User talk:Billwnsf

Billwnsf, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hello!
Hi Billwnsf, welcome to Wikipedia! I see we have similar interests. You might want to check out Wikiproject Military History. Have fun editing! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have written my firstn article in User:Billwnsf/sandbox and submitted it for review, after which a message appeared: Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sandbox (move) or Draft:Sandbox (move). Is this telling me I must move it? To which one should I move it? If I do move it, can I still edit it? Will I have to re-submit it? Thanks in anticipation.Billwnsf (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can move it if you want. It will be reviewed wherever it goes, and the "awaiting review" box goes with it, so no re-submission. Personally I would move it just to add the article name; "sandbox" does not really do much for it! User:Billwnsf/The 1920 Royal Navy Mission looks better, and tells the reviewer what the title is.   Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ronhjones for your quick reply. Just one more, if I move it, where can I find it to edit.?

As instructed above,I moved the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sandbox and now I am getting the following message: '''This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template.'''

I am now totally confused as what is required of me. I am reluctant to move it again as this would be a multiple re-direction. What is the user sandbox template???
 * Hi Billwnsf, I removed the userspace sandbox template for you with this edit. Don't worry, you're fine. Welcome to Wikipedia! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The 1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli was accepted
 The 1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! S.G.(GH) ping! 19:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

The 1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli
Grrr.. Black Hole of Baku is based on 1921 newspaper articles!! What should happen to it? I'm thinking of merging and redirecting it to your new article, removing most of the data. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Look carefully at my edit contributions history, after this edit, and you'll see how to redirect articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. User:Simon Harley is just about the senior late-C19th / early C20th Royal Navy editor on Wikipedia. He has an enormous fund of knowledge and a separate project, the 'Dreadnought Project' - based on quarrying in The National Archives. He has identified at your new article's talk page that it is mostly based on WP:OR. Suggest you engage with him on your new article's talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Black Hole of Baku is my work based on whatever I could find at the time. Happy for it to be merged: your article is really much better! Fantastic to see such a proliferation of new edits on this topic. My own topic of choice is small ships of the Royal Navy - converted trawlers, yachts, and the like. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Billwnsf, you may not be fully aware that Simon's concern is WP:Original Research. Forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know, but the problem is that only if someone goes to the archives can they verify your data. Would suggest you take a look at the WP:OR link above carefully. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are sure that the data is correct, use the source that supports that data. Some of the data in the original reports were true. I'm being a bit imprecise labeling all of the other sources as 'unreliable.' Also, check my initial note to Simon on the talkpage: I asked whether the whole thing could be moved to the Dreadnought Project. No doubt your next planned articles do rely to an extent on TNA sources; maybe they might be better placed there. The link to the Dreadnought Project is at User:Simon Harley, and I would actively encourage you two to collaborate. It's not all about Wikipedia, it's about expanding the body of knowledge. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)