Talk:ApothéCure

message: I added some clarifying wording to the second paragraph, which suggested potential wrongdoing. Apothecure is a compounding pharmacy and provides custom compounds to physicians -- and does NOT dispense compounds to patients.  
Disclosure: I am a public relations practitioner who has worked for Apothecure, although I do not work on their behalf currently.
Dan Keeney
DPK Public Relations
[redacted]
[redacted]
www.dpkpr.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.110.206 (talk • contribs) 
:Regarding your change to the article, as the primary author of this page, I merely relayed what the story said: Apothecure "was investigated as a result of complaints that it illegally dispensed testosterone and growth hormones, once to a pregnant woman". Whether the dispensation was actually to the patients' physicians is not made clear.
:As for the "and subsequently cleared" addition, I will reword it to reflect the more accurate, "In each case, according to pharmacy board officials, the board failed to find enough evidence to discipline the company, but instead issued a letter of warning." — Scientizzle 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Plenty of negative stuff out there...
*, , 
*
I'm trying to locate possible positive reliable sources... — Scientizzle 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More possible sources... 

message: I have carried out a total revert of the last 5 edits
These were all made by one new SPA who
*Removed correct inline references and substituted ELs in the main text, making it almost unreadable.
*Inserted very promotional material - a huge list of web-sites - many of which appear to be offering the company products.  These links are to home-pages, not articles referring to ApotheCure, and there is no WP:RS cited for including them at all.
*Included strange claims - that the company regularly attended various academies - companies can't attend academies
*Included "a mission statement"
  
Although I am aware of the Assume Good Faith guidelines, and these changes may have been due to inexperience, an SPA on an article like this, making apparently promotional changes, probably has a Conflict of interestArjayay (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I clicked a few of the supporting links to the article and found at least 2 that appear to be dead.  I haven't time to make a detailed survey, but it's probable that there are even more given that the 1st two that I clicked were both dead.  The article makes some serious and what I would consider to be biased assertions and the entirety of the wikipedia article relies on a handful of newspaper articles, some of which are no longer "live" and verifiable.  What is wikipedia's policy in this situation?Jonny Quick (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Wikipedia:Offline sources & Wikipedia:Link rot discuss the situation. Just because a link rots, doesn't mean the source suddenly fails WP:V, assuming that a proper citation is available. I noticed some of the Portland Tribune articles have faulty links now. I don't have time to fix the links presently, but it should be possible to dig them out of the PT archive. — Scientizzle 21:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Even though the deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, it seems clear to me that the company is notable. It has received non-trivial coverage in several news sources. However, this coverage is almost exclusively related to malfeasance and lawsuits. If there was just one incident, like with New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak, I would say that we should modify the article to be about the event rather than the company. However, there have been at least three separate incidents, so I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the company. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now my information is that the business is out-of-business.  It's was a tiny compound pharmacy in Armpit, Texas and all the online references to the "controversy" are now gone, as well as the business.  The only purpose this article serves is to use Wikipedia as a platform to say something negative about a small business that had an accident that was used by the Federal Government to award a $800 million monopoly to a pharmaceutical company in Japan.  Again, no details of the accident, who was involved, any charges that might have been filed, no doctors, no employees, no final disposition of the criminal situation, it doesn't even serve the interests of the Pharmaceutical company.  Not even the author of the hatchet job, er- I mean "article" cares enough to maintain it.  Where's that Officer Fife FBI dude?  He swooped in to prevent any constructive changes, read us all a bunch of Statist, government legalese and then got back in his Crown Victoria and sped-off.  Can ANYONE enunciate a reason for maintaining this retarded article's existence?Jonny Quick (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on ApothéCure Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106220837/https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=2298 to http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=2298
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified