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

Reasons for my edits:

Pussycat Dolls controversy: see above.
External links: The reinstated links are useful from the viewpoint of the Pussycat Dolls story.
Company-stub: This article is on a company. The article contains little information on the actual company, therefore I am marking it as a stub-grade article. I believe this is correct and that you repeatedly remove it by mistake: if this is incorrect, please let me know why.
Brand Awareness vs. Brand Integration: we seemingly cannot agree on the correct phrase, so I'm now removing both in order to be fair. To me, the practice Kluger Agency is involved in seems like brand awareness campaigns. "Brand integration" seems more like a marketing term for this practice (if I am incorrect, I suggest creating an article explaining what it actually is).
"Several record labels": we have no verifiable information saying that Kluger Agency work with 'several' record labels. If you can find a source, please update the wording and cite.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Help.

I am a bit confused on what the controversy is. All I can tell is that an anon user has repeatedly reverted your edits without comment. Are you trying to add links, or other information? I also see that the anon user has not participated in any discussion with you that I can see, so no matter what, there is no way to know that the other the anon user will respect any decision made by me or any other editor. Part of the WP:Dispute process is discussion, but since very little has happened, I would suggest that User:Fakelvis continue to make his good faith edits and if the anon user reverts more than three times in one day, then report them to WP:AN3, which is a page that reports abusive editors. Please leave any comments on my talk page, if you have any questions. As a side note, you may want to reword the first sentence after Clients, as it seems to be a weasel phrase.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add further information: information that was pertinent at the time of this article's initial creation. This revision of the article contains the information that actually brought this agency into the limelight (and initiated the article's creation): it is also the revision I am attempting to re-create. I accept that it is not perfect (NPOV issues and—as you point out—possible weasel words), and I want to edit this to improve the article.

I will, as you suggest, make another good-faith edit and reword the section significantly in an attempt to appease the other party. However, I don't hold much hope of anything I write staying for long because of what was written here (after everything—including your 3O help—was deleted).

Thanks for the help, Fakelvis (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet, since the other party is not communicating at all, is to continue improving this article and report abusive editors to the WP:AN3 page, especially if they make three reverts in one day, which it looks like may have happened on several occasions. That is a major no-no in the wiki-community. I will be monitoring the situation, good luck and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such PCD controversy, there was never a mistaken letter written to Double Happiness Jeans. It was all a spam scam written by AAA to promote there blog. Wired make a big "no-no" for picking it up and now they're being called out all over the web for doing so. I will not allow you to post the invalid information on this informative site. see : http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/dont-believe-everything-you-read/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keywordrenewals (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, what info needs to be added, and what is the source. Remember, reliable third party citations are always encouraged. If the only source of the info is a blog, then the info should not be added. Also, every editor on wikipedia should follow WP:Good faith. Do not immediatly revert edits unless the edit is obvious vandalism.

Also, this is for User:Keywordrenewal, why did you delete my comment on this talk page earlier? That type of behavior is not tolerated on wikipedia. I hope is was just a mistake and that you hade no ill intentions when you blanked the section. I hope that it does not accidently happen again. All comments and ideas are welcome. Thank you all and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would like to include information from this article on Wired.com. I believe it to be information from a reliable source, and this information also appeared on Wikinews: passing newsworthiness and verifiability checks there. As this is the news article that spawned the creation of this article a few days ago, I believe it should appear here - at least for now.

If a third party believes this to no longer be newsworthy, reliable or notable, I have no qualms about it not appearing here. As it stands, I believe it should as I have not been provided with (nor can find) a reliable source refuting these claims.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"NO SUCH EMAIL WAS EVER WRITTEN TO AAA", "WIRED.COM HAS HARMED THIER OWN REPUTATION BY PUBLISHING FABRICATED MATERIAL". - Head of Public relations (The Kluger Agency). I do not see any reason why fabricated material should be published on wikipedia, and the fact that user fakelvis is working so hard to get the information on the page makes me question his relationship with Anti advertising advocates and wired.com , Wikipedia is so great because they typically only publish the facts, so i'm confident if they want to dispute anything they will contact the kluger agency themselves as i did over a week ago. fakelvis, do your homework, don't believe all you read, and if you want credible information...go to the source. (Keywordrenewals (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]