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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I've reported your efforts to delete credible information to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

184.32.125.150 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was simply deleting the unsupported information. Two emails have been sent to info-en-q@wikipedia.org as a major contributor to this article is clearly writing defamitory information for the sole purpose of harming this companies reputation184.32.125.150 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Now you're treading very close to making legal threats. If you keep going this way, your block will be extended and you'll likely lose your ability to edit this talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.