User:Tony Holkham

Since citations are essential when editing, here are some of the sources I use to generate reliable references -

{{Short description|x}}
{{Commons category|x}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=MY}}
{{Under construction}} (assistance welcome)
{{In use}} (please don't edit for a while)
{{refimprove}} (more refs needed)
{{no footnotes}} (no inline refs)
{{More footnotes}} (insufficient inline refs)
{{unreferenced}}
{{lead too short}} {{done}} {{not done}} {{fixed}}
{{Reflist-talk}} (use on talk page to keep refs in relevant section)
{{nw}} (not watching) gives: (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)
no linked article - see [[WP:DDD]]
deleted social media feed - see [[WP:LINKSTOAVOID]]
deleted unsourced personal info - see [[WP:BLP]]
Too many similar images - see [[WP:NOTREPOSITORY]] (it's what Commons is for)
|static_image_alt = (some infoboxes) or alt = (article images) - alt text for images
|url-access=subscription (subscription required to access online)
RCAHMW Coflein template (Wales), as a reference:
<ref>{{Coflein|num= |desc= |access-date= }}</ref>
Listed building template (Wales), as a reference:
<ref>{{National Historic Assets of Wales|num= |desc= |grade= |access-date= }}</ref>
National Heritage List for England, as a reference:
<ref>{{NHLE|num= |desc= |grade= |access-date= }}</ref>
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography template (adds library/subscription required):
<ref>{{cite ODNB|first= |last= |title= |doi= |date= |url= }}</ref>
Open Domesday
X was listed in the Domesday Survey of 1086 in the ancient hundred of (hundred) as having n households: n cottagers, n villagers, n smallholders and n slaves; with ploughing land, woodland, meadows, a mill and a church, it had a value to the lord of the manor of £n.<ref name="Domesday">{{cite web|title=Open Domesday: X|url=|accessdate=X month 20nn}}</ref>

Wikipedia makes a distinction between policy and guideline. Here are some policies I (try to!) follow:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU
• Wikipedia:Civility

Good

• The pleasure of learning something new every day
• The good-natured and supportive people
• The almost infinite opportunities to contribute

Not so good

• Articles with no inline citations - how are you supposed to verify a statement?
• Edits by unregistered users (with a few exceptions)
• Vandalism - what's the point?

Having used Wikipedia a great deal for some years, and now contributing in a small way, I often see hints of hidden agenda in articles. The resource is edited by human beings and so it is very hard to keep personal views or bias out of it, as I have found when editing myself.

We are most likely to create or edit articles on subjects we are familiar with, and care about, and some sort of stance is inevitable.

Should we avoid editing these topics because we may be biased? That would be self-defeating. Wikipedia needs experts.

What it doesn't need, though, is anonymous (and often unsourced) editing, and it surprises me how much of this there is. I even wonder whether it should be restricted but, as a relative newcomer, that's not for me to judge. I am happy to contribute on the basis that some of my contributions may seem to be biased, but at least readers know who I am and where I stand, that I have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and any agenda I may show, intentionally or not, are in plain view.

Added to that, I enjoy the community of Wikipedia, and will continue editing so long as that remains true.

This list is a useful reminder of the minimum (B-class) to aim for in creating articles -

• 1.The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either ref> tags or citation templates such as cite web}} is required.
• 2.The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
• 3.The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
• 4.The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
• 5.The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
• 6.The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Another list to try to follow... Grammar and layout checklist

• The lead needs to adequately summarize the content of the article.
• There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article.
• Only make wikilinks that are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking and a word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section.
• Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. Image captions should not end with a full-stop if the caption does not form a complete sentence.
• Book references need the author, publisher, publishing date and page number.
• Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date, access date, language (if not English) and format (if a PDF file).
• Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources.
• Inline citations belong immediately after punctuation marks.
• Each "notable resident" needs a reference.
• Include lists only if they cannot be made into prose or their own article. Lists within prose should be avoided.
• Unspaced en dashes are used for ranges. Unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes are used for punctuation. The same applies to dashes in the footnotes. See WP:MOS#Dashes.
• " " (non-breaking space) should be typed between numbers and units.
• Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. If possible, use a conversion template, eg. {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}.
• Whole numbers under ten should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes.
• Sentences should not start with a numeral. Either recast the sentence or spell the number out.
• The words "current", "recent" and "to date" should be avoided as they become outdated.
• Southeast is one word (and may or may not be hyphenated). This does not apply when it is the name of an area, eg. South East England.
• In longer sentences, a comma may be needed before "and", "due to", "such as", "including", "as", "because" or "but".
• Full-stops are needed after each initial in someone's name.
• Avoid weasel words, such as "it is believed that", "is widely regarded as", "some have claimed".
• Avoid peacock terms, such as "beautiful", "famous", "popular", "well-known", "significant", "important" and "obvious".
• Avoid vague words, such as "various", "many", "several", "long" and "almost"
• Avoid phrases with redundant words, such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "available records show" and "in the year 2007".

There was a time when I thought it would be "cool" to see a Wikipedia article about me. Having got to know Wikipedia a little better, I realised it was a double-edged sword; perhaps even a poisoned chalice. Sure, there's the chance to become more widely known as a professional and sell more books. On the other hand, do I want my private life splattered on one of the web's most widely-used sites without any control over the content?

No. My private and working lives have always been separate. While there is inevitably some spill between the two, I currently have control over what leaks in either direction, and I like it that way. I have had a life, and of course there have been positives and negatives in it - things of which I'm proud, and equally things about which I'm not. Everyone's life is like that.

But to have to constantly check whether what is said about me in this marvellous encyclopedia? To wonder whether it is balanced? To wonder whether it is fair? No again. What is important about Wikipedia, I think, is that it grows as a useful, unbiased and trusted non-commercial resource for writers like me to check established facts and glean ideas to use in my creative work. To have an article about me would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

So I don't think it would be "cool" after all.

(I have, however, added brief biographical details below)

Tony Holkham was born in a Nissen hut in Mitcham, Surrey in 1948. His parents had married in 1944 while serving in the Royal Navy during World War 2. They moved house quite frequently and Holkham was educated at three different primary schools, then Godalming Grammar School and (for the rest of his secondary education) Churcher's College, Petersfield, Hampshire.

Holkham's father was a civil servant, originally with the Crown Agents and subsequently involved with aviation projects such as BAC TSR-2, Panavia Tornado and Concorde; Holkham's mother was educated at Withington Girls' School and, having trained in librarianship and (until the war intervened) architecture, became what was quaintly known as a housewife, but she found time to raise three children, do part-time secretarial work, organise student exchanges, create gardens, play the piano, write poetry and keep a diary.

Living in the country for most of his life and encouraged by family, friends and school, Holkham developed a love of the natural world, the written word and all things maritime, geographical, historical, genealogical and musical. After three years working for a bank, then 21 as a technical writer for ICI, Holkham became a consultant in 1990 and, eventually, a full-time writer. Although now drawing a pension, Holkham has no plans to retire.