![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a lot of talk here about returning money to stockholders. This never happened. I was a stockholder and remember the announcement that the head of the company was "donating the remaining assets to charity" which maddenned all of us. The stockholders got nothing from the pets.com "liquidation" if you could call it that. So QUIT ADDING IN HERE THAT MONEY WAS RETURNED TO STOCKHOLDERS. THIS IS UNTRUE. 66.90.150.79 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The pets.com sock puppet bears an uncanny resemblance to the character "Judge" from Irish surrel children's tv show " Wanderly Wagon"
Approximately 70% of the article is devoted to the pets.com puppet, with very little to the company itself. That seems a bit much. -- Misterwindupbird 17:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the Pets.com dog's slogan was "Pets.com, because pets can't drive." Perhaps this should go in the article?
Drdestiny7 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited your article for the facts, not what press clippings you appeared to use. I was a senior executive at the company and therefore know what happened and am aware what was reported to have happened. Your article had significant errors in almost every paragraph, starting with the first sentence. The company did not file for bankruptcy. It closed its doors with a net positive worth to give money back to shareholders. I am assuming that you just picked up articles that had invalid facts in them and your article did not include intentional misrepresentations of the facts. BettyandLou 12:35, 2 August 2006
Skybunny,
You seem very earnest and very engaged in the wikipedia experience.
Here is what I am struggling with in your article as I first encountered it a couple of weeks ago. Your first declaration was that Pets.com filed for bankruptcy. I removed this from your story and rewrote the truth. Now, upon further research, you see that, you were incorrect. I knew you were incorrect since I was at the company. However, there are several articles written by journalists that reported just what you wrote. Specifically, there are at least 20 news reports that I know of that stated that Pets.com filed for bankruptcy. All are "sources" but none were accurate. Your original writings pulled from many published articles that had incorrect data in them. I am not defending the company; I am trying to correct your "facts" which aren’t really facts in many cases. By analogy, yesterday a pundit on Fox News said that he didn't believe that Israel was really firing rockets into Beirut and that damaged buildings were due to shoddy construction. This statement could be written on Wikipedia and then sourced to this pundit to appear as factual.
Pets.com was public and there are public documents filed with the SEC that accessible to anyone.
If you are interested in doing investigative journalism, that is a good place to start. If you do care to do this, you will need to understand how to read financial statements. For example, the line item that is called, "cost of goods sold" is comprised of many elements, not just product costs. There are picking and packing costs added into the line item. The sales and marketing line item includes among other things, warehouse costs, and customer service and space allocation. It is not just advertising dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyandLou ( talk • contribs)
"It closed its doors with a net positive worth to give money back to shareholders." I have posted a response to this fabrication here several times and for some reason it keeps getting removed. I was a stockholder, and pets.com did NOT give anything back to any of us. In fact, what really happened was the person who was running pets.com liquidated all of their inventory and then donated the money they got to charity. And yes they did declare bankruptcy, but only after doing this specifically so that stockholders could get nothing. I think this person is protecting his/her reputation and resume and is not interested in this being a fair article. I would suggest this person being blocked from being able to write on this article altogether, since this is the fourth or fifth time I have had to say this and it keeps getting deleted. 72.177.35.88 ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is currently linked to from PC World's 25 worst websites just so you are all aware. Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence of the article claims that the Pets.com Sock puppet had his own brand of dog treats in 2004. Is there a source for this statement? TDS18 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pets.com. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)