User talk:76.197.28.194

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.197.28.194) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to ApothéCure Inc.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for legal threat

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. This is unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats and follw any instructions there. If you're willing to withdraw the legal threat, I'll unblock the account. — Scientizzle 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Reply

Mediation and request for unblock of ApothéCure IP address 67.154.13.154 and 76.197.28.194

I am in management for ApothéCure and writing to you on behalf of the owner, Gary Osborn, RPh, CCN. There are other items regarding our company that would be of use to the community as a whole in addition to the information you wrote. We should have rights to make comments and offer other helpful information regarding our own company and its history, which dates back to 1991.

The items that you posted under "Controvery" are still under investigation and offer only one point of view. This is why I edited this information. It was my intention to gather articles and information that would offer a more complete picture providing both points of view as well as further information about our company.

Your remarks also violate the rules for writing articles under "Advocacy and controversial material," that clearly states that you are not to write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint, which this article does. Wikipedia promotes "neutrality." This article appears to be biased against our company and does not offer any other viewpoint than negative articles that are under investigation.

I am kindly asking that you unblock or allow me to add our own content. ApothéCure is a world-renowed compounding pharmacy with a history of providing patients and doctors with quality compounds since 1991.

If you have any questions, you may contact me personally at: [Phone # redacted]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.28.194 (talk • contribs)

To respond to some of your statements...
  • Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, with an emphasis on the use of reliable sources. Every statement in the ApothéCure Inc.‎ is sourced to press publications. If you have other sources that counter or refute these statmements, they can be added to the article.
  • Wikipedia's policy on neutral point-of-view states that articles must represent "fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If there are reliable sources that praise ApothéCure, or refute the legal claims made about the company, those may be appropriate to include. A neutral point-of-view doesn't mean "whitewash away all negative comments"...the correct method of improving the article would have been to add relevant, sourced content to the article and discuss the quality of the sourcing on the article's talk page.
  • You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest...[these] edits are strongly discouraged."
  • I will not, as stated above, unblock this address until the legal threat is withdrawn. You can withdraw it here, on this page. You could, alternatively, post the {{unblock}} message, but I would expect other administrators would be disinclined to unblock until the legal threat is withdrawn...
  • Finally, I would suggest contacting the Wikimedia Foundation via email. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise) can help. — Scientizzle 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


I retract any legal threats and wish to be unblocked so that we may add in content. I don't see where I should "remove" this. I will also contact the e-mail address that you provided regarding the objectivity and neutrality of the content. There are many articles/books where ApothéCure is cited, such as Suzanne Somers book and many others. Please let me know the next step so that we can proceed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.28.194 (talk • contribs)

I will lift the block shortly. — Scientizzle 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked. — Scientizzle 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This reference is false and has been retracted by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. I can send you a copy. Thank you for lifting the block. I will add information regarding the history of the company.

ApothéCure was investigated in 2004 following complaints that its compounds (testosterone and growth hormones) may have been illegally dispensed to patients, including a pregnant woman.[5] Pharmacy board officials found insufficient evidence to discipline the company, but issued a letter of warning.[5] In the 2007 deaths, however, there may have been several violations committed, including ApothéCure being unlicensed to sell drugs in Oregon.[5][6]

I take it you mean reference #5? This story? I don't see a retraction from the Portland Tribune. Perhaps you should take it up with them? If you've a copy of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy info, that would be useful. — Scientizzle 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)