I would be interested in helping me in a book series, or a document WikiProject, if any one already knows a project, help me into editing and allowing a project where maybe confirmed users can allow edits of famous lost notes, ballads, and constitutions, to keep them locked, and used for further notes, I know they maybe compact usually on the internet over years, however, for Wikipedia, it's already there on the main page on every major web browser, this site can keep documents such as Magna Carta, Hammurabi, Le Prophecies of Nostradamus, Ozymandias, and condense the verses better then most websites, and keep different chapters, otherwise, I am hoping under WP:Notability and other policies the document articles for creation noticeboard would offer it if possible. Thanks and please comment on my page if you wish--GoShow (...............) 00:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place you're looking for may be WikiSource, a sister project dedicated to housing source documents; it already has the Magna Carta in Latin and in an English translation, the Code of Hammurabi in two different translations and a transliteration, Les Propheties by Nostradamus in an English translation (the French text seems incomplete), and two related but different poems named Ozymandias). Huon (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right thanks--GoShow (............................) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to create another sandbox page, while an article is awaiting review?

saraevens7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraevens7 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are various easy ways: You can simply enter the desired name of further sandboxes (such as User:Saraevens7/sandbox2 or User:Saraevens7/Name of proposed article or whatever) into search box and it should give you the option to create the pages. Or you can create your user page and insert redlinks to the desired sandboxes (by adding code like [[User:Saraevens7/sandbox2]]; that's how I created the redlinks in this message); clicking the redlinks should also give you the option to create the pages. If those sandboxes are meant for article drafts, you can also use the Article Wizard and create a page in AfC space (ie at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Name of the proposed article or the like) instead of in your userspace. Finally, reviewers (or maybe even a bot, but that's apparently overworked) might move your current sandbox into AfC space, leaving your sandbox usable again (initially it will be a redirect to the moved draft, but it can be changed into something else again). If you prefer the last method, please drop me a line and I'll perform the move.

On an unrelated note, the draft currently in your sandbox does not cite a single reliable source that is independent of the subject. Significant coverage in such sources is necessary both to establish the topic's notability and to allow our readers to verify the article's content; without such sources the draft will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox is clear. We just can not move them fast enough. --  :- ) Don 04:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this comment on the main page (WIKIPEDIA TALK: Articles for creation...)

"Comment: Not being an expert on the subject or the Jargon and not having read every word of each article, it seems the me that this article covers the same area as Site-specific recombination. Site-specific recombination is more basic and generalized, this article is more technical and detailed. Site-specific recombinase technology seems to be the explanation of one specific method. My guess is that all three could be combined, but probably this article and site-specific recombination. My two cents. -- :- ) Don 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)"

Regarding the fact that "Site sprecific recombinase technology" is short, that it covers just one topic (Cre-recombinase), needed references and that I added minor updates, I would be willing to combine it with my contribution. The joint header could be "SITE-SPECIFIC RECOMBIBNASE TECHNOLOGY" considerably expanding its scope.

Cross-reference to "Site-specific recombination" is already part of my contribution and I agree with the statement that it is more basic and general. Juergen Bode (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. This isn't really a question, nor does it require any action from the people at Articles for creation, does it? All the proposed changes are regular editing. Huon (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]