Talk:Vetmedin

This is in regards to the recent little edit war. We should try to work this out here, instead of things going on as they have (me deleting eveything you write, and you calling me a prick). I have been deleting the material you have put in the article based on a couple of assumptions, so please tell me if I am wrong.

The layout of what you wrote reads like a product insert or brochure for a drug. Three things made me think that this is actually the case:
 * 1) VETMEDIN is capitalized each time, just like in the brochure I have.
 * 2) At least one sentence is identical to the brochure.
 * 3) The first couple of times you posted it there were numbers for footnotes, but no footnotes, making me think it was just copied and pasted from another source.

I don't have any proof that this is a direct copy from a brochure, so if I'm wrong, let me know. You're latest comment indicates that you wrote the material for the company. There are two problems with this. First, there is an issue with conflict of interest (see WP:COI), although that is not really a big deal in this case, since you're not really pushing the drug all that much. Second, even though you wrote it, the company holds the copyright on the text (assuming they published it somewhere). This is a big issue here - see Copyright violations.

I should have said all of this initially, instead of simply deleting each time. However, I haven't had much time to dedicate to Wikipedia lately, which is also why I haven't taken the time to rewrite the article. This article is low on my list of priorities, but I hate it when people just insert copyrighted material. So if I'm wrong, and you wrote this and it is not copyrighted, I am sorry. Repost it and I'll clean it up a little to get it in line with WP standards. Hopefully you can also calm down and not resort to name calling. Thanks. --Joelmills (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes
"Research has shown that this drug increases survival time and improves quality of life of patients in congestive heart failure when compared with an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor." As I recall that's a pretty hotly disputed piece of research, and the conclusion written here isn't universally accepted. It's also a little misleading, as an ACE-I is used in combination with pimobendan by the vast vast majority of vets to manage heart failure (also in conjunction with furosemide and spironolactone). This is mentioned further down, but I think it's a little non-impartial to state this at the top of the article. Alsiola vet (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I also tidied up the drug combinations section a bit. Heart failure is generally managed with the "big four" drugs now listed in bullets. Other drugs can be used as well, but not in such a set combination. I removed the sentence about oxygen supplementation, as pimobendan wouldn't be used in patients presenting in acute respiratory distress. The 4 prongs of therapy in this case are furosemide, oxygen, nitroglycerine and a sedative, so it doesn't really belong on this page. Alsiola vet (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)