Talk:Ashley Wood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"His unique style has spawned many imitators"? Isn't that sort of an oxymoron? PCM2 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if I'll get around to it myself but somebody should probably put in this article that 3a is like, not a thing anymore, and that Wood's toys and what not are coming out through underverse.com now (2020)202.125.25.153 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Information - children[edit]

Earlier today I removed edits by User:Bambaland which claimed (without references) that Wood had three children. His own website (http://ashleybambaland.blogspot.com/) claims he has two. This reversion has been reverted by User:Bambaland who posted the following response on my user talk page:

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)Bambaland 11:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For info, my response to User:Bambaland is:

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)

I am copying the discussion to here so that consensus can be reached over the edits. B1atv 12:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to B1av on the bambaland discussion page. I do not appreciate the implication that this wiki is somehow used for personal gratification or gain and hereby invite fans and interested parties alike to verify everything and anything on this wiki page, most info is easily found on the web. Since it has been deemed somehow inappropriate for Bambaland to have any say in the facts presented on this page we will no longer contribute to this wiki entry. However I do not feel that it is acceptable that sections such as Toys should have been removed by B1av and in reponse I urge contributors to this blog to add pictures.
As previously mentioned to B1av, Bambaland has extensive websites, promotional tools and blogs at our disposal and we have no need to in anyway hijack one page out of millions on Wikipedia. Be as self righteous as you want, the deletion undertaken was a blanket decision made by you without thought to use of individual updates. bambaland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambaland (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BLOG - IT'S AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA! And urging contributors to add pictures is silly. The section about toys does not add anything to this article. There is no explanation about them, no verification about them, merely a list. Wikipedia does not exist for lists. I haven't said that you are using WP for financial gain. But, by your own admission you are connected with the subject of this article and therefore unable to approach it from a NPOV. The edit that alerted me to your posts was the discrepency about the number of children he has. WP, as an encyclopedia contains only verified information. If the existing information (two children) is wrong and the information you are introducing (three children) is right, then please provide a source and there won't be an issue. The difficulty is because this information is unsourced and contradicts other public sources. B1atv 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can yell in bold as much as you like, I am not going to sit here and have an endless tennis match with you. This page has not been used as a blog, my updates have been factoids not claims. The truth will win out as people come in and verify everything that is worrying you about this article. Bambaland 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)bambalandBambaland 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - please insert colons (:) to your talk page contributions - adding an extra colon to the contributor above. This will indent your contribution and make it easy for people to follow the conversation. And secondly please sign yorur contribution by adding four tildes at the end (~~~~) B1atv 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The old profile on the blog has now been updated - you can now use this as a verifyable source regarding number of children. Regarding Toys, I do not consider the list to be irrelevant as they are not toys you would buy in ToysRUs they are in fact works of art. The adding of pictures to the toys list is not silly as it takes a simple list and makes it something more. A verifyable record of works of art produced. Bambaland 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)bambalandBambaland 03:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: There is broadly speaking no problem with you contributing and helping to improve this entry - we have plenty of creators or a representative (it would be best if you clarified if we are speaking to Ashley Wood or someone connected with him so we are on the same page and know who we are dealing with) drop by and stay, after all people are experts on themselves. The problem is that they may also not be neutral so it is always best to keep an eye on things and it'd be a good idea to read the conflict of interest guidelines which explain what you can and can't do and how you can continue to contribute even if neutrality issues have been flagged, as they have here. Mainly that'll involve dropping links and suggested edits in here and editors can then add what they see fit.
The biggest thing you can do (and my request to all creators how turn up) is add a photograph - copyright is tricky and you are in the best position to be able to release this for use here and on the other mirrors. Licensing can be tricky (and the powers that be are clamping down on this) so if you drop a note in when it is done we can make sure everything is ship-shape.
Hope that helps explain the state of play - ask away if something isn't clear and I (or someone else) will try and help. (Emperor 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the image. (Emperor 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
What needs to be done to remove the tags on the front page?
Looking over things:
  • More sources have been added
  • I've just tagged this page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}}
  • I've run through the article checking for peacock terms (and other problems) and it seems OK
  • Bambaland has been made aware of WP:COI and is working in accordance with them
Any other issues that need addressing? (Emperor 14:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashley Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashley Wood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashley_Wood&oldid=1205593106"