Talk:Luis D. Ortiz

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)

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)

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)