User talk:Oscar Dell

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks for your comment. As I have explained to you elsewhere, I am in no way affiliated with that Institution, although I have first-hand knowledge and I have personally met the people I refer to, etc. The entry as it stood before my edits was factually incorrect, since Fairfax University was a legal institution until its lost its state of Louisiana licence. The 'reliable sources' you refer to were misleading in the way the article had been written, since they gave the impression that the institution had always been unaccredited when this is not the case. Of course they are indeed very useful now that the record has been set straight. May I insist that I have no interest in either promoting or deriding that institution. I believe I have provided crucial information to the article which was not previously there that has added a lot to the accuracy and the reliability of the edit. --Oscar Dell (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2008 (GMT)


 * Thanks for the reply -- and your contributions. I made some minor changes to your latest edits (mostly to more closely resemble standard WP article organization), but I did not change the substance. As I believe you are aware, first-hand personal knowledge can be helpful in writing an article, but content must be based on reliable sources. Several facts in the article are now flagged with "citation needed" templates; hopefully published sources can be found soon and listed as reference citations.
 * PS - Some of your comments suggest that the term "unaccredited" is the same as "diploma mill." This is not the case. Also, state licensing is not the same thing as educational accreditation. In editing articles about unaccredited institutions, it's important to maintain distinctions between these terms. --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thanks, you are absolutely right that "diploma mill" is not the same as "unaccredited" and that state licensing is not the same as educational accreditation.

On another front, I have found a Fairfx University prospectus from 1995 which will help me in making further minor contributions to this entry. Your corrections and ammendments will of course be much welcome. Let us hope that we can all contribute to a factually accurate and reliable edit. --Oscar Dell (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2008 (GMT)

Image source problem with Image:GuillermoVilar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GuillermoVilar.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 10:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I have added the required information as requested.

Image permission problem with Image:GuillermoVilar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GuillermoVilar.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:GuillermoVilar.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GuillermoVilar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:GVila.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GVila.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

REPLY
Thanks this has been sorted out now. Thanks so much for your help and patience --Oscar Dell (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Oscar Dell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaizki Mendizabal -

File permission problem with File:Jaizki.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jaizki.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jaizki Mendizabal


The article Jaizki Mendizabal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Insufficient notability for WP:Academic (note: created by possibly paid COI editor, see WP:COIN)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zaryn Dentzel


The article Zaryn Dentzel has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Apparently-promotional article, substantially created by SPAs. A WP:BEFORE shows most coverage to be passing mentions and/or actually about Tuenti, his company. Corresponding articles in other languages aren't much better and nor was their sourcing as far as I can tell.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)