User talk:Tony Holkham

For messages older than 6 months, or concluded discussions, please see Archive

• To leave me a message about something not covered below, please click on the + tab above, put the subject in the subject line and your message in the main box below.
• If you want to add to the discussion on a particular topic listed below, click on edit by the subject heading and add your message after all the other entries. Indent your message using one more colon (:) than the previous entry so it stands out.
• Then sign your message with four tildes (~~~~) – that will automatically produce your user ID and the date. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony Holkham: Thank you for your interest and corrections in the Second Battle of St. Michaels. Here is my non-Wikipedia version of the "battle". British Rear Admiral Cockburn wanted to capture some deserters. He needed to punish them because discipline was a problem. British Colonel Thomas Sydney Beckwith's force was there simply to prevent American troops at St. Michaels from interfering. Cockburn was unable to find the deserters, but captured a few militia men that he later paroled. Beckwith did his job by preventing American interference. The Americans, after observing the withdrawal of Cockburn and Beckwith, thought they had prevented an attack on St. Michaels and driven away the British—a "victory" for the Americans. All of this seems obvious to me, but I could not find anything to cite. Instead, we have an American interpretation of what happened. TwoScars (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: Thanks for your message. I can see that the event could be seen from different perspectives but, as you say, without sources it's difficult. It might be worth trying again to engage on the article's talk page, but with fewer than 30 watchers, there may not be much interest, but you never know. All the best, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just regarding your revert here [1], could we maybe then use a different term than "national identity" ? I'm not sure to which bit you're referring later on, because there's no mention of "national identity" until Tryweryn in 1965? Yr Enw (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yr Enw - this belongs in Talk:Wales, so that other editors interested in your question can see it, so I have copied it there and will answer it there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the same to you Doc. Just moved house (took 6 months), so hope to be able to do more next year. Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long move! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Doc, it was via north Hampshire; we actually left Pembrokeshire in Nov 2021, very reluctantly, and it has taken two years to get settled. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to read on my Talk that you have at last got the move behind you, Tony. All the best for 2024!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Headley Down, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony - great to see you. I'll leave Pages 1861 to 1880 to you or we'll edit-clash. It would be nice to clear this on St David's Day! KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now going down Pages 1761 to 1780 - we'll meet somewhere! KJP1 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much I will get done as other things wanting my attention, but will press on for the moment. ;o)) Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, really appreciate the help. The end is definitely in sight! KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got to break off now, but will continue later if there's still some to be done. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugely appreciate it. I think there are only five entries left, which should be done before you're back! KJP1 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're done. Really, really appreciate your help. KJP1 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to offer a belated congrat.s on your GA for Pembrokeshire. Casting about for something new to get my teeth into, I looked at the county article for my own adopted county, Monmouthshire. Although some editors have done some good work, it’s not in great shape, with big chunks missing which I would have expected to see; Economy, Transport, Demographics, etc., etc. So I thought I would see how other Welsh Principal areas were handled, and came across Pembrokeshire. It’s a model! - and I’m not surprised it’s the only PA GA. I hope you will take it as a compliment if I shamelessly nick the structure, with proper attribution of course. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 - Thanks for your kind comments, and good luck with the GA quest. It's hard work and close collaboration, but nice to enjoy the process, and a source of pride to be involved in it. Not sure I'm up to it for the future, as I have been editing much less of late, but who knows? I'll be interested to see how Monmouthshire goes - it's not a county I know that well, but have driven through it many times. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir I am troubled by your comments while discussing lifeboat names, or unnamed.

I only started updating in November. Most lifeboat pages were found missing or needing up to date information, so I grabbed the bull by the horns, and started making updates. The most significant thing I have done, is rearrange fleet tables so they are all the same format, and added a whole section of Station Honours for nearly all pages.. I have added missing boats, ON numbers, class types etc as referenced by the LBES handbook, and added info such as 30-foot Self-righting (P&S), taking great care to maintain format. I do not wish to upset anyone.

Having not made any significant contribution for 5 years, this chap seems to have taken umbridge at my attempts to make updates.

I have had updates completely rewritten after just 12 minutes. I have suddenly found pages and tables rearranged while I'm mid edit. He has been trailing me around all the South West sites, making a point of changing every addition I have made, changing Unnamed to (No Name), changing class type to whatever he chooses - I believe the latest one is 'Standard Lifeboat', and making all tables sortable - even ones with only two entries. He is deleting entries to valid pages, such as 35ft 6in self-righting lifeboats. And in one case, he created a whole history of gallantry, so he could delete my Station Honours entry.

I'm not well acquainted sufficiently with Wiki to be able to raise a fuss and say vandalism.

I'm not a bad guy. I'm really very reasonable and care about what I do. I have now created a further 12 station pages, one on Steam-class lifeboats, one on Civil Service lifeboats, and created or amended all the D-class pages.

So please don't judge me by my profile notes, which are borne of the absolute nonsense I have endured from a fellow member of the group after only days into editing. MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ojsyork - I have read some of your discussions and remarks with (and about) other editors as a result of following some of the articles you have edited. Your repeating some of the difficulties here on my talk page only confirms my initial instinct not to join the discussion and increase the wordage. Thank you for the articles you have created, and good luck with your editing. If I may offer one piece of advice, it would be to remember above all else that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that may sometimes require us to compromise. I think that's key to happy editing. Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and advice.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]