User talk:Ryanwiki

Image copyright problem with Image:StMarksErmington.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:StMarksErmington.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Ryanwiki (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RiverwalkErmington.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:RiverwalkErmington.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Ryanwiki (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia commons
G'Day Ryanwiki, I've noticed you've uploaded some great photos for Parramatta and surrounding suburbs. I have a suggestion that you might like to take up. You might want to sign up to Wikimedia Commons and upload your photos there. This enables your photos to be used in any Wikimedia project and not just Wikipedia - so people from other language projects, Wikitravel, etc. can all use the photos. You need to go here and sign up (as "Ryanwiki") and then you click on "Upload file" on the left and upload your files as per normal. You can also use categories like for Sydney-related photos and  for beaches, railway station pics etc... (lots of other categories connected to the Sydney pages also). This will save those users who want to use them on other projects a lot of time having to download your photos and then reupload them in other projects. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Please do not link to your own blog. There are thousands of blogs posts on connectivism; we can't include them all in the article.'' WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links for Connectivism
Rather than starting an edit war over the link to your blog post, why don't we move this to the discussion page instead? You can explain your rationale for why you think the link meets the policies; I've already pointed out the conflict of interest and notability issues I see as the biggest concerns.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider the link a good introduction to a complex theory. I'm not going to waste other Wikipedians' time with banter. You don't agree, so be it. Ryanwiki (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My issue isn't with the content; it's primarily with the notability of your post over the thousands of others out there. This isn't anything personal. I'm just following Wikipedia policy for external links. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your manner via comments, blogging etc has suggested otherwise. If you fulfil your promise to archive, I'll consider the issue closed and you can keep your article as you wish. Ryanwiki (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you think is wrong with my manner; unlike you, I've never used namecalling to make my arguments. Saying that your qualifications don't meet Wikipedia's standards isn't personal; it's just a matter of fact. It isn't "my" article, by the way; no author owns an article, even if I'm the only one actively working on it at the moment. Wikipedia's policies aren't "my" policies, either, and they weren't designed with the goal of personally attacking you, no matter what you think. They existed and were followed before you added the link to your blog, and they will continue to exist and be followed after you leave.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Namecalling?? Ryanwiki (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, if you don't consider "smarty pants" to be namecalling, we really are on different planes.WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I suggested you *can* be a smarty pants and revert it back again (which I acknowldge you didn't do). Regarding your manner, I think it has a passive-aggressive edge to it that can rub people the wrong way. Ryanwiki (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I admit that I should have moved this to the talk page for the article after your second revert when you outed yourself and confirmed your conflict of interest. The back and forth shouldn't have gone on as long as it did; I should have clarified my objections on the discussion page about 2 reverts earlier. For that I apologize. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly could have handled the discourse better myself. Let's call it "Getting off on the wrong foot", and I hope we can remain amicable going forward. Ryanwiki (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm much happier with this as a resolution than where things stood a few days ago. You know, you might try editing the connectivism article itself. It could use a fresh set of eyes to make the content a bit more understandable and cut some of the "turgid prose" currently weighing it down. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)