Talk:Luis D. Ortiz

Edit War

LuisDOrtega

We are currently engaged in an edit war.

I'm looking to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other's edits

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Let's use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. Otherwise I'll have to request temporary page protection. Reeespecto (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been deleting well sourced information just because you don't like it as an employee of the article subject. LuisDOrtega (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You guys might consider seeking help at WP:DRN if you haven't already. I'm hesitant to even fix WP:MOS issues with the article (like WP:MOSCAPS) because I know that the changes will be quickly lost in all of this back-and-forth editing. I don't have much experience with conflict, but I think that some neutral perspectives at DRN might help. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 12:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Celebrity Net Worth

Celebrity Net Worth lists him at $15MM - Celebrity Net Woth is based on estimates and not an accurate source. 70.42.157.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Negative Edits

There seems to have been a rash of edits trying to give a negative light to this article. I've tried to fix these submissions but someone keeps reverting them. These are some examples:

Under the state investigation:

"In a blog post following the incident as well as other incidents involving conflicts with others on the show, Luis stated of his mother, "My mother always said that is better to ask for forgiveness than permission."[7]"

This quote is taken completely out of context and he was talking about doing a listing. It has nothing to do with the state investigation.

update 6-26-2013: After consulting with wikipedia editors, they mention all blog or twitter entries are not considered valid sources and therefore should be removed from the article.Senencito (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Senen

Technically primary sources may indeed serve for uncontroversial details such as, say, a birthdate, but an entire paragraph of self-justification is far too much to base it only on primary sources. Besides, there are the issues of misrepresentation and quote mining Senencito pointed out which make the content itself problematic. Regarding the tweet, I fail to see how that's relevant to this article at all. Huon (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Senen, your blog says you do photography for Luis for a year. Can you clarify your interest in this and in the fake photos matters? 2600:1001:B01E:4929:1577:63D5:6F46:B03A (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC). Do you have credits on the photo of the subject? 2600:1001:B01E:4929:1577:63D5:6F46:B03A (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean my blog entry where I shot Luis for a Magazine. I am a freelance photographer and I’ve shot Luis a few times, I have no problem stating this. I’m sure you’re trying to discredit me so let me jump ahead of you; No one is paying me or pushing me to write this article. I do not have any photo credits on the subject. I do not hide behind anonymity.

Now I would like to ask about your interest in this particular article. Why do you persist in pushing the article to a negative direction. I notice you’re crawling through random sources and putting them in regardless of their context. The latest twitter addition being especially senseless. Would you care to state the reasonings behind your misleading edits? Senencito (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

References

BLP violations

Hi, I've semi-protected this following a complaint on RfPP that unsourced material was being added. I've also removed the unsourced or poorly sourced, as well as some descriptions of others in the lead that I wasn't able to check. Please make sure that anything that's added or restored is sourced according to the Biography of living persons policy, particularly WP:BLPSOURCES. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, now there is just one more puff piece on Luis out there without objectivity. Now he can just say he is important and a top broker because look, there's a Wikipedia page including his handsome smile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.81.211 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems the person that was writing under an ip address has now returned under the alias LuisDOrtega He is once again copying the very same old comments that were deleted once proven to have unreliable sources and is spreading his message across all the wikipedia pages referring to the Million dollar Listing program — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senencito (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your complaints are false as all additions have been well sourced.  Based on you being the original author of this article, having edited or contributed to no other articles, and having been on the payroll of Luis Ortiz, it appears you are conflicted.  If you have clarifying facts, you are free to supplement this article, but not with Facebook pages or personal blogs.LuisDOrtega (talk)

All of the previous comments by Ortega are false. I already clarified I am not being paid, no one is incentivizing me to write on this page I am not hiding beneath an alias and I have no idea why you mention facebook. Meanwhile you are using an alias alluding to Luis D Ortiz, you are also writing in all of this pages spreading the same negative connotations, quotes taken out of context that are many times sourced from blogs or non valid sources. I ask then, what are your intentions, why this incredible interest to slander his person?Senencito (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2013

The reference to citation 5 is incorrect. Luis and his brother did not leave Puerto Rico because their mom tried to suffocate and kill them. They left because they "were feeling uncomfortable and suffocated by something". They bought one way tickets to FL and told their parents that they were going to the beach. They did not come back. Their mom was very upset. Ssouza78 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A bizarre misrepresentation of the source. Removed. Huon (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of the 1 way tickets and the story they told their mother?LuisDOrtega (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

None, for all I can tell, which is why we don't mention this anecdote in the article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors' relationship with Ortiz and potential conflicts of interest

Please use this space to discuss relationship -financial or otherwise- with the article subject. Senencito: created article, photography of Ortiz: http://www.senencito.com/my-blog/2013/3/28/on-shooting-luis-for.html, other: Ortega: any relationship? None Reeespecto: various comments about Ren Kenaloull's employment of Luis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.73.119 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never had any problem mentioning the fact that I've taken photos of Luis. I've stated plenty of times my edits are neutral and no one is paying me or nudging me to create or maintain this article.

If you check my edits you will see all of them have been neutral and well sourced.

I don't know who Reeespecto is.

Regarding Ortega, I think it's pretty telling the fact that he created his account specifically to slander Luis (Luis D Ortiz - Luis D Ortega...that's no coincidence).

It's obviously someone with an agenda that is hiding behind an alias. Most of his edits are blog based and he/she is frequently putting quotes out of context. Again just look at his history. Senencito (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that you expect to be hired by Luis. You may have been. His photo, and the creation of this article (the only article you've created and the only article you've edited) is quite possibly quid pro quo. Your edits have not been neutral and you have removed well sourced material.LuisDOrtega (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't believe you understand what a well sourced article is. Please reference the following two articles :

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

I understand why you are attacking me and casting doubt on the validity of my edits. Which is why I have to state some things once again;

• I've never added blog quotes to force my opinion on this article
• I haven't used magazine articles for positive or negative reasons.
• i'm not hiding behind an alias
• i'm also not attacking someone in order for my slanders to gain validity.
• I'm not interested in an edit war, it's petty and ridiculous which is why I've sought neutral outside sources and let them decide.

Now that I've stated my actions, you should do the same.I do believe Respecto Mentioned your name as Benjamin. Could you explain then Benjamin, what is the reason behind your actions?

Senencito (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

edit I've been corrected and I understand now the Real Deal is a valid source, blogs however are not.Senencito (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So all this time, kicking and screaming, you were wrong, you were blinded about this one single article that you ever created and ever edited.LuisDOrtega (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire section is rather irrelevant. Editing with a conflict of interest, while certainly not encouraged, is not prohibited. If there are issues with specific edits, those should be discussed, not the editors. The issue with the Real Deal interview is not that the Real Deal is not reliable but that an interview is a primary source - Ortiz speaking about Ortiz. We can use it for uncontroversial facts, but not for controversial claims or as the sole basis for large amounts of content. What I'm much more concerned with is the blatant misrepresentation of sources and the attempts to slant the article - the "his mother wanted to kill him by suffocating him" stuff, the out-of-context Twitter quotes, mentioning "bait and switch" not just once but twice... Huon (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, statements _against_ his interest are valid. The self promotional elements, including the editors who keep linking to puff pieces including his own brokerage page, are not legitimate.LuisDOrtega (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Senencito has removed sources just because he doesn't like that they present the subject of the article he created in a light he doesn't like - sounds like a commercial photographer and the article's subject is his personal work.LuisDOrtega (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep ignoring what I've said and you keep adding fake information. Please point out when have I deleted things besides the Real Deal articles. You are obviously pushing an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.206.58 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Senencito (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No fake information has been added, you haven't pointed out anything that is fake, you have only deleted sourced information from the article when it doesn't suit your needs.LuisDOrtega (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC) And your deletion of Real Deal articles, which are well respected in the industry is significant, especially when coupled with your documented relationship with Ortiz and your bias by having created this, and this only article. But suddenly you have come around and the source you have denied for quite some time now, you acknowledge is correct? That's a joke.LuisDOrtega (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen Benjamin, I understand when I make mistakes, If you see the history when I created this article I used the Real Deal as a source of information. This was declined three times by moderators here. Since you kept referring to it as a valid source i decided to discuss with more informed users. I accept my error and I gladly post it, however I don't get emotional over it, I don't go trying to make it personal. This is just an article and in the web that you are responding very emotional to.

You however appear to be focused in slandering people. Maybe you're jealous of success. A good example of what I mean happens here: You keep trying to push the whole mother quote completely out of context. This exact quote an anonymos ip who im going to assume is you posted it before here. In this edit we see a strong intent in referencing Frederik as a pornographic actor.

Slander is in the absence of truth. You can't slander someone with the truth.LuisDOrtega (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC) You can however make a lot of assumptions without foundation, which you've done twice in the immediately above paragraph.LuisDOrtega (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC) By the way, no one objected to your use of the Real Deal. The history of this article is that there was serious question about the notability of the subject and whether it should be a Wikipedia article at all. That's still questionable. You seem to want to have the article read exactly as you want it without any additional information - you, who has an ongoing business-oriented relationship with the subject, created this article, and then rejected numerous legitimate and sourced edits by others and now you are going on a little rant, "This whole situation has already passed over the ridiculous." Grow up or Luis will drop you and you won't be doing his photography.LuisDOrtega (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole situation has already passed over the ridiculous . Senencito (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Situation?LuisDOrtega (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to add one more thing. Moderators of Wikipedia are already telling you that your edits are wrong and you keep arguing with them and reverting the edits. I mean, seriously? Senencito (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean, seriously?LuisDOrtega (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well this discussion went nowhere fast. Senencito (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You weren't seeking a discussion. You were seeking to justify your own edits, and only your edits. This is YOUR article, right? You are the creator? Luis and YOU have a business relationship, right?LuisDOrtega (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

My friend I think you need to relax a bit, you seem mad about something. Life is good, don't sweat it much. Also proper indentation would be nicer, it's getting hard to understand what you are trying to say. Senencito (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

I have reoved mention of two incidents in the "controversies" section which cited to the Real Deal interview. If Ortiz is the only source for those incidents, I fail to see the controversy, and the "bait and switch" is already mentioned earlier in the article. I also removed "Luis claimed that he and his twin brother learned their Photoshop skills after creating false government identifications while in college" - that's flat-out wrong. Luis Ortiz claimed that his brother had faked IDs, which isn't relevant to Luis Ortiz himself. Nobody claimed that Luis Ortiz had faked IDs. Huon (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, the specific quote, which is available on video with the referenced link states out of Luis' own mouth, "In college, my brother and I used to make fake IDs."LuisDOrtega (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, the controversy regarding bait and switch is directly relevant and consistent, because he did the same thing with the sale listing, "If I put the real photos out there, not a single person will ever come inside." as he did with the rental listings.LuisDOrtega (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the video, all I get is "this content is currently unavailable". US Weekly says: Explaining how Daniel learned Photoshop during college when he made fake IDs, the vice president of Keller Williams NYC said... Regarding possibly contentious claims, we should go with the secondary source - or in this case, not go with the unavailable primary source. For the "controversy regarding bait and switch" - what source calls that a controversy? Why do we need to mention it twice? Which source connects that incident with the Photoshop incident? See WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The content was available 5 minutes ago. The video shows him speaking the exact words, no secondary source is necessary.LuisDOrtega (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) The content plays right now at this link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/broker_real_faker_vhYvwYZXwljgulLIBtZolI LuisDOrtega (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't rip apart my comments so that parts seem to be signed by you - reply at the end. Secondly, I checked both that link and the original Bravo TV video and ended up with the "currently not available" message. It may be limited to users from the US. I'll raise the issueat the BLP noticeboard for more input. Huon (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it outrageous that LuisDOrtega is trying to use videos of a reality tv show as a source. It is pretty clear those shows are scripted and for entertainment purposes only. None of the information in Bravo's website or content should be taken as factual. Reeespecto (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC) So despite the fact that he has a clear and long pattern - he stated in an interview (not on Bravo), that he used someone else's credentials to obtain a loan, he created bait and switch listings when he was in rentals - you find it hard to believe that on his own accord he would use false listings photos and therefore what he clearly said on television and later confirmed in his blog as true was just acting? You think that the State of New York is investigating because it is fictional?LuisDOrtega (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

He used his father's credentials to obtain a loan - its called co-signing. Since when that is so controversial or illegal? In his interview is pretty clear he stated that the bait & switch practiced was used in his office and industry - LuisDOrtega tries to make it seem as if that was the only way he operated. Also if you go to any firm in NY you can see that they digitally enhance their listings pictures - in Luis Ortiz case he just didn't specify that they were altered. LuisDOrtega should stop the hate or direct his hatred towards people that are doing wrong in the world not towards someone who is trying to do well and strive to help others. Reeespecto (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Has he helped you?LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to find an article that states that the Photoshop event is a controversy. In addition LuisDOrtega makes it seem as if renting an apartment using another person's credentials is a controversy and giving it an illegal connotation. This is called co-signing or being a guarantor which is a common practice in the city of New York. If LuisDOrtega is looking to shed a light on the negative aspects of Ortiz life I wont delete them as he does with my edits. However I would like to ask him to stop deleting the positive aspects that are being included in his biography. Reeespecto (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy as a heading is a preferred on Wikipedia to more specific headlines like "Government Investigation" or "Falsified Listing Photos"LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ortiz' New Photo

Who took the new photo being used for Ortiz' promotional Wikipedia page? LuisDOrtega (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the description page at the Commons that image was taken by Senen Llanos aka User:Senencito, who released that image under a free license. Since we already knew that Senencito had taken professional photographs of Ortiz I see no reason to doubt that claim. Huon (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the real-world relationship between Senencito, the person who created this article has never edited another article on Wikipedia other than this one, and Ortiz who is the subject of this article.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude indent, indent. At least when you're fuming over your arguments we can read you easier.Senencito (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm smelling WP:GAME. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of badly-sourced trivia

I have removed a couple of trivia which didn't have independent sources. In particular: None of this is trivia just because you say soLuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, if an entry is to be included in a "controversies" section we'd need a source actually stating it's a controversy. The interview with Ortiz doesn't say so, and no third-party source even mentions those incidents.

On the contrary. The third party source mentions the incidents, it is sourced. The use of a controversy section is instead of creating a separate section such as Dishonest Business Practices or New York State Investigation, etc.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The coverage of Ortiz leaving Puerto Rico was far too detailed and not based on independent sources. The "wanted to kill" quote is obvious hyperbole, and quoting it without context distorts its meaning.

Most people here have the ability to read exactly what was stated and don't need you as a filter. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. The facts can be presented. Opinion doesn't need to be offered. And the reader can understand based on the factsLuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "but raised $9,000" figure actually is what Ortiz says he raised in a single evening. There's no indication he didn't raise the full $15,000 he was looking for, especially since he apparently did make the movie. Since no third-party sources discuss his filmmaking career we should keep that coverage very short.

You say "we should" as if you are the moderator of this article. You aren't. You've deleted well sourced information. In the past you've stated that sourced and available information didn't even exist in order to replace it with your own opinions.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Examiner is not a reliable source and is in fact blacklisted.

It is blacklisted, but no one has questioned the veracity of the interview which is first party. There simply has been no question about the article.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) An interview on the Examiner should not be used at all. On the contrary. The Examiner article isn't reporting, it isn't an interpretation. It is an interview with specific quoted question and answer.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC) That's a very biased point of view The would-be "controversies" have been discussed before, and I would appreciate it if they weren't added back without a third-party source confirming that they are indeed controversies. Huon (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Maybe English isn't your first language, but these are controversial actions. They don't need to be called controversies in order to be controversial. If we see someone stabbing another person, we don't need a third party to say it is a stabbing to know what took place.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Since LuisDOrtega simply reverted most of my changes without addressing my concerns, I'll explain them in somewhat greater detail.

• Claiming things are "controversies" without a reliable third-party source to that effect is a WP:BLP violation.
• Much of what I removed is far too detailed and not based on any third-party sources whatsoever. Per WP:WEIGHT the interview should not form the sole basis of large amounts of content. In particular, the details of the note Ortiz and his brother left are irrelevant. Since in fact no third-party sources discuss Ortiz' relation to his parents, I'll remove both the "against his parents' wishes" (which was meant as a succinct summary of what Ortiz says) and the longer version. If the details of Ortiz' move to the US and his relation to his parents is relevant enough for this article, please find a third-party source.
• The "but raised $9,000" line is not supported by the source, which says: "I need $15,000 to shoot the film. [...] In one night, I made $9,000." There is no indication whatsoever that Ortiz stopped raising money after that one night or that he didn't raise the full $15,000. Quite the opposite, that he needed $15,000 to make the film and that he made the film implies that he raised the full $15,000, but that's not what we say. We shouldn't say he only raised $9,000 when that's not what the source says, though.
• The "at least five companies" line is redundant because we proceed to list those companies immediately afterwards. It seems designed to only reinforce that Ortiz changed companies oh-so-often, once again without a third-party source to that effect. Arguably another BLP violation.

Finally, the author of "because their mother wanted to kill them by suffocation" should be really careful about accusing others of misrepresenting the sources. Huon (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice Huon, but you deleted specifically referenced and sourced information and then made a claim that the information available to anyone who would click on the link didn't actually exist. Now you are playing word games with controversies. Ortiz was and may still be under investigation by the State of New York. New York State doesn't have to call their investigation a controversy in order for us to understand that the actions that Ortiz took were controversial, unless you are saying that it's more than controversy.LuisDOrtega (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ortiz is investigated for the faked image incident, and we report that. For all I can tell, Ortiz is not and never was investigated for either the "father's credentials" incident or the "bait and switch rents" incidents. If he was, please provide a source to that effect. In fact Ortiz himself is the only source for both those incidents; there are no third-party sources reporting on either - at least you have not presented any. Interpreting primary sources ourselves in the absence of secondary sources is not acceptable; see WP:PRIMARY. You also haven't addressed the WP:WEIGHT concerns at all. Not everything that's available in primary sources is fit to be included in the article.

Also, when I removed that sentence based on the Bravo TV video, I explained that the video wasn't available to me. You come rather close to calling me a liar. I wouldn't appreciate that. Huon (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Did I or did I not call you a liar? What is being close to calling you a liar? The issue is that you decided that you knew better than well-sourced information, simply because you couldn't access it. And then you replaced the information with non-factual information. So not only did you delete real information, you made up other contradictory information that had no source.LuisDOrtega (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC) And you've done that more than once. For instance, Ortiz was clear that he left PR without telling anyone, and that's what the entry stated, and it was sourced. You decided you wanted to present another set of facts, and you deleted the sourced factual statement about their actions, one can only assume because you didn't like it, and added different non-supported "facts" that they left "against their parents' wishes". You have to stop doing that.LuisDOrtega (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just popping in here to say, you're a piece of work . I don't remember the last time I saw such a dedicated troll before Senencito (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

LuisDOrtega, you said I "made a claim that the information available to anyone who would click on the link didn't actually exist". Please provide evidence for that statement; a diff will do. You won't be able to do so; instead I presented a secondary source that supported my interpretation.

Also, all those incidents you insist in adding - the details of how he left Puerto Rico, the "father's credentials" incident, and the $9,000 raised - are only mentioned by a single primary source, the same for all three. In the absence of third-party sources, I fail to see why we should discuss those incidents in that much detail. Compare WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't think a single interview is all that reliable, and if not a single secondary source has written about those details, they're not all that prominent either. Yet a significant part of the article is based on that one interview.

Especially for the $9,000, where you added a "but instead" although the source does not at all say that Ortiz failed to raise the full $15,000, and although I pointed that out repeatedly, I find it hard to believe that you don't deliberately try to present Ortiz in as bad a light as possible. If I'm mistaken here, please explain how that content was supported by the given source. Huon (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

While I'm asking you to explain your edits, please also explain this change in light of this comment. You seem to contradict yourself. Huon (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

There seems to be page vandalism and use of bad source. Would like for someone to look into this. Americanoexpress (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see any blatant vandalism issues. Were you aware that you can edit the article yourself? If you see vandalism, please feel free to remove it at any time. If you still need help, please detail the specific details of vandalism that you see and re-add the help request template. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 19:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

HI Cindamuse -

Thank you for reaching out. Here are some examples

User LuisDOrtega continues to include information out of context which can be harmful to the subjects reputation.

The details of the note Ortiz and his brother left are irrelevant and was far too detailed and not based on independent sources. In the article Ortiz said in a metaphorical way that he had to leave his country since he felt "suffocated" by his circumstances. Another user wrote that it was "because their mother wanted to kill them by suffocation" misrepresenting the sources in a bizarre way.

Ortiz is investigated for the faked image incident, and it is reported. Ortiz is not and never was investigated for either the "father's credentials" incident or the "bait and switch rents" incidents. If he was, there should be a source to that effect. In fact Ortiz himself is the only source for both those incidents; there are no third-party sources reporting on either - at least users that have included that have not presented any. Interpreting primary sources ourselves in the absence of secondary sources is not acceptable so can't understand why is it allowed to happen.

In addition the source that talks about Bait & Switch incident is clear that the subject talks about how it was widely practiced in the industry - LuisDOrtega is quick to make it seem as if the subject entered the business just to conduct bait and switch practices.

LuisDOrtega mentions how Ortiz has worked for "at least five companies" which is redundant because the article proceeds to list those companies immediately afterwards. It seems designed to only reinforce that Ortiz changed companies oh-so-often, once again without a third-party source to that effect. Arguably another BLP violation.

Finally, LuisDOrtega writes about the subject "but raised $9,000" which is not supported by the source, which says: "I need $15,000 to shoot the film. [...] In one night, I made $9,000." There is no indication whatsoever that Ortiz stopped raising money after that one night or that he didn't raise the full $15,000. Quite the opposite, that he needed $15,000 to make the film and that he made the film implies that he raised the full $15,000, but that's not what we say. We shouldn't say he only raised $9,000 when that's not what the source says, though. Since no third-party sources discuss his filmmaking career we should keep that coverage very short.

There are some moderators that have removed material which is far too detailed and not based on any third-party sources whatsoever. Per WP:WEIGHT the interview should not form the sole basis of large amounts of content. In particular, the details of the note Ortiz and his brother left are irrelevant. Since in fact no third-party sources discuss Ortiz' relation to his parents, I'll remove both the "against his parents' wishes" (which was meant as a succinct summary of what Ortiz says) and the longer version. If the details of Ortiz' move to the US and his relation to his parents is relevant enough for this article, please find a third-party source.

LuisDOrtega attempts to present himself in a impartial way - however I noticed how he deletes remarks of the subject's firm about it being the largest real estate company in New York City or renaming Film Directing to Very Short Film Directing - trying to belittle its contribution. All of this making it hard to believe that the user doesn't deliberately try to present Ortiz in bad a light.

You mentioned I can just delete this content. However if you take a look at the history you can see that we are dealing with someone who will not stop until this page is protected. Kind regards, Americanoexpress (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. You may or may not find something helpful in one or both of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and WP:Dispute resolution, but at present there is nothing that an administrator can do that any other editor can't do, as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

NY Department of State Investigation

Does anyone know the status of this investigation? Americanoexpress (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC) If Luis is cleared, I'm sure you will tell us.LuisDOrtega (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain how your changes are biographical? We don't know if the subject just raised $9,000. Worked for at least 5 firms is redundant. And can you explain how going into the details of his listing are biographical? Americanoexpress (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed you mentioned me in the edits deleting information. I have not deleted any information. It is all still there. But would like to understand the logic behind your edits. Americanoexpress (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Where areas you find that "Listings are not relevant to the career section. Luis being ready to "rock and roll" is trivial and not worthy of the biography." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_D._Ortiz&diff=prev&oldid=572434041) When it comes to draw some sort of distorted negative light on the subject you are more than happy to include one of his listings. Americanoexpress (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)