what her punishment may have been had she been found guilty on those counts. Its just not appropriate, given Wikipedia's mission, for Wikipedia to speculate on these matters (the actual article in question, and section of that article, seems to be Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Verdict_and_sentence which is what I guess the OP is looking at). --Jayron32 15:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The punishment for a particular count is a straightforward question about the relevant legal code. You could ask that question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, or on Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. Questions about the motives of the jury are trickier, as Jayron points out. Unlike the legal code, which is documented and applies to every case in a jurisdiction, the motives of the jury in a particular case are as variable as the people making up a jury. For a Wikipedia article to comment on that, someone would have to find a reliable source that documents some credible report or analysis of the jury's motivations. Since Wikipedia does not allow original research, we are at the mercy of whatever gets reliably published elsewhere. As you can see from the article history, Death of Caylee Anthony is still being frequently edited. Check back in six months and the article may be substantially different. --Teratornis (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Find refs with missing accessdate fields?

Is there an easy way to find all the references in an article that are missing an |accessdate= field? doomgaze (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? Accessdates are normally provided only for web-only resources. There's not much point in naming an accessdate for a news story or book, since you would correctly use the |date= field to record the real publication date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear, this article in question is almost exclusively composed of web sources (I think there's one offline source) and some of the references are missing that field. I can't think of a different way to input them then just going through all of them manually, which is plan B I guess. doomgaze (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's a single article, Ctrl+F in Firefox (or the Find text function in other browsers) should do the trick nicely. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait... it's missing. *facepalm* Still, you can use Ctrl+F to quickly jump through all the refs and scan them for the accessdate field, I guess.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Source Disappears

Many times I have read wikipedia articles where certain facts have been sourced, but when I click on that external source the article in question has since been deleted. I am not exactly sure what I should do when this happens, and usually I end up doing nothing. Should I delete the source reference and let the wikipedia fact stand on its own, unsourced? Do I try and find another existing source reference? Do I remove the unsourced fact from the wikipedia article? Juve2000 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LINKROT. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Link rot for more information on how to deal with the problem. In some cases, for example with information dealing with living persons (see WP:BLP), it may be preferable to remove the offending text until an additional corroborating source can be found. But it isn't always imperative that you remove the formerly sourced text. Linkrot is a serious problem with online references, and is one of the reasons why hardcopy sources (print books, etc.) are still excellent resources for Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally starting to use webcitation.org some of the time. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Is there anyway to change your edit summaries? I screwed up while trying to change the summary of one of my America's Got Talent (season 6) edits. MR. PreZ 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Once you've saved your edit, you cannot go back and change your edit summary. You can, however, make a dummy edit and use that edit summary to explain what you did previously. TNXMan 18:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How can I make one of these dummy edits? MR. PreZ 18:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Click on dummy edit, where it is explained.--SPhilbrickT 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

currious

what ever became of the scofflaw bill Gov. Patterson was to review in late 2010

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.248.119 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Accessing direct wiki code for official templates

Not: "please help me before I go mad...Lol OMG"

Templates for message boxes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Movenotice

are now on consolidated pages. How do I access the base wiki code for the template so I can easily and swiftly create new ones. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. :/ {{Movenotice}} relies on {{Mbox}} in turn. You mean this? Even in fully protected pages, you can still see the code by clicking View Source. i.e. You can hit View Source, copy the code elsewhere (to your sandbox maybe), and experiment to your heart's content.

Or did you mean something else?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

News citations, agency article: where?

I just cited a Canadian Press article, published by The Calgary Herald. CP is based out of Toronto, and the article is about a person from a suburb of that city. But Calgary is 3,208 km from Brampton, along the shortest possible road route, and that's when you cut through the United States. It seems ridiculous to have the location field of the "cite news" template as Calgary AB. Is it indeed supposed to be with that location listed? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you used {{cite news}}. The |location field is actually not necessary, as judging from the name itself it's already obvious that the newspaper is based in Calgary. You can omit it if you think it's misleading. But yes, it refers to the place of publication of the newspaper (not the news event in question). Even if The Calgary Herald were reporting about an incident in Timbuktu, the location field will still be the place of publication (which is Calgary, Alberta).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so even though the newspaper pays a Toronto firm, who pays Toronto writers, it's definitely only the place of publication. Another issue is that, often, I find 10 outlets that published that article, and I just choose whose newspaper seems to have the fullest copy of the newswire article. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a question about this second issue? —teb728 t c 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattress Giant

Hi there. Would anybody be willing to help me out with this newly created article? It's a well known mattress store, with hundreds of locations nationwide, just like Sleepy's. It needs some attention, possibly some expansion and perhaps some grammar fixin's. If anyone could look over it, I greatly appreciate it. Many thanks. – Tinton5 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs work. As it currently stands there are no reliable sources included in the article. I am looking for sources but at this point I have not found any that are helpful. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple that may be useful.[1][2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My edits are persecuted

There is a group of Wikipedia users who have got administrator rights and who haunt me and my edits. They hide behind administrator names but they are in reality promoting their own (or close) products and deleting my links to other products and information. They are using reasoning which sounds correct but they are lying and exaggerating. Such one-sidedness ruins the contents of the information and gives a biased picture. Wikipedia users can not find what they are looking for since the information they need is deleted and replaced by one sided misleading lies. Persecuted999 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have only two edits under this user name and you have given us no information to work with. We have no clue as to what articles you are referring to, what admins your are referring to or how they may have abused their admin rights. Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the steps outlined there. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is your first edit ever. That means that you have not been persecuted by any admins, since you have never done anything at Wikipedia before today. If you have edited Wikipedia previously under a different identity, and can provide that identity, we can check to see where you have been persecuted by administrators. So, just let us know what your previous account was, or where there was evidence of where you were persecuted, and we can punish those administrators really fast! --Jayron32 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How to add factual information to an existing Topic?

I would like to find out if 'anyone' can edit an article on Wiki. Do we need to contact the original author? If so, please provide info/steps. If not, how to I open the page to start editing/adding factual information please.

Thank you. 96.51.33.226 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit almost any article in Wikipedia. There are some that are protected that you will not be able to directly edit. If you come across an article that you want to edit you can still propose the edits on the article's talk page. All you need to do is find an article that you want to edit and at the top there should be a tab that says edit. If you click that tab you will be on the edit screen. You need to ensure that the information you are adding or changing is supported by reliable sources. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 20:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are having difficulties, Click here for a help page on how to edit articles. CaptRik (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New wiki for my company

Hi,

I noticed that some companies have wiki pages written about them. I work for a treasury software company and I am interested in writing about our company, its history and what makes it unique.

How would I go about doing that? Are there any standards I should follow?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.128.152 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for some general reading, with two caveats:

• First, not every company in existence merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia only includes articles about companies which meet a minimum objective standard of notability, which is outlined at Wikipedia:Notability and moreso for companies at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
• Secondly, even if your company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (as defined by Wikipedia's own standards, not necessarily by your own personal feelings about your company), you shouldn't be writing it. Wikipedia articles must be neutrally written, and employees of a company are too closely related to write neutrally about the company they work for. This represents a conflict of interest in the sense that your interest, which is in promoting your company, making it look good, and increasing its visibility on the web, is in conflict with Wikipedia's interest, which is in being a well-written, neutral and objective encyclopedia.

If you believe your company merits an article, but you are prevented from writing one because of your conflict of interest, then you need to gather a list of reliable sources which have not been written by your company (that is, written by people who aren't employed by your company, hired by your company, etc.) and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles to request an article, and provide reliable sources so someone without a conflict of interest can help write a proper article. If you need further information, please click on all of the "blue words" in this text, because they contain important information. Good luck! --Jayron32 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As a minor point, read Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. --Jayron32 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

2 things to dicuss

1. Could someone find a reliable source for Pornstar Chanel_Preston's heritage or ancestry and list it in her article? 2. Could someone find a source saying that actor John_Cho has duel American and Korean nationality since he is Korean-born? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You reposted this same question here at 06:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC). Please don't repost like that. —teb728 t c 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

template

Hello. Is there a {{Acknowledged}} template, something like “ Acknowledged”? In advance, please provide me with a “real” answer, and no side links that are unrelated to the original question. Thanks, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Not that I can see anyway, Template:Done#See also lists none. Could always create one. Is that "real" enough? Rehevkor ✉ 21:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 I think that's real enough doomgaze (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How to create a template? Also, please see below. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, “is that "real" enough”? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You asked "please provide me with a “real” answer," so you tell me. Rehevkor ✉ 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You never specified “answer”. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 16:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What. (Please don't confuse this for a question, this isn't going to go anywhere) Rehevkor ✉ 16:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Template {{Done}} is able to do what you want it to do. If you put, {{done|Acknowledged}}, it creates,  Acknowledged. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 22:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you already found that. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 22:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me. I am asking where to propose or create new templates. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is Help:Template#Creating_and_editing_templates and Wikipedia:Requested_templates. Still, it seems like a lot when piping "Acknowledged" will do the same thing - frankie (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What does “it seems like a lot” mean? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of work to do to create a new template when there is already one that does the same thing. Above I understood your question, I was just trying to answer your original question. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

sandbox

Hi. What are the rules for your own user sandbox? Are they the same as the community sandbox? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The rules are basically the same, you can do anything you want except you still can't add unreferenced negative information about living people. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy is here. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules that apply to your own sandbox are those for userspace (see Wikipedia:User pages). Especially see What may I have in my user pages? for what is allowed in userspace and What may I not have in my user pages? for what is not allowed in userspace. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also don't post material that violates copyright. RJFJR (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I <del></del> the somewhat disputable info? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)