Talk:PetMed Express/Archive 1

Comments
Shadowsill, I would welcome your input in how you would like to rephrase the new information to make it less "biased," but please don't carry on deleting it wholesale. Everything I've added is the truth; if you think my phrasing is biased, then help me rephrase it, but the information is important and consumers have a right to know it. The only reason you could have for wanting to eliminate it entirely, and restore the company-supplied party line, is if *you* are the one who is biased, in favor of the company. Critterkeeper (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i think the fact that i asked about how prescriptions are fulfilled indicates that i've never even bought anything from the company, let alone work for them. i even left in most of your additions that seem to be against the company, simply because what was in the article wasn't any better.  but i am trying to maintain an encyclopedic entry here.  the only addition of yours i actually changed was "Many of these commercials stated or implied that taking a pet to a veterinarian was not necessary to obtain prescription medications, in clear violation of pharmacy laws."   there are no sources for this, you need to at the very least indicate what laws you think you are being broken, and how this was stated in the commercial.  "implied" would be a stretch even with sources, the very nature of the word is POV.  i don't think the burden of fixing the article is really on me, it's up to the individual contributor to try to add valid, sourced, and unbiased information. - Shadowsill (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, if you could help me figure out what sort of citations would be needed I'd appreciate it. A link to the commercial on YouTube, if I can find it?  Do I need to find the exact code sections, or just link to the page they appear on?  And should this be placed in the "Advertisements" section, of which the advertisements in question are the only thing mentioned, or should all mention of the ads be moved to "Controversies"?  Critterkeeper (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This page appears to be victim of manipulation by the company in question, in order to slant coverage in their favor. The phrasing matched word-for-word the phrasing of their response to several lawsuits brought by state pharmacy boards against them. The truth is that the company was violating the law and was caught doing it. Allowing someone who has never seen a pet, let alone examined them, serve as their "veterinarian" for prescription purposes is illegal; prescriptions require a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship. This is for good reason -- many medications can be dangerous if misused, and serious medical conditions can go untreated if the pet's owner tries to make their own diagnosis and gives them the wrong medication. Please be on the lookout for any further manipulation by this company. Critterkeeper (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * is it not true that a regular vet must give the prescription, and 1800petmeds only fills it? maybe i am incorrect, but it seems to me that you are saying a person can get whatever meds they want for their pet, which i don't think can possibly be the case - Shadowsill (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is how it is supposed to work. However, the "alternate veterinarian" program was illegal, because no valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship existed.  There are still numerous cases of PetMeds continuing to fill prescriptions long after they have expired. Critterkeeper (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * your recent contributions seemed extremely biased to me, it sounds like you had a bad experience with the company and are taking it out on their WP page. can you find sources for any of your claims?  reading over the older version of the page, i don't deny that some parts seemed incredibly biased in favor of the company and needed to be changed, but it seems like they are now biased against the company, which isn't good either. - Shadowsill (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the previous page is biased, then why did you revert to it? Please tell me anything I added to the page which was inaccurate.  I will be happy to let your reversions stand if you can do that.  You have restored the biased language provided directly from the PetMeds lawyers.  Tell me who is the biased one here? Critterkeeper (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * did you actually look at what i reverted? i think you just got mad that i undid something, so you undid my change.  look at what i changed -> i removed one sentence that you added.  you had no sources, and it is simply speculation on the ad.  how can removing a sentence be restoring biased language?  i left the rest of your revisions alone, not because they're better, but for the simple reason that there's no reason to prefer one biased version over the other.  however, i think it's likely someone else will revert them in the future if you don't find any sources. - Shadowsill (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies on that one. On this end, the first time, it looked like all of my revisions had been undone.  The second time, it was clear that was the only section changed.  Guess my browser got confused and reloaded a cached version of the page or something the first time.  I'm working on tracking down sources; the main problem is that several of them are either private communication from the company, or on restricted-access message boards.  I'm having to track down public-access sources. Critterkeeper (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * a minor thing, some of your contributions that were marked as minor are clearly controversial, so they really shouldn't be marked as such. - Shadowsill (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "some of"? I only marked one as minor, and it was. Critterkeeper (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, "some of". a single slice of pie would be called "some of" the pie.  a revision that changes the tone of the article, a revision that someone might disagree with, or a revision involving claims without sources should not be marked as minor.  yours was all three. - Shadowsill (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I made several revisions, but I think the only time I mark 'minor' is when I rephrase or fix typos. If I did two things at once and thought I was only marking one, then it was my mistake. Critterkeeper (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the Pharmacy Board portion of the controveries section (which I've edited) - At the time, not all state veterinary medicine regulations had a definition of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship that required a veterinarian to physically examine a pet prior to making decisions concerning the treatment of that pet, including the issuing of a prescription. Thus a prescription from a veterinarian in such a state was valid.  As General Counsel for 1800PetMeds, I have personal knowledge of these facts and any factual edits I've made have been duly cited.Daberges (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a veterinarian, I have personal knowledge of the legal requirements for a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship. I have a hard time believing that any state would consider one indirect web interaction to meet that requirement, but even if this were so, it would *not* apply to a patient living in another state.  Therefore 1800PetMeds would only be able to fulfill online orders for clients who live in one of those states.  Given how complicated that could become, it's probably just as well that loophole in the laws was closed.  Critterkeeper (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/23/biz_07200best_PetMed-Express_5OSH.html
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-05-25 02:01:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-06-01 22:27:44, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/23/biz_06200best_PetMed-Express_5OSH.html
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-05-25 02:01:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-06-01 22:27:55, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060113/ai_n16010379
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-05-25 02:01:07, 404 This requested article does not exist.
 * In 1800Petmeds on 2011-06-01 22:28:07, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)