Jump to content

User talk:72.191.15.133

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.191.15.133 (talk) at 19:10, 12 December 2008 (→‎Rolando Gomez et al). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, 72.191.15.133, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Banjeboi 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your edits, it appears to me that you have a vested interest concerning Mr. Gomez's article remaining on Wikipedia. Please know that this may violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gomez

Hi, I appreciate your passion but you may wish to let the process play out without commenting repeatedly and verbosely. This isn't, perhaps, clearly spelled out but it generally isn't appreciated. Also there seems to be a systematic prejudice against anonymous accounts. It may be wise to register for an account - it's free - and if the article is deleted now it can always be built up in a user space and then relaunched when ready. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to look in to this, but I'll first of all mention that being listed on the wikipedia page for the university as notable does mean next to nothing as it is on this wiki where anybody could have added it. Mathmo Talk 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied again on my talk page. Mathmo Talk 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came by to say pretty much the exact same thing Benjiboi has already posted. I'll admit that I spend much of my time here removing spam and promotional material, and nothing sets off alarms like someone aggressively trying to influence an article about themselves or their product. I think there are enough people interested now that you can simply state your case succinctly and let the process move along by itself. I wish you the best of luck. Kuru talk 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerejota (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


advice

very strong advice: do not participate further in the discussion at deletion review, if you want the article kept. Do nott ask for any more testimonials. It only goes to reinforce opinion that you are using us for publicity. I have some experience in knowing what to say in our deletion processes, and have done as much as can be usefully done. Don't ruin it. I came very close to declining to make a comment, upon seeing what you said about people here whom I and all of us respect. .DGG (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will not, but after Ryūlóng's last statement, he should at least look here: [1] From this point on, I will just monitor. Thanks for all your support.

Rolando Gomez et al

I understand that you may or may not be the subject of the above deleted article. However, if you are not the man but you are still affiliated with the man, that does not mean that you get free reign to continue to say that the page on your associate should be kept or not. It is up to Wikipedia policies and those who interpret them. That would be administrators such as myself, MZMcBride, MBisanz, Secret, Spartaz, MacGyverMagic, DGG, and many others. It is up to us to determine consensus and if there is no consensus, use our judgement to decide the proper course of action. I am frankly tired that you seem to be selectively quoting myself and other administrators involved in the deletion of the page of you/your associate Rolando Gomez. I did the right thing after my speedy deletion by undeleting the page and opening up the second AFD discussion. Neil, when he first closed the discussion here was not wrong, but yet you felt that you were slighted by the deletion and requested that the page be brought up at DRV, after which it was decided that the page would be relisted, after which MZMcBride closed the debate. This was effectively two AFD's that both ended in deletion. I would stop if I were you in focusing your activities on Wikipedia to have your/your associate's page retained on this website and instead focus your energies to less ephemeral pursuits. Having a biography on Wikipedia is not the ultimate thing anyone should be pursuing to get your/your associate's name out there. I'm sure if you/your associate spent more time getting publications, then there would be no issue with the man's notability in Wikipedia's eyes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand you are an admin, all I asked was for fairness. I have told Cerejota that I will not participate anymore on the discussion as he seems to be one of the few that is non-biased. Since this is a talk page and you initiated talk with me, I'm responding with this. The 2nd AfD took place because I asked you why you speedy deleted something that had passed a previous AfD over two years ago. During that AfD, you deleted and blocked edits when links to credible sources were made--that is why I requested a deletion review. That is not only unfair, but underhanded. You also stopped the ability to edit the article and add credible references during the 2nd AfD, not fair at all as the whole discussion was to improve the article. The first deletion review never questioned the admin who closed it, we questioned the procedure of the 2nd AfD as votes were influenced by your actions and not to mention, you yourself took personal snipes at me and others, including Jerry Avenaim. Now you say Avenaim has 12 sources that you accept, Gomez none. I seriously want to learn, and you are an admin, so please walk me through this, tell me what is wrong with these sources. Though, let's look at the first five below carefully as they are part of the 12 you accept for Avenaim so I can learn better here on how Wiki functions please tell me what is wrong here, point by point and then perhaps I'll be leave you have unbiased intentions.
  • 1. Lexar, Gomez is an original Lexar Elite Photographer, just like Avenaim. In other words, they are both sponsored by Lexar as well as Wikipedia listed photographers Greg Gorman, John Isaac, James B. Dickman, Vincent Laforet, Joe McNally to name a few [2] and [3].
  • 2. There is an article on Avenaim as one of his sources written by International Photographic Council's (IPC) Board of Director, Alice Miller [4], also editor of Studio Photography. Same writer, same editor wrote an article on Gomez at least a year before, here is the scan, here is the article scanned, [5] on this outside source, [6] and proof this entire 14-page article, which won an award, was written by Miller, not Gomez h[ttp://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=1261&pageNum=1].
  • 3. Avenaim states in the second AfD that he and Gomez spoke together at the Photo Imaging Design Expo, which is one of the sources on his Wiki page. They spoke together as Avenaim states in his own words. Gomez also spoke the second year by himself and the show guide had a full-page article about him there [7] and another supporting link that he was a speaker here [8] (See list of speakers at bottom, which include Greg Gorman. Vincent Laforet, Joe McNally to name a few other Lexar Elite Photographers who spoke there.
  • 4. Jason Schneider is quoted as two of those sources for articles that appeared in Shutterbug and Photo District News. Gomez's article in Leica World News was written by Jason Schneider, plus there is a link [9] on the sources page of Gomez' site that is from PDN (Photo District News) on his Calumet 3-country tour last year.
  • 5. Photo District News (PDN) hosts the largest annual photography convention, over 24,000 photographers in Manhattan, Jacob Javits center, with 99 speakers. Gomez was a speaker each year from 2004, 2005, 2006. In 05' and 06' he spoke as one of nine Lighting Masters, the average speaker attracts 50 attendees, as you have to pay to see/hear each speaker. Gomez ranked as the #2 speaker in attendance in 05' with almost 250 people attending, and #3 in 06' with 225 people attending. There are 11 speakers three times a day speaking, FYI, plus the trade show floor. Here are some links [10] and this podcast was from an interview by Zoom-in during the show, of Gomez, [11]. ASMP American Society of Media Photographers link on Gomez, [12] see photographer list toward bottom also confirms the PDN Podcast and still another, [13] prior to the PDN Photo Plus Expo event. Samy's Camera, the #1 retailer in California and #2 in the nation, confirms Gomez as a Lighting Master (see bottom page, after interview) [14] And this article, [15] confirms him as a PPE Lighting Master plus the Gary Bernstein video too. And this link, in the "About the Author, corner right, shows he's a Lighting Master at PDN's PPE, [16]
  • 6. Also, the Zugaphoto.tv DVD that is one of Avenaim's sources, Gomez is one of the 12 "stars" in that video, this was never mentioned before. [17] and comments from the director at the bottom, [18]
  • 7. New York Times (St. Martin's Press, Harper Collins, Avon) Bestselling Author, Lisa Kleypas on Gomez, [19]
  • 8. Here is the master list of references, [20]
  • 9. Here is the press release, external link, on "Top Guns" for the 2005 Photo Imaging Design Expo, notice Gomez is listed, [21]
  • 10. As outlined in many of the above referenced links in the bio areas of Gomez, in 1994 he was selected as one of the Top Five military photographers in the world by the U.S. Dept. of Defense.

With all due respect, please explain why the above would not be considered as credible sources. I do want to disclose something, because of the Delta Airlines In-flight magazine article this month and posts on the Internet like these, [22] through my media contacts, I am aware of how closely this article is being watched. I have to agree with many, that Wiki has changed so much that it has become a political bureaucracy with editors and admins competing for status. I do hope you are not that type. All the best, I await your answers. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.191.15.133&oldid=257545487"