User talk:184.32.125.150

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure why there would be a conflict of interest. I'm a marketing professor at university of south florida and am just learning how to use wikipedia.


 * University of South Florida IP addresses are in the range 131.247.0.0 - 131.247.255.255
 * That does not match your provider, which appears to be BellSouth or AT&T. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please refrain from blanking articles or entire sections of articles, as you did with this edit to The Kluger Agency. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I will not blank out full sections but will remove content that i believe is false and unwarranted. If you could provide me with a legitimate source (major news outlet, sourced interview, etc.), i see no reason to delete. Information about prices is considered an advertisement and should not be on this page.

Hello, I'm Jeff G.. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Kluger Agency without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

--184.32.125.150 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The recent edits need to remain in place. Information regarding the formation of the agency as well as the commissions are not supported by a credible source

I've reported this to Administrator intervention against vandalism as repeated deletion of valid, sourced content - even if it is unfavourable to your vested interests - is vandalism. Please do not do this again. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reported your efforts to delete credible information to Administrator intervention against vandalism. This page will be completely deleted.

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at The Kluger Agency, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Utter nonsense. You blanked the entire page after repeated warnings from multiple users. You may also want to look at WP:COI and WP:ADV as Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise your company or its services. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're adding only negative reviews of this company when there is well over 500 positive reviews found by a simple internet search. Wikipedia does not tolerate editing with the sole purpose to defame companies. This will be addressed with wiki direct and your IP address has been sent to them for review as all of your past edits are only relating to this company which is a clear indication you have an alterior motive to your posts.


 * It's not defamation if it's true and backed by reliable sources. I also find it very difficult to believe that you are a "marketing professor" given the number of errors in your text. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The entire 1st-6th page of google is filled with positive reviews of this company. It's very hard to believe you're not working for or employed for the sole purpose of defaming this company. I've sent complaint letters to various sources listed under wikipedia contacts for matters like this. It will be addressed. If you're going to list reviews by blogs at random, It's very hard to beleive you haven't found a positive review as most of them are. This page has been edited from a negative stance and that is not going to be tolerated.


 * Kluger clients are being panned by mainstream reviewers in Vanity Fair and the Washington Post, neither of which is a "blog at random", for passing huge quantities of advertising off as content in music videos. Kluger has no one to blame but himself for this. Whitewashing this by removing reliably-sourced facts from mainstream publications in articles is a very transparent WP:COI ploy which only hurts your cause. Please don't do this again. If you think an article deserves not to be in Wikipedia, take that debate to WP:AFD as that's what it's there for. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not a neutral party here...I see 17 articles (businessweek, well versed, ny times, etc.) all with positive reviews of this company. You should be putting all verifiable information on this page, not just negative information.


 * I suggest we ignore all future comments here and stop feeding this troll whose only purpose is to shape the Kruger article the way Kruger wants it. Just let admins handle this matter. Cresix (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/keywordrenewals for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)