This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PetMed Express article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Jytdog. I am sorry that you felt what I wrote was adversarial, and that I didn’t write on the article’s talk page. I am more than happy to ask my questions here. I’m not sure how to prove who I am, but I would be more than willing to continue this discussion via email, and then you will see that I am who I say I am (based on my email address). If instead you want to continue here, I am willing to do it, and perhaps it shouldn’t matter who I am since really, all I’m asking for is basic fairness and for an explanation as to what has been happening to the article, and why.
As I had indicated, a few months ago it was deleted, and after we contested it, it was returned. Then the following happened which suggests to us that someone is intentionally trying to harm the organization's reputation and business. Last week we observed referral traffic from this URL: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-brutal-edit-war-over-a-3d-printers-wikipedia-page-reprap and 4 days later we noticed mass edits to this article made by you. As a result, in the span of a few months we’ve seen the article attempt to be deleted, someone came to our site after reading about your edit war with the RepRap Project, and 4 days later you made all of these edits. Based on this, I hope you can see that we are suspicious of the motives behind what is happening, and as employees of a reputable company, we do not want to see its reputation and business suffer as a result.
I saw that Randykitty wrote that if I have problems with specific edits, I should discuss here and suggest improvements based on independent reliable sources. Our issues with the edits are too numerous to do here, but I will say that the tone of the edits, especially the Business paragraph, is extremely negative and the independent reliable sources are all veterinarian-related. As is correctly indicated in the article we do compete with veterinarians, so with all due respect, these should not be considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, at least one of these “sources” is from 11 years ago, yet the edits read as if the matters are current state. We have tried very hard to improve our relationship with the veterinarian community, for the betterment of the pets for whom we dispense medications.
As you can see from my comments on only the top portion, our issues with the edits are numerous. You’re right that I don’t understand much about WP, but given that the original article was factually correct and informative with numerous actual independent reliable sources, I don’t see how that does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and why such negative edits were made, not only to content but to presentation.
AB GenC ( talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
PetMed Express article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Jytdog. I am sorry that you felt what I wrote was adversarial, and that I didn’t write on the article’s talk page. I am more than happy to ask my questions here. I’m not sure how to prove who I am, but I would be more than willing to continue this discussion via email, and then you will see that I am who I say I am (based on my email address). If instead you want to continue here, I am willing to do it, and perhaps it shouldn’t matter who I am since really, all I’m asking for is basic fairness and for an explanation as to what has been happening to the article, and why.
As I had indicated, a few months ago it was deleted, and after we contested it, it was returned. Then the following happened which suggests to us that someone is intentionally trying to harm the organization's reputation and business. Last week we observed referral traffic from this URL: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-brutal-edit-war-over-a-3d-printers-wikipedia-page-reprap and 4 days later we noticed mass edits to this article made by you. As a result, in the span of a few months we’ve seen the article attempt to be deleted, someone came to our site after reading about your edit war with the RepRap Project, and 4 days later you made all of these edits. Based on this, I hope you can see that we are suspicious of the motives behind what is happening, and as employees of a reputable company, we do not want to see its reputation and business suffer as a result.
I saw that Randykitty wrote that if I have problems with specific edits, I should discuss here and suggest improvements based on independent reliable sources. Our issues with the edits are too numerous to do here, but I will say that the tone of the edits, especially the Business paragraph, is extremely negative and the independent reliable sources are all veterinarian-related. As is correctly indicated in the article we do compete with veterinarians, so with all due respect, these should not be considered independent reliable sources. Moreover, at least one of these “sources” is from 11 years ago, yet the edits read as if the matters are current state. We have tried very hard to improve our relationship with the veterinarian community, for the betterment of the pets for whom we dispense medications.
As you can see from my comments on only the top portion, our issues with the edits are numerous. You’re right that I don’t understand much about WP, but given that the original article was factually correct and informative with numerous actual independent reliable sources, I don’t see how that does not conform to Wikipedia standards, and why such negative edits were made, not only to content but to presentation.
AB GenC ( talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)