User talk:Mtwolf

Thanks for the Apology
Hi Mtwolf,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the intent of your photograph. I appreciate you desire to contribute to Wikipedia( and I especially appreciate your desire to contribute to articles regarding the Taiwanese aborigines). I hope you will continue to contribute in the future.

Perhaps if you had posted the picture on the talk page, we could have discussed it first. We have had *several* discussions about what is or is not an "appropriate" picture in articles such as these. There's a long one here (search for the words "photo" or "picture"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwanese_aborigines

However, I have to say: when I look at the photograph that you posted, I see it has all the hallmarks of a college-student prank. '''It has two grinning college-age males wearing what *appear* to be feminine clothing (covering their breast region) and one guy is actually grabbing his.. breast region.''' The post-1945 etc in the caption sounds very formal, and the people in the picture -- aside from being born long long after 1945 -- don't look formal at all. They look quite gleeful. The contrast between formal caption/humorous photo also shouts "prank," in my opinion. Even if I am mistaken about that, I suspect most readers would assume the sae thing I did.

Moreover, in my opinion, the simple fact of **being Tsou** is not s ufficient reason to post a picture of yourself (or your Tsou friend, whichever is the case) to the Tsou article. I know that sounds a bit strange. But the picture should actually capture something significant regarding the Tsou tribe. Hmmmmm. For example, a picture of... a formal or official Tsou meeting of some kind, or a protest of some government policy, or perhaps ( if the picture was a good one) of a prominent Tsou politician.. or.. something along those lines would be fine. Then, there would have to be some explanatory text in the article.

Does that make sense? It's not enough to say "this person is a Tsou"; it has to convey some important information to the reader.

If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize. But really, can you imagine Encyclopedia Britanica including a picture of two grinning college boys grabbing themselves? I sincerely hope you see my point. I also hope you can understand why I assumed the picture was vandalism.

I don't check this email often, so sorry if I was slow to reply...

later, Ling.Nut

Erik Kiser
The article Erik Kiser has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik Kiser
I have added a "" template to the article Erik Kiser, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:GaryJohnson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GaryJohnson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)