Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ashley Wood, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. According to his own site he has two sons (http://ashleybambaland.blogspot.com/) you changed this to three children without any sources. When talking about the number of children somebody has and without any evidence to the contrary, I believe we can take the subject of the article as a verifiable source B1atv 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am copying below a response from User:Bambaland from my user talk page - conversations are best held in one place. B1atv 11:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - you have just convinced me as to why we will in future keep all bios and information strictly to our webpages and not place relevant information on Wikipedia. Excuse us for attempting to keep fans and the curious updated with our progress, as information provided by the fans who originally put the page together hasn't been the most accurate. We are the horses mouth and are completely verifiable. Bambaland 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)BambalandBambaland 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am somewhat confused by your response. Are you stating that you are in some way connected to Ashley Wood? Wikipedia is not a website nor a blog nor a promotional tool. It is an encyclopaedia. Claims made on it need to be verified by independent verifiable sources. It is not appropriate to edit WP entries on items with which you are personally connected in this way. You have claimed that a person has three children. The person's own website says he has two children. Can you provide a verifiable source? I am copying this discussion to the Talk:Ashley Wood page as this obviously needs wider scrutiny than just me. B1atv 11:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are connected. No, we do not use Wikipedia as a promotional tool as if you check we have extensive websites and an existing blog. However I do believe it is within our/my right to update facts (which can be verified) on this entry. Wiki asks for contributions to improve articles and this right is open to everybody - this does not just include fans or comic afficianados this also includes those of us closest to the source who would prefer facts to remain most accurate. We do not bolster ourselves using Wikipedia in any way since anything we would want to say would find a larger audience on our own sites which are well trafficked. bambaland
Furthermore removing an entire section on Toys that actually exist was in my opinion rash. These are listed as genuine works, no marketing, no click here buy now, simply more works to be listed because they are legitimate physical creations. bambaland
Bambaland- All I can do is suggest some things for you to look into. I know nothing about this particular comics creator, but it seems you do. The best thing to do to help this page is to cite relevant sources directly to the information you take them from. For instance, the article says that "Wood is an award winning illustrator," but does not show a link to any sites showing these awards or even listing them. This looks suspicious to the casual Wiki editor. All you really have to do to rescue your article is put in a few links to where that kind of factual information comes from.
Also, Wikipedia looks strongly down upon the subjects of articles themselves or their direct agents editing their own pages. If you are tied to Ashley Wood directly, be warned that you will be treated seemingly unfairly. This is only to discourage subjects of articles from trying to sort of "clean up" their public image. This is just a general FYI, as I do not know your personal situation.
Also remember, your own knowledge is not the final source for information here. True, it is a good starting point, but all facts about awards, career, releases, etc., have to have citations. And citations to sites created to promote Mr. Wood or created by Mr. Wood himself are not nearly as effective as links to official awards sites, articles about Mr. Wood, or things of that nature.
Hope some of these comments help you get your article cleaned up and saved. Sorry I couldn't do more to help you!
Thanks for that. While I suspect a full face shot would be preferred, that is good enough to be getting on with.
The next thing that would be really handy would be Ashley Wood's birthday - obviously not essential (if for example they wanted to keep it secret) but very handy for fleshing out the infobox. (Emperor 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
- OK no problem - perfectly understandable.
- Removing the other headers will be trickier. I have added more links and just tagged the talk page with the Notable Wikipedian template (which officially flags the fact that you have connections and conflicts of interest - a better option than slapping a big header on the main page) and I've run through the article checking for peacock terms and it seems OK. I'm afraid this kind of thing makes editors nervous so it might take a bit to make everyone happy but I'll drop a version of this note on the talk page and see how it goes. (Emperor 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 09:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- thankyou for letting me know.Genisock2 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)