Talk:Kluger Agency

Sounds like it was written by AKPR

This sounds like it was written by somebody from AKPR. I can find the Wired article about the controversy, but nothing on the "more notable sources" refuting the legitimacy of the emails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.146.80 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just pretty much re-written the page. Obviously it's better than before, but it still needs a lot of work. Fakelvis (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable source of information is from the agency themselves. We've spoken with the PR director for the agency, we've started a story on the events that lead to this fictional online war, and we have documents and quotes to prove it. Your best bet is to contact the agency's pr dept. yourself, their number is on the site, i believe its 949-379-2008. AKPR is not KA..they are two seperate companies. There is no documentation to prove anything written on wired.com was true and to our knowledge less than 10% is. According to wired.com the information was given to them by anti-advertising advocates. Put two and two together..Anti-Advertising advocates + a high ranked news source on google NL = marketing scheme.

We have no interest other an stating whats 100% known. If for some reason you feel that you know more than us (the people that actually spoke to the agency), i'd ask you to contact them and get some reliable information to post online.

Pussycat dolls were never even mentioned to anyone to our knowledge and if you do your own research, you'll find the email said to have been written by a member of KA was sent in Late Aug.. PCD launched their album already and theres no way on earth that a jean brand could have been added to an already mixed and mastered album schedualed to release less than 30 days later.

Based on research, Interviews (with both KA and Wired), we've found that most of the information INCLUDING the "PCD Controversy" and "The Letter to Jeff Crouse" were both fictional and possibly fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not remove large portions of text from the talk page while a discussion is still in progress?

As I have only added information to this article that is cited from reliable sources, I feel that if you refute these claims you must provide information from similarly reliable sources. Please do so.

Furthermore, as you may notice from the article page itself, I've filed for a third opinion - again, please don't remove large pieces of text without a good reason. Below is the reinstated text you deleted.

Furthermore, in all honesty I couldn't care less about this article or the Pussycat Dolls themselves. What I do care about is providing information on Wikipedia that is reliable. If it proves not to be, then I'll let it lie. Please provide a reliable source backing up your viewpoint.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reliable source is the agency themselves! You just agreed with the fact that the pussycat dolls had nothing to do with this, hence, you are making it a point to include that in the "reliable" information. I am willing to bet any amount that you are either a member of wired.com, anti advertising agency, or another publisher of the story. It was a bogus story, every reliable news source knows it...if you honestly want to dispute this, i'd recommend doing an "on tape" interview with Jake Fryfield, KA's PR guy who we spoke to. If not, then back off of this subject that you so clearly know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, some civility: your edit summary (BS) is not helpful, courteous, or appreciated.

If you want to remove information because it is incorrect, please provide some citable resources that corroborate your story: just saying that your reliable source is the agency doesn't help anyone.

Where did I "just [agree] with the fact that the pussycat dolls had nothing to do with this"? I don't believe I did?

As I stated on my talk page, I do not work for "wired.com, anti advertising agency, or another publisher of the story"; I am simply an independent Wikipedia user who wishes to improve the encyclopaedia and wishes to do so in a pleasant environment. Can we please try and keep this discussion polite and reasonable, and try and refrain from accusations of impropriety?

To this end, do you really expect me to phone up some agency on the other side of the Atlantic to find out this information? My edits were based on reports from reliable sources that have since not been redacted or retracted. They still stand as fact and have already passed verifiability checks at Wikinews. All I ask is that you please provide similar information verifying your side of events.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pussycat Dolls 'controversy' information

99.191.218.97 (Talk), you appear to be ignoring the request I lodged on your talk page regarding the editing of this article. You have repeatedly removed large chunks of this article that I have written that are cited with reliable sources and verifiable information.

I will, once again, reinstate these changes and leave another comment on your talk page. If you feel the need to once again revert my changes, I will request a third opinion so that we can maybe come to some arrangement over this article's content - I don't want this to turn into an edit war.

I have no vested interest in this article, and merely want to make the entry encyclopaedic. As this article was only created once the Pussycat Dolls controversy was reported on Wired News, I feel this should stay in the article. For now I am assuming good faith and civility - please do the same.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2008 edits

I'm telling you that the article on wired is 100% false. I am 100% sure and i guarantee if you contact TKA, they will give you the same response they gave me. We quoted this in an interview with their Head of Public Relations, "There was never any email written, it's clear at this point it was a fabricated article written by some teenagers on their anti marketing blog. We feel it's comical that other sources of online news would pick this article up as the truth. More importantly, The information said to have been quoted by our CEO Adam Kluger on wired.com was taken out of context and not very truthful, We have our legal staff on the matter and to my knowledge the editor and chief of wired.com is aware of the matter". The Kluger agency has there information clearly posted on their website www.klugeragency.com and if this dispute wants settling, i'd refer wikipedia directly to TKA. Fakelvis, i don't know who you are, but i guarantee you know nothing of the situation and are simply barking up the wrong tree. I will continue to delete comments, quote, and information that we 100% know are false. Any disputes should be taken up with the agency you are writing about. That's it, I'm done.