User talk:BethANZ

This user is a participant in WikiProject English Royalty

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Women's History.

Hello. I am an archaeologist, historian, lecturer and author. My working life has been spent trying to make the past interesting, to bring it 'to life' for the present day, while preserving complete accuracy and relevance. In my teaching I have covered areas from the origins of homo sapiens to modern history. I am also interested in the history of women in different periods, locations and classes of society. Recently I have been updating research on Blanche Parry, the confidante of Queen Elizabeth I. I am very happy to help, where I can, anyone who is seeking information and evidence about the past. I cannot help with formatting though - sorry. I am very happy to discuss people and issues. The reason I am placing this on here is that I am looking forward to receiving contributions from others as the past belongs to us all.BethANZ (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ

Welcome!

Hello, BethANZ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have been reverted because your sole purpose in editing seems to be to promote one Website (which doesn't appear to be a reliable source) which promotes books by one author. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble here is twofold. First of all, is that website reliable? You _say_ it is, but that's not really enough to convince anyone else. You might try Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard - but only if you can make a convincing argument that it _is_ reliable, more than mere assertion.

Secondly, as mentioned above, the main purpose of that website seems to be to sell a book by Ruth Richardson. This is not generally what we look for in reliable sources, and since you only edit to insert material from that Website, it makes you appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It did not go "to Wikipedia adjudication" or anything like that. One editor didn't like it much and one was willing to accept it was reliable, but with the caveat - almost a decade ago - that once the book was "used as a source in other works, or by other historians" it might be more useful. (I have no idea if that has happened; don't tell me, tell WP:RSN). This is not a resounding endorsement of its reliability.

I'm glad you are "happy to follow your advice to prove it" is reliable. WP:RSN is the place for that. However, you should also read WP:COI. On the face of it you appear to have a strong conflict of interest and the way you have ignored the previous suggestion that you might does not inspire confidence. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already recommended to you what to do next; go to WP:RSN and discuss whether this is a reliable source. I don't have anything to add to that. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Do you have some link to www.blancheparry.com?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd since a moment ago you were telling me you had no commercial conflict of interest. Now it turns out you run a website which promotes sales of a book. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BethANZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

DEAR EVERYONE: I AM SOLELY A RESEARCHER AND I BELIEVE IN FREELY AVAILABLE ACCURATE INFORMATION. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RATIONAL BEHIND ALL THIS. All I AM TRYING TO DO IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL, FULLY REFERENCED MATERIAL FOR ACADEMICS AND INTERESTED READERS. The information concerned is available on www.blancheparry.com This is a fully researched website that I have requested is accepted as reliable. It is my own website set up ONLY to make researched information available. I am astounded and upset that it seems to be thought an advertising site - please look at it and you will see that it is NOT advertising. The books that are mentioned bring together the research and both have cost me. Please what do you expect of me - shall I offer each individual, referenced article on its own? Surely it is better that I give the address where these can be freely accessed?BethANZ (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Decline reason:

You have spammed links to your website and this request gives no indication that you understand why it was problematic for you to do so or that you intend to change your ways. I'm glad you believe in freely available information but that doesn't mean you get to spam your website here. This request also does not address the serious conflict of interest you have in posting your own website as a source. For these reasons, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

COMMENTS: 1) I would like to see their editorial policy, and their editorial staff.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC

2)   'I couldn’t find one on the website. Nor is this information actually being added to the John of England article. The ally being added to the John of England article. Instead, the site is being added as a citation in already cited information...i.e. it’s being spammed into the article to promote the site. Even if reliable, the information is not useful for John’s article where the information is already well cited to mainstream academic works. It might be useful at an article on Dore Abbey,but even then it looks to be self-published to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

3) This does read like ian attempt to get the site "recognized".Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You are free to make whatever information you wish available on your own website. You don't have the right to spam it all over Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if the information is accurate or not. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABOVE: You have spammed links to your website and this request gives no indication that you understand why it was problematic for you to do so or that you intend to change your ways. I'm glad you believe in freely available information but that doesn't mean you get to spam your website here. This request also does not address the serious conflict of interest you have in posting your own website as a source. For these reasons, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have information that you feel should be in the article, you should cite it to wherever you or your website got the information from. If it comes from an independent reliable source, you should have little difficulty. If the information is your own conclusion, determination, or opinion, it is original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. Just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, any other third party website that gathers other information in one place is not a reliable source either. We need to know the actual source of the information. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Please see WP:PRIMARY for Wikipedia guidelines on primary sources. They generally can only be used in certain limited circumstances.
I'm not aware of what you are discussing, but if that is a primary source, again, please see the guidelines.
As you were told above by another user, the proper forum for determining if a source is reliable is WP:RSN.

If you wish, you are free to make another unblock request, though I cannot guarantee success. It will be reviewed by another administrator. You will need to directly address the reasons for your block and the comments by others on this page. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new round of unblock discussion

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BethANZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I should not have referred to the articles on my website but have given their references in documents. I understand I should not refer to my website as a source. There was also a misunderstanding over the term 'original' research which I understood to mean primary sources. I now understand what is required. I will not refer to information on my website but give the source information instead. My only aim is to inform people. I have no wish or intention to advertise.

As a separate issue I should be grateful if my website www.blancheparry.com could be termed as 'reliable' please as it is only there to help academics and interested readers. BethANZ (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but this unblock request pretty clearly shows that you do not understand what sources Wikipedia considers reliable. Even leaving your own website aside, that would be a serious issue. Furthermore, below you claim that you "have no intention (and never did have) to 'add my website to Wikipedia'." I checked four of your edits before the block to four different articles. In fully understand that kipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walterstone&diff=prev&oldid=839449085 every single one of them you added a link to your website. It's hard to reconcile that with "never had an intention to add my website to Wikipedia". This gets even worse when right in this unblock request you're still trying to have your website recognized as acceptable to be used as a reference on Wikipedia. It seems highly likely that, if you were unblocked, you'd continue to push for the use of your website on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia does not bestow or remove "reliability" status from websites or sources. The criteria for reliability is explained here; ...self-published media are largely not acceptable. Requesting that your website be deemed "reliable" in your unblock request is probably not a good idea, as it suggests that your ultimate goal is to continue adding your website to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This deepens the concern for WP:Nothere. You might want to consider WP:alternative outlets.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new round of unblock discussion

You already have a request open, so you don't need to make another. The reviewer will see this. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to copy and paste the template instead of just writing your request, which alters the formatting. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

put these on a temp

For the record, I saw the text at the top of this section when reviewing the unblock request and took it into account. Huon (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Huon - I am very appreciative. BethANZ (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

DEAR EVERYONE: I HAVE HAD REPEATED E-MAILS SAYING THAT NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BUT I CANNOT SEE THEM. MY APOLOGIES IF THIS IS MY FAULT. I have myself removed the answers and comments I have made but I have left all comments made to me. I have summarised what has happened at the beginning of all this. I do ask to be unblocked please as I have said I understand my mistakes and I comply with Wikipedia's rules.BethANZ (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, why did you remove the unblock template? It's also not helpful that you removed a lot of the previous discussion and interspersed new comments all over the place. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise I had removed a template. I removed my own comments as the site was looking very untidy. I have not interspersed comments everywhere - I have only collected my comments together and tried to summarise the difficulties. I'll put these on the required template if you would be kind enough to tell me how please. Thank you. BethANZ (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Thank you [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie| - appreciated. My apologies for not being able to get back to you before this and also if I have written this in the wrong place. I shall follow the guidelines and I really look forward to joining the groups you mention as they are areas of interest to me. I have had a lovely offer from Deb to help me sort out the proposed Bacton Cloth entry. Otherwise in the next weeks I shall look closely at the Blanche Parry site and put in reliable references from 2009 where needed and where missing at the moment.

May I ask you a question please? I should like to discuss, without prejudice to myself, the issue of expert witnesses which was not an issue in earlier years. I heard a marvellous lecture this week about St. Augustine of Hippo. Further writings of his have recently been identified. Obviously, St. Augustine is possibly a minor topic for Wikipedia, therefore, the best person to explain how these identifications were made is the expert who did them. (I have no idea if this person wishes to do this - it is an example.) I suggest that there should be a procedure on Wikipedia to allow readers access to such new information. Where please could I discuss this sort of thing? BethANZ (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BethANZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What has happened was as follows: 1) I received an e-mail Welcoming me to Wikipedia and inviting me to contribute. This I thought was lovely so I did. 2) I understood (wrongly I see now) that a contributor is advised to use a nom-de-plume so I did. I thought it a mistake when I was asked if my website was mine as that meant giving my name. No conflict of interest was intended. I now realise that my assumption was incorrect and I confirm that the website: www.blancheparry.com is my website and that I am Ruth E. Richardson. 3) My website has two pieces of information that I thought might be of interest: (a) A referenced, accurate piece: 'King John & Dore Abbey' that readers of the Wikipedia sites on King John, Dore Abbey and Kilpeck Castle might find useful. (b) The transcript of a letter written to Lord Burghley about the burial of his cousin, which Burghley paid for, in Walterstone Church. Also on the same page is a photograph of the Cecil coat-of-arms which was moved to this Church. I thought this would be useful to those reading about Walterstone Church, Lord Burghley and the Cecil family. 4) As Wikipedia says it uses material that is online I proceeded to use my website simply, and only, as a convenient source for these two pieces of information above. As I made short references on relevant sites (as named above) this was the reason why I was told that I had 'placed spam (it) all over Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if the information is accurate or not.' I now agree not to mention my website. 5) Almost immediately after I contributed the information I found: 'They have been reverted because your sole purpose in editing seems to be to promote one Website (which doesn't appear to be a reliable source) which promotes books by one author.' 6) This left me with two issues concerning my website: (a) The questioning of the perceived reliability of my website, which took years of meticulous research to ensure accuracy. This is why I asked for my website to be declared 'reliable' please. This issue was resolved when I was told that Wikipedia does not bestow or remove "reliability" status from websites or sources. Thank you - this has solved this for me. (b) I have Reviews on my website which discuss many books. I am happy to include other books and papers provided they are properly referenced. My own two books are mentioned but the aim of the website is to provide, for free, additional material to that already published in book form. This extra material is the major part of the website. 7) I also admit that I misunderstood the use of the word 'original' on Wikipedia. 'If you have information that you feel should be in the article, you should cite it to wherever you or your website got the information from. If it comes from an independent reliable source, you should have little difficulty. If the information is your own conclusion, determination, or opinion, it is original research and not suitable for Wikipedia.' I was taught that the definition of original research was never my own conclusion, determination, nor opinion. Original research meant accessing, and giving, the source of the information from primary documents. Any information printed in books is second-hand. Nevertheless, I pointed out the misunderstanding and said I would agree to abide by Wikipedia rules. I have the greatest respect for Wikipedia's claim to accuracy and there is no way I would undermine it. I now fully understand the points that have been made to me. I have stated this.PLEASE UNBLOCK AS the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead.BethANZ (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking you on the conditions outlined below. Hopefully it's clear from the lengthy discussion below what sort of edits will result in a reblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THE PAGE ON BLANCHE PARRY HAS BEEN CHANGED AND HAS NOW HAS ERRORS, INCLUDING THE PORTRAIT WHICH IS NOT OF BLANCHE PARRY. AS A MATTER OF URGENCY PLEASE RETURN TO FORMER TEXT.BethANZ (talk) he09:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

I have restored a couple of declined unblock requests which seem to have been lost in the confusing editing of this talk page. Declined unblock requests should not be removed while the block is active. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking please that the text is restored as a matter of urgency. Re the purported portrait of Blanche Parry it is unfortunately of an Unknown Elizabethan Lady. The National Trust have notes about this but have not changed the designation attached to the portrait. It was only redesignated (wrongly) to being Blanche Parry relatively recently. The portrait was painted when Blanche was an old lady and is also very unlikely to be by this painter. I am not really concerned about this at the moment but I am concerned about the misleading and erroneous text. In addition the references no longer include my biography of Blanche, which has been accepted as accurate. Please check the references in, for example, Borman, and you will see she is quoting my research.BethANZ (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]
That is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page, not here. All you should be doing here is working to get yourself unblocked (which at the moment probably just means waiting for your latest unblock request to be reviewed). Once you can get yourself unblocked, then you can edit the article, and should discuss any contested changes on its talk page and seek consensus. And please, stop with the bold, italics and caps - we can all read here, and it just makes you look shouty and demanding. There really is no urgency here - she's been dead long enough and it's not going to do her any harm. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Blanche has been dead a long time and was forgotten from history. Her story is now academically accepted. This is why it is frustrating that on the 8th May 2018 the text was altered. I do apologise for sounding shouty and demanding - it is just that I like accurate information to be available. So, there is urgency in that Wikipedia's aim is for accuracy. Please return the text to what it was. This is not about me - that would be silly - All I am concerned about is providing accurate informationBethANZ (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

No, nobody here is going to revert the article, as that is not the point of an unblock review. As I said, that is something you can work on yourself once you have achieved an unblock. Please be patient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the text was not altered on May 8. The only change was to remove your self-promotion: [1]. The article itself did not change at all. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This, and Notes Above, Relate to the Article on Blanche Parry: With due respect this article was most definitely changed. For instance it now erroneously says her father was Henry Parry, a name he would not have recognised. 'Blanche was the daughter of Harry ap Miles of Newcourt...' This was fully explained and yet has been changed by someone with no knowledge of Welsh nomenclature. I only wish I had noticed what had happened earlier as it is so unfortunate that readers have been given wrong, and partial, information. It is immensely unfortunate that properly researched and attested articles can be so changed in this way. I support Wikipedia's aim of providing accessible, ACCURATE, information. I hope this unfortunate debacle can be resolved as soon as possible and, if necessary, please pass my views as high up the hierarchy as necessary. Thank you.BethANZ (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

You already have an unblock request outstanding, and changing other comments into additional unblock requests will not help, so please do not do that. Admins are all volunteers, and you are not the only one waiting for an unblock request to be reviewed - you will just have to be patient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate what you are saying but, with all due and sincere respect, this is fine when it only concerned the two pieces of research mentioned in the blue area above. All I was trying to do there was to make some additional information available. However, it now concerns the Blanche Parry article which has had serious alterations that render an accurate, attested, properly written article inaccurate. I regret this situation and it is one I never thought to encounter on Wikipedia - I have immense respect for Wikipedia but there should be some way to prevent alterations in this way which change an article so badly. I am happy to take this as far up the hierarchy as possible. There is no point to Wikipedia unless the information is accurate and remains accurate.BethANZ (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Read very carefully. You asserted that the article was changed to the wrong version on May 8. Do you now accept that your statement was categorically wrong? The difference link I showed encompasses the May 8 change up to the current version. Your self-promotion is removed, and that is it. Nothing else changed. From the history we can see the totality of changes since your last edit. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article last read accurately on 21:18, 28 January 2018. However, after that the Epigraph from Bacton Church was added which was good. One or two other changes need to be made, particularly about Lionel Cust. I do accept that I am at fault for not keeping a closer eye on it - I thought it would be added to and not materially altered. The 8th May alteration was a major one leaving the remaining facts in the article without references that could be checked. I don't want to upset anyone, or cause trouble for anyone, so I am not mentioning the persons involved. It needs a more general option here I think - for changes to be checked before being allowed. I do know what I am talking about with Blanche Parry as I am the recognised expert on her. I am always happy to consider additional information that is properly referenced - indeed I am hoping further information will come to light. Indeed recently a new portrait relating to her has been found in the USA. I have been widely consulted about Blanche Parry and I have lectured for many years about her. If you would reinstate the 21:18, 28 January 2018 version, which has correct references, I will gladly go through the changes then made up to 8th May and include those that are accurate.BethANZ (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]
- These comments are concerning; I'd suggest that you carefully read WP:OWN and acknowledge that you fully understand that policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. I know - that is why I contributed: in order to extend knowledge. I am at fault for not noticing before the

minor changes that I could discuss and then the very major change which removed references. I don't own the site - I don't want to - I do want it to be accurate. I apologise for not noticing what had happened earlier. Please allow me to reinstate accuracy to the site and to amicably discuss points with anyone interested.BethANZ (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Thank you for deciding to take ownership of the Wikipedia article on this subject and offer to approve or veto each edit, however, that is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect I have not said this. I have simply pointed out that I have written an accurate article and that I put it on Wikipedia with the express purpose of hoping to attract new, referenced information. Believe me I feel utterly beaten and battered by all this and I would simply like the chance to examine the Blanche Parry site and refine it. I can see myself where unnecessary points need to be removed. So please unblock me and give me this chance. Put me on probation if you wish. I absolutely support Wikipedia's aims.BethANZ (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

No, you wrote an article that you assert is the sole correct version. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia of factual information. That is what I offered, properly researched and referenced. Of course new information may be found and that is the second point of placing an article on Wikipedia. Blanche Parry had been overlooked for several reasons and I was delighted to be able to bring her to the notice of anyone interested. I have constantly appealed for new information and a lot more has now been found. The version I mentioned is the last one with proper references and the proper name of her father. That is all. That version would be the easiest one to which to add the other points later made. Again that is all. I am striving to be polite, as I should be, but it is very hard to be constantly misunderstood. So please unblock me and give me this chance. Put me on probation if you wish. I absolutely support Wikipedia's aims.BethANZ (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

When you say "proper references," are you specifically referring to references to the book that you wrote? Your book may some day be regarded as a "definitive" source on the subject, but Wikipedia isn't about cutting-edge research. Do you have any sources independent of your book to support your claims that meet WP:RS guidelines? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All are correct references and most certainly no longer cutting edge research. There are now many sources of information as you can see from the References included. My book was previously accepted as a logical contribution to the text and, as it is now widely quoted there is no reason at all not to include it now. BethANZ (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)It would make a very odd article not to include the accepted major book on a subject. My book is now recognised as the definitive account but, as with any account, more information may be found after publication. These will be from reliable sources too. Wikipedia is about making factual, referenced facts available. Please note: facts not supposition. There has also been a recent radio programme about Blanche Parry. So please unblock me and give me this chance. Put me on probation if you wish. I absolutely support Wikipedia's aims.BethANZ (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

I appeal to everyone for the courtesy to believe my good intentions. I applaud Wikipedia's aims and I whole-heartedly agree with them. This is precisely why I have contributed. I am not self-promoting and I suggest repetition of this falsity is not logical. I realise I needed to alter the way I wrote and, after all this, I shall be ultra careful. I shall concentrate entirely on referenced facts. I have learned the lesson. So please unblock me and give me this chance. Put me on probation if you wish. I absolutely support Wikipedia's aims.BethANZ (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Please stop the use of all capital letters ("PLEASE UNBLOCK"), unnecessary bolded text, or other unnecessary formatting you use to get your points across. We can all read what you are writing. I've already reviewed this matter and so I will defer to other administrators and accept their decision, but I would tend to lean against an unblock based on what I am reading here. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies that I did not realise one should not use block letters in the summary either. I am doing my best to provide factual information in accordance with Wikipedia's aims. If one has acknowledged the reasons put forward for the blocking - which I sincerely do - and have committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines - which I categorically and absolutely will do - then I ask to be unblocked please.BethANZ (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]
Question' If unblocked, can you describe specifically the edits you would make? If your intention is to restore the references to your book that have been appropriately removed, you'd be immediately blocked. If you began edit warring over whether or not this illustration belongs here, you would be reblocked. As it stands, that illustration is backed by a description at an accredited museum. OhNoitsJamie but^Talk 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been completely honest with you. Re Blanche Parry I will ensure that proper references are included. At the moment facts are given without references that allow them to be checked. I shall include my book as it is now quoted by other sources as the definitive work. I shall reinstate her father's name, explaining that, however, 'Henry Parry' does appear on her monument in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, though this was carved six years after Blanche's death and, in his terms, he was wrongly named. I shall carefully check the text and ensure that facts are verifiable. Re the illustration I intend to leave it alone - as I did before. I have had communication with Tredegar House Museum in the past, before the house became the property of The National Trust, about the date and provenance of the portrait. I was told, in writing, by the Museum that it was actually the portrait of an Unknown Elizabethan Lady by Frederico Zuccaro and the date of painting was in the 1570s. It is interesting that Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger is now suggested. However, the date given on the website is c.1590 and Blanche died on Thursday, 12 February 1590 (modern dating), aged 82 years. It is an interesting conundrum. I had intended before all this to discuss the matter with The National Trust. The portrait is of considerable interest and I should be delighted if it was of Blanche Parry. If The National Trust come to some decision about it that could be placed on Wikipedia then I will follow that up but, as I said, I have no intention of doing anything until the facts are properly discussed with The National Trust. It would not be fair to do so as the person who placed it on the website did it in all good faith. BethANZ (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

That you are still intending to re-add your book as a reference does not bode well for your chances of unblock. We simply can't take your word for it that you are sole recognized authority on the topic, even if that may be the case. It may be helpful for you to read WP:EXPERT. Establishing your credentials may be a little bit more difficult if you're not affiliated with an academic or professional institution. You'll see in WP:EXPERT that even recognized academic authorities have to abide by our policies and be mindful of WP:COI. For now, I don't think there's much chance of you being unblocked unless you agree to not cite your own book. If you want to add content or change content, you'll need to find other reliable sources. Saying you have a letter from a museum or something like that isn't going to cut it either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is a Catch-22 situation. I can site the reliable source material for each fact mentioned. Of course these are all given in my recognised authoritative book. However, I do not need to use my book as I can site the reliable sources for each and every fact. At moment unsupported facts are on the website. The modern books sited use my research and all the authors acknowledge this. Re the illustration: May I please repeat I am not going to change anything. I shall discuss the information they have available with the Museum as I am interested in what they have now. I regret I am being misunderstood over this. I seem to be defending myself against negativity all the time which is not logical. I should be glad to join your administrative volunteers to help scrutinize other entries for unsupported facts, under supervision of course; I would always ask for second or third opinions. Please tell me how to apply. I have always supported the aims of Wikipedia and this situation has been, and is, an immense and upsetting shock for me.BethANZ (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Unblock conditions

- A potential way forward First of all, one does not simply sign up to be an admin. See WP:RFA for how that works. Unless there are objections from other admins, I'd be willing to consider an unblock if you can agree to the following (and make it crystal clear that you fully understand what you're agreeing to):
  - (1) For now, you will not cite your own book or your own website as a source, regardless of what merits you or others think they have, per our WP:COI policy.
  - (2) You agree to not edit war, especially WP:3RR, even if you're 100% sure you're right about something, and explain that you are very clear with how Bold/Revert/Discuss works. Rushing back in and reverting something that you feel is "urgent" (like removing the portrait) will likely end up with you being blocked again.
  - (3) Regarding the article you'd like to create below, agree to go through the articles for creation process. You'll need to be able to accept rejection if someone tells you that your first draft has issues (sourcing, etc), even if you think it's fine.
  - (4) Carefully read advise for expert editors. After you've done that, you could identify who you are on your userpage. I think it'd be fine to link to this article and others from reputable sources that establish your background. For now, please avoid anything that appears to be an advertisement for your book, however, as you've gotten off on the wrong foot with that sort of thing.
  - (5) Join Wikipedia:WikiProject_English_Royalty and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. Ask for help and guidance on those project pages (something like, "Hi, my name is Ruth, I've done a lot of research on Blanche Parry and even written a book about it that's been covered by the BBC and other sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'd like some help and guidance in adding material from my research that conforms to WP:COI and WP:Reliable sources policies.
  - There's a lot of policy material to review there, but it's important that you're solid on it before anyone would consider unblocking you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with your judgement on this, and your conditions. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried twice to convey my sincere thanks to you for this constructive approach. I have been blocked from replying and I am blocked from following your advice in (5) above. I have no idea how I make my understanding crystal clear or solid - I really want to do both but I do not know in what way I can convince anyone. I have the highest regard for the aims of Wikipedia, and I always will have. I only want to make information freely available so that others can use it and add to it. I particularly look forward to having discussions on the two sites mentioned in (5). I will try again to study the recommendations above in a few days. I cannot now as I have a lecture to prepare.BethANZ (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Oh dear I am completely 'thrown' by all this - my last sentence above means that I promise to study the recommendations but it is just that I am unable to do so at the moment. May I say please that all this started over my own fault, which I have and do, acknowledge re my website (see above please in my summary of events). I clearly, solidly, sincerely agree not to site my website as a source.
However, the situation has escalated to include Blanche Parry's biography which was published eleven years ago in 2007. The talk page of Blanche Parry shows that it was allowed to be used as a source. If you wish I will give all the sources of information used as references instead - of course I will and can - but surely a published book, highly respected for eleven years and allowed to be used on Wikipedia for nine years - can be again sited in the very near future? I should be grateful if you would help me here please.
As several people consider I have transgressed I am sincerely sorry and I mean this absolutely. I was told not to reveal my name so I did not (though now I have of course). I meant no conflict of interest. I simply, genuinely and utterly sincerely want to follow Wikipedia's aims - I always have and always will. Apologies I have to stop now because of this lecture.BethANZ (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Comments moved from top

THE PAGE ON BLANCHE PARRY HAS BEEN CHANGED AND HAS NOW HAS ERRORS, INCLUDING THE PORTRAIT WHICH IS NOT OF BLANCHE PARRY. AS A MATTER OF URGENCY PLEASE RETURN TO FORMER TEXT.

The text has not changed and neither has the picture. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, please don't use all capital letters; that is generally considered yelling. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I am not 'yelling' at anyone in particular but in total frustration that a totally accurate and carefully crafted page has indeed been changed. I am not sure when or by whom but it has absolutely been changed. So please return it. The latest accurate page had several photographs on it including the inaccurate picture which I had not altered. I really am utterly appalled that this has been changed - so PLEASE change it back BethANZ (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

This edit added a new portrait, which is taken from here. It's labeled as "Blanche Parry (1508–1590), Marcus Gheeraerts the younger (1561/1562–1635/1636) (possibly), National Trust, Tredegar House". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bacton Altar Cloth

Extended content

For several months I have been working on this new draft entry. I now submit it for consideration please:

New Wikipedia entry: The Bacton Altar Cloth

At her death Queen Elizabeth I's extensive Wardrobe of Robes [1] contained 1,900 dresses with accompanying jewels and accessories. None has survived intact. In 2015 the Bacton Altar Cloth, an embroidery associated with Blanche Parry, was taken to Hampton Court Palace for conservation. Already recognised as important [2], close examination showed it to be a unique survival. Originally part of one of the Queen's dresses, the alteration to fit an altar saved it from destruction. It is the only known surviving cloth from a dress worn by Queen Elizabeth I. The conservators [3] have also discovered that it is unique survival of an expensive cloth which has been directly embroidered without the use of appliqué.

Contents

1 Size and Shape of the Embroidery 2 Description 3 Conclusion 4 References

Size and Shape of the Embroidery

Its dimensions [3] are a central panel, measuring length 105 cms. (c. 41 inches) by width 53 cms (c. 21 inches) that would have lain on the flat top of the altar. The back 'flap' is length 105 cms by depth 11 cms (c. 4 inches). The front panel is length 105 cms by depth 52 cms (c. 20 inches). Each of the side panels is 53 cms by depth 52 cms. The depth is exactly the same on the three sides that would be visible to the congregation. This depth does not allow for the altar to stand on the ground where it would be far too low for ease of use. So the conclusion from these dimensions is that the embroidery was cut to cover a free-standing altar that stood on a table and was against a wall or, possibly, a reredos. This size altar was a Ridley Altar, named for Bishop Nicholas Ridley (martyr).

Description

The fabric is extremely fine being a weft of white, or cream, silk threads with a warp of silver wire threads [4]. This was called silver chamblet (or chamlet, or camlet) [5]. To directly embroider onto such a delicate and expensive fabric is very, very difficult and demonstrates the skill of the embroiderer. This technique had not previously been thought possible. There are two separately embroidered series of motifs. The first series has been described as 'professionally' embroidered with flowers including sprigs of columbine and vine, daffodils, roses, honeysuckle, oak-leaves, acorns, mistletoe and squirrels. The second series of motifs has been described as embroidered by a 'gifted amateur'. These include tiny birds, butterflies, caterpillars, fish, dogs, stags, a bear, frogs, squirrels, dragonflies, sea monsters and tiny rowing boats with minuscule occupants. These motifs are currently all being carefully researched and more information will be available in due course.

Conclusion

This embroidery was given to Bacton Church in memory of Blanche Parry. It is recognised as unique for two reasons: - as the only surviving section of a dress belonging to Queen Elizabeth I - and also for being the only surviving cloth of this date and quality in the world with direct embroidery.

References

- Arnold, Janet, 'Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd', 1988, reprinted 1991, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2008, 2014 - Richardson, Ruth Elizabeth, 'Mistress Blanche Queen Elizabeth I's Confidante', Logaston Press, 2007/18, p 62 - taken on 17th December 2015 when it was removed from Bacton Church to Hampton Court Palace - information from Eleri Lynn, Dress Collections Curator at the Historic Royal Palaces - Arnold, 2014, p 361 - Statute issued at Greenwich, 15 June 1574 - Lynn, Eleri, 'Tudor Fashion', Yale University Press in association with Historic Palaces, pp. 97-99, 154, 158, 168-171

This article is completely verifiable. I have not been able to properly include the Reference numbers which needs doing. I should be grateful for consideration.BethANZ (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi. I have some sympathy for your position. You have effectively "outed" yourself as the author of several works which you've been introducing as references into articles here. It is understandable, if you are a recognised authority on the subject, that you would want to do this, and in the early days of wikipedia it would have been allowed. However, this represents a conflict of interest, and some of your comments suggest that you don't understand that you can't "own" an article and expect it not to be changed by others, even when you may not think the changes are to the better. Furthermore, if articles are based solely on your own research, they may lack the notability and verifiability that is required. At the moment, the article about the altar cloth isn't in the style we would expect either. For example, "To directly embroider onto such a delicate and expensive fabric is very, very difficult and demonstrates the skill of the embroiderer" is not a neutral statement, it's a statement of opinion. Nevertheless, the article may meet the criteria for inclusion. I believe you can still edit your sandbox, and you could draft it there and ask for assistance from other editors in bringing it up to standard. E-mail me if you are having difficulty with any of this. Deb (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Deb - I am truly grateful for your kind e-mail and I gladly accept your help. My apologies that I could not get back to you before this. To take your points in reverse order if I may:
(1) I will put the article back in the draft area (is this the sandbox please?) as you suggest and I am glad for help to get it into order. The sentence you quote isn't my opinion by the way but of expert conservators of The Royal School of Needlework and of all the eminent textile historian experts (including from museums around the world) who have seen the Cloth.
(2) I am sorry to have given the impression that I did not accept articles can be altered by others. I fully accept that they can and that I can discuss these changes and come to a consensus. That is what Wikipedia is for and why I contributed in the first place.
(3) As you realise I contributed years ago and have now only just returned to Wikipedia - and I can assure you that after all this I shall be immensely careful. If I have outed myself then so be it. I do understand why some topics could lead to people being hassled etc. (which is awful) but the areas of my interest are rather rarefied I expect. I have put this above:

Thank you Ohnoitsjamie - appreciated. My apologies for not being able to get back to you before this and also if I have written this in the wrong place. I shall follow the guidelines and I really look forward to joining the groups you mention as they are areas of interest to me. I have had a lovely offer from Deb to help me sort out the proposed Bacton Cloth entry. Otherwise in the next weeks I shall look closely at the Blanche Parry site and put in reliable references from 2009 where needed and where missing at the moment.

May I ask you a question please? I should like to discuss, without prejudice to myself, the issue of expert witnesses which was not an issue in earlier years. I heard a marvellous lecture this week about St. Augustine of Hippo. Further writings of his have recently been identified. Obviously, St. Augustine is possibly a minor topic for Wikipedia, therefore, the best person to explain how these identifications were made is the expert who did them. (I have no idea if this person wishes to do this - it is an example.) I suggest that there should be a procedure on Wikipedia to allow readers access to such new information. Where please could I discuss this sort of thing?

Thank you again Deb. I look forward to working with you. BethANZ (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:BethANZ/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:BethANZ/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BethANZ! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will leave this article on Draft please as in due course the notability of this Cloth (The Bacton Cloth, also known as The Blanche Parry Embroidery) will become apparent. It is to be the focus of a major UK exhibition and being shown in the USA is, I understand, under discussion. It is considered a unique survival. I should welcome suggestions concerning the article when appropriate and convenient for you.BethANZ (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

About User:BethANZ/sandbox

Hi BethANZ,
I have WP:BOLDly re-written your sandbox. It now contains text solely referenced from independent reliable third party sources.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of you to have-a-go at this but, with due respect, there is nothing much left! The Bacton Altar Cloth is unique for the two reasons duly explained. The draft was refused because the person said the Cloth isn't sufficiently notable. This actually is not correct. The Cloth is immensely notable and has been described as the Leonardo da Vinci of the textile world! Any entry also needs a proper description. Wikipedia, to mean anything, should have accurate articles, properly referenced of course, and with factual detail. Thank you again but there doesn't seem much point to your version, though I do appreciate your kind efforts. Presumably the entry will have to wait until Wikipedia 'catches up'.BethANZ (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

The version that Shirt58 has a number of improvements, including (1) Fixed bad wiki formatting (e.g., creating large wikilinks to targets that didn't exist (2) proper use of and formatting of citations, and (3) removed text that was not explicitly covered in the supplied sources that meet policy guidelines. For example, "Information from Eleri Lynn, Dress Collections Curator at the Historic Royal Palace" does not meet our verifiability policy. Spoken/verbal sources aren't considered to be verifiable unless the audio/video has been captured and published somewhere, or a transcript was made and published. Regarding your comments about notability, the subject of this article would fall under general notability guidelines, the central question being "has the subject/topic been covered in depth in multiple reliable sources? Shirt58 has added three good sources that meet those guidelines; this aritcle in Smithsonian Magazine could be another. If you want to fill out the article more, you'll need to draw directly from those sources or sources like those. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the sources from Shirt58 and from you are great and need to be additions to the article. Surely Wikipedia readers should be able to receive factual, referenced details too? From time-to time I have looked at a range of Wikipedia entries. Some are of more use as the references are often more reliable. Others, though, have omissions which are odd but presumably result from those cognisant with reliable facts have not contributed. BethANZ (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Is there any precedent for altar cloths being made from discarded clothing? Given the religious passions of the time this seems more than a little implausible. Guy (Help!) 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has investigated this as a topic as yet. It would probably be impossible to do this as any reliable sample would be tiny. You have actually pin-pointed another significant fact about this Cloth. There is no doubt now this Cloth came from the frontispiece of a dress worn by Queen Elizabeth I. It survived because it was made into an Altar Cloth. There is nothing like it in the V&A, the Metropolitan in New York, in Berlin, St. Petersburg, anywhere. All authorities who have seen it consider it unique.BethANZ (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]

Right. So it's conjecture. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact the very opposite. 'Conjecture is a word to use when you are not sure of something and have to "guess or surmise." You can see how the word conjecture means that you create a theory or opinion about something without basing it in fact because the original definition of conjecture, from Old French, is "interpretation of signs and omens."'

Definition given online. Everything written about the Bacton Altar Cloth is based on facts and comes from people who know what they are talking about.

Perhaps I could suggest that Wikipedia considers a symbol, or similar, that could indicate a factual statement comes from a knowledgeable authority and not necessarily from secondary or even third-removed sources. This would allow accurate facts to be included on Wikipedia but with the proviso that the source is perhaps a single expert or even multiple experts. Just a suggestion that would allow the participation of those who really understand a topic and do know what they are talking about. This would still allow others to participate as experts who do not accept contributions from others would not take part anyway. Everyone, including such experts, could argue their case on the relevant Talk pages.BethANZ (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ[reply]
- As that flies in the face of our our verifiability policy, that's not likely to happen. You may want to explore Wikiversity, specifically their research portal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:BethANZ vs User:BethANZ

Hi BethANZ; usually people user their talk page (User talk:BethANZ for communication, and the user page (e.g., User:BethANZ) just to have a blurb about themselves. It's not even necessary to have anything on your user page if you don't want to. You're free to add a blurb to your talk page as well if you like. Here's the policy link about user and talk pages: Wikipedia:User_pages#Terminology_and_page_locations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]