Talk:Optical Express/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

COI editing

I believe both GBE and RingARoses have edited directly in the page when it is blatantly obvious that they are COI and have agendas. They have been warned previously against this and I think that it is hugely unfair to allow this to continue without giviung other COI's the right to post directly without threat of being banned. I welcome other editors opinions on this matter.Hardlygone (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All the POV pushing editing by COI affected users should cease. Hash it out here. Gigs (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

can their recent edits therefore be reverted until an independent editor reviews their request? I believe that lack of gaining support by way of no comment is no validation for a COI POV to edit directly.Hardlygone (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:GBE's last edit was 21 April 2010[1] and was not to the Optical Express article. As for "their recent edits" in your above request, people reading that would have to guess at the edits you want reviewed. Please post Diffs regarding which recent edits you want reviewed. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The user name is actually Golfbravoecho not User:GBE Theroadislong (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs is correct. Looking into the history of this article via its links on noticeboards,[2] the history shows serious POV pushing for more than a year by those who favor Optical Express (via a COI connection to the company) and oppose Optical Express (via a serious bias in connection with the website opticalexpressruinedmylife.com). Editors on both sides have been blocked and sock puppetry appears to have gone on. Despite the long term editing in Wikipedia, editors from this article still stumble through the different Wikipedia processes, not knowing the correct ones to request help for a given issue. Just as bad, there doesn't seem to be an interest/effort to learn how to add content to the encyclopedia in a way that meets Wikipedia:Core content policies. I think the editors with POV view of this topic should step away from this and related topics for a few months, and learn how to add content to the encyclopedia by creating new articles or expanding existing ones. Then, you should be able to return to this topic and work with each other to expand this article into a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dental

Surely the closure of the majority of this business is a valid addition to an encyclopaedic article?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a reasonable point - just need a reference/citation for the numbers you have used. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

this editor has consistently failed to provide any reference for these claims. I request the post is removed until a proper reference has been provided.Hardlygone (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK if it is notable that the number of clinics has been reduced then it will not be hard for gbe to find a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the live web site clinic locator a credible encyclopaedic source as it changes often as clinic locations change ownership in and out of the group. Is Wikipedia now a news site reporting on every business change?Hardlygone (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For instance, were the individual dental clinics sold or were they closed? Who knows the structure of the company and the deal? Who knows when the reduction took place: Was it imemdiately after, recently, or gradually over years? This entry is also in the wrong place and GBE(aka the banned Rotsmasher) is again systematically turning the article into a "mess" with overtly negative edits attacking the company. He cannot leave any neutral or positive piece alone and has previously and will again, if left to his own devices, bias the article negatively. GBE (aka the banned Rotsmasher) is a disgruntled ex-employee who's identity has been known to the company for some time and it is therefore no surprise to the company that his edits are focussed on the dental business.Hardlygone (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

it should be possible for a senior Wikipedia editor to ascertain that I am not the user Rotsmasher. In addition to this I think the post you have made is meant to be intimidating and threatening? I am disappointed. I have never and would never work for your company. It is easy for you to blame an ex employee as this makes it seem like a vendetta and less like pointing out the many negative and noteworthy things about Optical Express.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments below about harrasment, appreciate only constructive comments on this matter rather than attacking other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Understood. However my point is three-fold. Firstly, I do not think the Clinic Locator is a valid reference source as it is a live web site and changeable. Secondly, GBE is implying closure (sic) from 54 clinics without producing evidence that OE acquired 54 clinics – therefore the wording “remaining” would constitute OR - or whether any of these clinics were closed or sold. He was previously implying there were 35 clinics afterall - so where did that come from? There is no credible reference to support the suggestion being made and he is grappling at any data available – to produce a statement heavy in OR that is misleading. The external reference, published on 23 October 2004, does not state that there 54 clinics as of January 2005, but as of 23 October 2004. Thirdly, if it is to stay it is in the wrong place as surely it does not sit in a section that sets out to list OE brands without bias. Surely it should be in the main article and be re-written as:

Optical Express acquired the dentistry and laser eye surgery services of Alliance Boots in 2005 - the dental services trade under the name `The Dental Clinic'.[11] Boots Dentalcare had 54 locations as of October 2004. It is unknown how many clinics were acquired by Optical Express in 2005, however currently The Dental Clinic has 7 locations listed on its web site and it is not know if any clinics were closed or sold.[36][37]

Hardlygone (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Boots+jobs+to+be+saved.-a0123217649 --Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.wahanda.com/places/chain-the-dental-clinic/#p=1 --Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All 35 locations (which were on the Optical Express website on a downloadable brochure until they removed it) are available above. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

according to the find a clinic feature - Uxbridge dental clinic has now closed too. I suggest we move to 6 remaining on the article. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

according to the main Optical Express store locator there are now only 52 UK stores. Uxbridge has gone from here too. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we change it to 6 clinics? --Golfbravoecho (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have without consensus. I do not think that commentary about The Dental Clinic, other than it being part of the group perhaps, belongs to this article and would ask a neutral editor to remove it.Hardlygone (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Team 21

Hi, I would like the following added to the article to provide more balance given the overtly negative postings:

To celebrate 21 years in business, in November 2012, following a competition in October to select the 21st member, Optical Express launched 'Team 21', a project taking 21 bloggers through laser eye surgery where they will blog about their experience to dispel the myths surrounding the procedure. References: http://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/latest-news/2012/optical-express-launches-team-21-competition.html, http://www.facebook.com/opticalexpress.

I trust that since others have used OE site links for reference that the ones above will also be considered valid. Hardlygone (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

this external reference is better? http://whatculture.com/technology/team-21-my-first-step-on-the-road-to-2020-vision.php --Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a bit to the article to see what you guys think, concerned it might be overly promotional, but if it is being done to counter criticism we need to find a reference to that. Further comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I like it. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe RingARoses - a COI with agenda - has taken upon herself to delete this even after being warned not to edit the page directly. I would like some action taken to prevent this editor re-offending again especially as others have abided by the rules - which we all know by now.Hardlygone (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The post regarding Team21 was removed by a POV. Can a neutral editor review this please?Hardlygone (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express Corporate Brochure

By putting it in a new section hopefully it will be seen by independent non COI editors before Optical Express remove it. They had a nice brochure for their dental business too which stated that they had 35 clinics but they removed it when I produced it to prove that point. They then accused me of OR when I repeated it. They were obviously aware of the previous brochure but cynically denied this. This brochure states that they had 34 dental clinics. On page 8. http://group.opticalexpress.com/docs/corporate_brochure_sml.pdf

I have no doubt they will remove this one too. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The brochure is still on their website.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhat improper synthesis to imply a conclusion based on raw data. We could talk about the number of locations, but we have to be careful not to imply they are failing by selecting numbers and presenting them in a way that implies a new conclusion that no one else has stated. It's a borderline case, though. It really depends on how you present the data and if you are picking numbers to imply the conclusion. Gigs (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

brochure now gone!--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest fine for fly tipping

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1016125_25000_fine_for_opticians http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=6340 This is worthy of inclusion. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. You want to include something about a fine for littering from 5 years ago? Seriously? Gigs (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Manchester councils largest ever fine for fly tipping. A world of difference between that and littering.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express got something to hide?

So the corporate brochure has now disappeared from the Optical Express Group website. How predictable. I notice no comment by Hardlygone regarding it?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express Corporate brochure from another source

Hopefully Optical Express cannot remove this one. http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/4285408/584fdcd9-ff6d-4e3b-821b-6c14bcfd0994.pdf

Lets see how long this one lasts.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case

The DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case, now mentioned in the article as "In 2012, Optical Express disputed the domain "opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk"", actually was filed by DCM (Optical Holdings) Limited, not Optical Express, and the name of the case is DCM (Optical Holdings) Limited v Sasha Rodoy, Case No. D00011271, 3 August 2012.Mondaq September 24, 2012/law-now.com September 21, 2012. Mondaq is a Wikipedia reliable source and a better source than The Register. The DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case is relevant to a DCM (Optical Holdings) article, but I don't think it relevant to the Optical Express article. The Optical Express article should be limited to the main topic of the article, namely Optical Express. I think mention of the DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case in the Wikipedia Optical Express article should be removed. Information from the DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case decision text itself might have good information for the Optical Express article. You can get the.pdf version of the case decision by going to nominet.org.uk and searching D00011271 as the case number. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DCM is the same as Optical Express Group, which is the parent company name for Optical Express. The dispute was about the Optical Express brand, not about DCM or Optical Express Group, which are the parent companies of the brand. Optical Express Group owns a few other brands [3]. If we followed your logic and limited this article to only matters that were related to Optical Express without any involvement of the parent company, we'd have to reduce the article to a sentence or two. Gigs (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but see above. DCM is not the same. The statement is OR and it seems to be a case of why let the facts ruin a good story - why should the article not be a few sentences if that's what's actually factual - apologies for my cynicism.Hardlygone (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear who made this recent edit, but hopefully I have not offended anyone by reverting to the inclusion of the Nominet DRS decision - other than Hardlygone of course, who seems singularly obsessed with keeping this factual reference out of the article. It should be noted that DCM (Optical Holdings) IS the parent company of the Optical Express brand, with David Moulsdale currently CEO. Why would their legal team have fought the Nominet DRS on behalf of Optical Express if unconnected? When they become separate entities then perhaps independent articles could be considered.RingARoses (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I made the recent edit, as the 'History' shows. The article is meant to be about Optical Express not all the bad things and good things that we can find out about them. I was being a bit bold but I was trying to remove things that are just items of news about the company or are overly promotional. I know the things that I removed were sourced but that does not mean we have to put them in. At the moment the article seems to be a battleground between supporters and opponents of OE. That is not the purpose of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I didn't check the History. Battleground or not, as I have previously noted, the Nominet DRS decision alone is worthy of its mention. Am I also allowed to be bold and replace the version recently reverted by Gigs? RingARoses (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that RingARoses is again making edits without any consensus. Edits by Martin Hogbin improved the article into something which was beginning to resemble a neutral, encyclopaedic version. Although the edits removed a number of positive OE stories,I made no complaints as the article was improved by someone who has clear experience within Wikipedia and is a completely neutral editor. Elements of these were then changed by one COI editor. If that is the case, why don't we just go back to the beginning and put the positive stories in as well? I have taken a step back and made no edits as promised to allow neutral editors the room to make the article a balanced encyclopaedic article. However, it is clear that other editors have no intention to do so as they wish to pursue their own agenda which is definitely not to have an article in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I really want to stop this battleground and give NEUTRAL editors the room to create an encyclopaedic article. However, others are continuing their battleground mentality and actually abusing normal editors/admins in the process. Hardlygone (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not "abusing" anyone, which is why I posted my intentions here before making the edit. It should be remembered that Hardlygone's activity here is paid for by DCM (Optical Holdings) with the aim of keeping negative history out of the article. It makes sense that a business is prepared to sacrifice some positive stories to prevent negative ones.RingARoses (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express article should be protected

This article needs protecting double quick time. Two sides fighting it out here. Cannot abide companies who try to make the wikipedia article into what they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.27.99 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but I suggest you sign in first.Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have it under control for now, 95.211.27.99. I've reverted RingARoses back to Theroadislong's version. My inclusion of the domain name in unlinked form was a bold edit. Since another non-COI editor (Theroadislong) thinks we should not include the domain name, then we need to discuss and get consensus to include the domain name. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Gigs (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gigs' reversal to Theroadislong's version seemed neutral enough to stop the bickering, yet even that has now vanished with the article shrunk to Lilliputian proportions. Following the apparent logic behind sanitising to suit Optical Express' PR dept, I see no reason why the entire article shouldn't simply be deleted and have done. After my experiences here I will have problems in the future believing anything I read on Wikipedia! RingARoses (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You should treat Wikipedia with skepticism. I don't think we could get the article deleted, Optical Express is pretty solidly notable. Gigs (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Caring City wording

Theroadislong, are you seriously suggesting that there is a copyright problem with copying this sentence, 'Donated spectacles are categorised, tested and distributed free of charge via local clinics returning sight to the most at risk communities within Burundi.'?

I agree that it is overly promotional, and you re-wording is an improvement. Overly promotional - yes, copyright vio - come off it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be copied from here [4]Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know it was copied and is technically a copyright violation but a single sentence is generally regarded as fair use and unlikely to get us into trouble. On the other hand it was a bit glossy, and you have fixed that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express v. Optical Express Group

From the way the article is written, it is hard to tell what this article is about. Is it about Optical Express or Optical Express Group? The writing in the article seems to freely interchange these terms when in fact they are separate entities. The name of the article is Optical Express and information about "Optical Express Group" should be limited in this article and clearly identified and made distict from Optical Express. Feel free to write a Optical Express Group article if you think the topic meets WP:GNG or move Optical Express to Optical Express Group if that is what the topic is supposed to be. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Optical Express Group and Optical Express are mainly the same thing, creating a separate article for what is a trading name and a collection of legal subsidaries I dont think will help. It would also be more difficult to define due to a complex legal structure what exactly is the difference between the group and the brand. I have tweaked the intro to try and make it clearer. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Uzma Gamal is correct. DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd, Optical Express Group, and Optical Express are different both legally and in structure. The Optical Express business concerns optical stores and refractive surgery clinics (and this is wrongly represented on the current article as it only mentions retail optical stores), while the group includes dental, cosmetic and private healthcare, while the parent has other operations. I agree that it is confusing what is what and stats and truths are bing intertwined, and may statements, including that OE vs gripe site is OR as that has not been recorded in the press.

OE never created this article and my presence was only to counter negative POV which was then being heavily fortified by neutral editors who "should have known better." I was encouraged to find and add positive stories to counter the negative to "balance the article" and therefore yes I have an agenda. I am happy to step aside as I have before, however the experience of this is was not positive one as the negative POS editor ensured that only and every bit of negative dirt was posted - however negligible - and again enabled by nuetral editors. I had to return rather than wanting to return.

I was satisfied with the initial edits and contributions by User:MilborneOne with his almost zero tolerance approach (however after warnings has allowed POV edits to remain) and User:Theroadislong who has shown a lot of understanding of the article and factions, however User:Gigs edit to reintroduce the gripe site shows a lack of understanding - and respect of recent deliberations.

While I appreciate that User:Uzma Gamal's points that POV edits are niave in terms of WIKI, I would counter that the same niaveness is equally being demonstrated by experienced editors regrading the article history and the factions - and that's as fustrating to me as mine is to you.

The main issue is that the article is under constant attack by ONE editor with a negative agenda and a certain issue with the company, and a recent gripe site agenda that is posted by a sockpuppet of an account that is directly connected to the gripe site owner and has another agenda against the company. Positive accounts have been verified publicly on this Talk page by a Wiki admin previously as not being sockpuppets as each account has been those of unique individuals and never operated at the same time.

However, back to the point, I think someone should decide if this article is about Optical Express, Optical Express Group, or DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd, and edit the article respectively. For instance, The Dental Clinic is not part of Optical Express, and the action against the gripe site was by DCM (Optical Holding) Ltd. The financial information on the info bar is that of DCM (optical Holdings) and not Optical Express, although there is OE information in there intertwined...it is misleading...and, at the very least, inaccuracies should be corrected.

Hardlygone (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What a load of tripe. Optical Express and it's parent company DCM (Optical) Holdings ltd are both entirely relevant to this article on the household brand Optical Express. The article is not under constant attack by anyone. The article has been extensively edited and contains a really useful overview of Optical Express. You have requested a sockpuppet investigation for me so let's see what happens with that. In the meantime it is clear that the healthy discussion on the article can only be good and that a consensus should be achievable.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I recall a similar (almost identical) start and end to a post by User:Rotsmasher as the above post by user:golfbravoecho. If I find that in archive I'll add both to the SPI. Interestingly this hypocritical statement contradicts the user's actions as he has a long history of editing, and removing edits he does not agree with, without "consensus".Hardlygone (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

well as the self appointed arbiter of supposed sockpuppetry it is clear you are on a roll. Perhaps as you are so full of wisdom you would care to share with everyone how "the company" has supposedly found out the my identity despite IPs being hidden by users who have logged in. I think the fact that you have, as a company representative, admitted to this means that you now owe us an explanation for the interesting methods you have used to gain this knowledge.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So no explanation forthcoming from user Hardlygone. Serious issue. Why no answer? --Golfbravoecho (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I posted a message yesterday highlighting that Ringaroses is continuing to edit the Optical Express page without consensus and with a clear COI and POV but have had no response so I am creating a new section for this. I find it incredibly frustrating that this user has a clear interest in this, being the owner of - or at the very least having a strong interest - in the gripesite itself, but is continually allowed to make/revert edits to suit their own agenda. At least three editors have agreed that there is no need for the inclusion yet Ringaroses has taken it upon themselves to revert edits without any consensus. The article was edited to remove both positive and negative items from a neutral editor and I completely respected this. The fact that this editor has reverted this material despite having a clear COI and this remains unchecked is an issue. As a COI, I have not made any edits on the page and have made my arguments on this page and made reports through COI and Sockpuppet investigations. It is incredibly unfair that I follow these guidelines yet another COI gets the freedom to edit as they wish. Not only that but they have been pushing negative comments about neutral editors on other forums and sites. I would urge the editors to review the recent edits of this user and any on-going changes that are made without consensus. Hardlygone (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the removed material by Martin Hogbin was negative. I think he may have gone a little too far. It's always difficult to balance things when a lot of the coverage for a company is negative material. I'm not saying I agree with RingARoses editing the article, and I have cautioned them against it, but I don't think their restoration of the material was unreasonable. Everyone involved needs to discuss here more instead of engaging in this slow motion edit warring. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

While I see that you have cautioned them against it, when they actually do it there is absolutely no action taken whatsoever giving them free reign. It seems that I am now being punished for trying to work with the editors. There are only a select number of individuals on this thread edit-warring. I have already agreed to discuss these edits on the talk page which is what I have been doing. The issue is when other COI/POV editors are editing to suit their agenda and getting into edit warring. You mention there being mostly negative coverage but that only exists in the article because anything remotely positive has been removed as it was "overly promotional." At least three editors have agreed that the gripesite is not important enough to be in the article. Contrary to your suggestions, it did not gain widespread media coverage whatsoever. It gained no mainstream or industry coverage and the limited online coverage was at the behest of the gripesite owners lawyers own network. The only person intent in keeping it in the article has a clear interest in doing so. Note that it is pretty much the only point they are debating on now. I have shown why they are a COI but they are being given completely free reign to do as they wish.Hardlygone (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree I did go a bit too far but I think it got things moving. Someone put back one of the items that I removed and I have left it at that so I do not thing we have any edit waring, just WP:BRD. The thing I would ask all editors to bear in mind always is that this is an encyclopedia, not a comparison site, a noticeboard, or a battleground. We or not supposed to try to balance criticism with praise we should be giving a balanced view of the company itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Re "the gripesite owners lawyers own network": please google "optical express ruined my life" to see how ludicrous Hardlygone's claim is! I can only repeat, "As for the owner of the gripe site and her lawyers being responsible for, "PR to raise awareness on legal sites", the absurdity of this claim almost leaves me speechless! It's simply astounding that Hardlygone would expect anyone to believe ANY legal firm could influence countless others (worldwide) into reporting something they wouldn't have otherwise. Even John Grisham would have his work cut out fitting that into a script!" RingARoses (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I just searched "optical express ruined my life" I found no main stream media coverage, just a few blogs and forums, and agree that it probably is undue weight and doesn't belong in the article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That certainly is the basis on which we should be making decisions of this kind. If there are no good quality secondary sources giving the subject significance I think it should be removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the countless numbers of legal sites reporting the Nominet DRS decision as disputed by Hardlygone. As I have repeatedly said, the Nominet decision alone merits inclusion of a mention. As Gigs advised, I will indeed treat Wiki with skepticism and warn others to do likewise. Wiki says, but very selectively and cherry picked. Obviously the best place if anyone wants to prove the holocaust didn't happen!RingARoses (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out, The Register is not a blog or forum. There wasn't a huge amount of coverage for the incident, though. Gigs (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Charity

I fail to see how mention of a charity set up by David Moulsdale with a link directly to Optical Express should not be included.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It contains the line " Interestingly The Moulsdale Foundation has Harper Macleod LLP the law firm where he is a partner, as its registered address." which is obviously WP:WEASEL although I have no idea (nor care) what it's pushing. Similarly some of the sources are primary source listings, blogs, and commercial web sites. Is it covered in any reliable sources? If not, why is it here? a13ean (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith. No intention of weasel words. It is a major charity registered with the Scottish charity commission so it makes sense to be in this section. The fact Scotland's former first minister and a senior lawyer are also involved seems noteworthy. Perhaps, recommend a different wording rather than reverting the whole lot? --Golfbravoecho (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A listing in a index of charities is insufficient to make it notable here. If you know of any WP:RS that discuss the charity work then it can be included with a revised version of the text, otherwise it should be left out. a13ean (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gripe Site & Charity

I note the gripe site text continues to appear on the article despite the fact that the consensus here was that content would only be added if it met the criteria of "good quality secondary sources giving the subject significance" as agreed by editors Martin Hogbin & Theroadislong. This received no mainstream coverage as these editors already agreed and should be removed from the article. There really was no media coverage of this and no good secondary sources. Can a neutral editor please remove from the article.

Also, The Moulsdale Foundation additions are mainly original research and there are a lot of dots being joined for this. I am sure if this is worthy of inclusion then there will be some media coverage of it in the future so perhaps it would be wise not to include this until there are some good secondary sources rather than a rack of joined dots. As A13aen has already pointed out, it has no place in the article. Could another neutral editor review and remove if they agree with A13aen? Hardlygone (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if a neutral editor could review my comments above re Moulsdale Foundation. I notice that there has been an amendment to the article but I still believe that there is a lot of OR being used to build this up. As noted above, there is no notable coverage of The Moulsdale Foundation and I believe it is not worthy of inclusion until there are at least some worthwhile secondary sources. Hardlygone (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could a neutral editor please review comments above. I would appreciate some thoughts on this section of the article. I maintain that there are a lot of dots being joined to create this section. I believe that it is WP:OR Hardlygone (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find the section of the article that you are referring to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent GBE Edits

Can a neutral editor review recent edits by GBE as I believe that they are (again) joining the dots and portraying a story that they wish to believe rather than anything that is supported by reference-able material. Neither of the articles reference what the user is trying to suggest within the Wiki article. Neither article says that OE have actually closed or intend to close 83 stores whilst there is no mention that the reported 40 new clinics are "re-opening" as has been suggested within the Wiki article. Hardlygone (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Golfbravoecho? GBE is an editor with no history on Optical Express as you have previously been informed. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to yourself in the third person? If you are socking please don't. Gigs (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I signed it! I am not the one referring to me as GBE who is another editor! --Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review these edits as they currently sit? I know there have been edits but the information provided in the source is simply not true and not what is reported either. Again, a user with a clear bias is making direct edits to the article and edit-warring without providing citeable sources to what they are saying. What's going on? Hardlygone (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What the refs say

To aid discussion, this is what the refs say on the subject:

14) Administrators at accountant PKF are working on winding up a subsidiary of Optical Express, one of the largest optician chains in the country. About half of the 80 shops are expected to close and the company admits it cannot guarantee jobs.

15) There is particular frustration over Optical Express, which is shedding up to 40 unwanted shops by putting a subsidiary with 83 sites into administration and then buying back the sites it wants to retain.

16) The Scottish entrepreneur plans to close 40 stores, including three in Scotland, to help the group weather the challenges posed by the downturn on the high street and fierce competition.

How can we best reflect this in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

One the face of it this looks to me like a significant event for the company which we should mention is some way in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, GBE has made edits to suit their own POV whilst everyone else seeks a reasonable resolution on the talk page. I would appeal to the neutral editors to not give up with this article and please work to create a proper encyclopedic article rather than the battleground it had become previously. In terms of recent edits, some of the terminology is loose and the content is not supported by the references. There are no definitive numbers of store closures within any of those references despite the continuous attempts by GBE to put their own number on it. Also, the way that the new clinic openings sentence is structured makes it look like the store openings are re-openings as GBE has tried to assert previously where the references don't support this whatsoever. The references make the point that these clinics are new. Hardlygone (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking at the recent editing habits of GBE then I would suggest that they are clearly indulging in edit warring despite the fact that they have received warnings for that type of behaviour on two occasions in their time on Wikipedia where they have solely been editing this article. Hardlygone (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we stick to discussing content rather than editors here. It looks to me like there is an event worthy of mention in the article and supported by reliable sources. What, in your opinion, should we write on the subject in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this contains the key points from the references and retains a neutral and encyclopaedic tone: "In November 2012, Optical Express closed 40 optical stores in a restructure. In December 2012, it announced that it would open 40 new combined optical and laser surgery clinics from early 2013."Hardlygone (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't include several key points. That your biggest? Subsidiary involving nearly half of your total shops has been put into administration. Don't get me started on the fact that your official company comments made it clear no laser eye surgery centres were affected when it is clear they are (Trafford)--Golfbravoecho (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

References do not say that. Please stick to these policies:WP:NPOV & WP:OR Hardlygone (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi this doesn’t make sense: In November 2012, Optical Express closed a subsidiary with 83 stores placed into administration and 40 store closures.

Can I suggest a rewrite:

In November 2012, Optical Express placed a subsidiary with 83 stores into administration with 40 store closures.

Hardlygone (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text

So are we all OK with this?

In November 2012, Optical Express placed a subsidiary with 83 stores into administration with 40 store closures. In December 2012, it announced that it would open 40 new combined optical and laser surgery clinics from early 2013.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I see very similar words have been already added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

the proposal was to correct an error to replace 'and 40' to 'with 40'. As it stands it reads that 83 stores were put into administration AND 40 were closed. Your suggestion above is fine.Hardlygone (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is the gripe site section undue weight?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could someone uninvolved take a look at this article it has become a battleground with single purpose editors who are waging a campaign against the company via a website www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk and on the other hand an employee who to be fair is engaging correctly on the talk page and requesting changes. My feeling is that the addition of the gripe site details is undue weight given the lack of media coverage but I'm happy to be guided my more experienced editors. I have no connection whatsoever to the company or the gripe site.Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is a bit of a mess not just the criticism bit which doesnt appear to be well balanced per WP:WEIGHT. Most of it concentrates on the laser surgery which appears to be just a small part of the operation. The article could do with a rework to correct the balance. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to reminder I came here from RFC as an uninvolved editor, to follow my comments I tidied up the article including removing the bit about the website complaint, it is hardly notable to the company we dont list every complaint the company has ever made. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you for cleaning up the article and providing another independent opinion. The citation to support the no.1 claim has been removed due to previous edits. A reference exists on the uk website laser section, under the Uk's no.1 tab.Hardlygone (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And can I make highlight to the following:

"In the above Watchdog page, the BBC say "Optical Express is the largest provider of Laser Eye Surgery in the country, with two hundred branches in the UK and Ireland and 120,000 consultations a year." Surely that substantiates our claim as "the UK's No.1" - and is much less of a claim if the BBC have stated this on national TV and on their website?Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the claim with the reference.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)"

Therefore I would request a re-edited addition:

"The Optical Express Group is a trading name of the Scottish company DCM (Optical Holdings) Limited, it operates a number of subsidaries in a wide range of healthcare services including the optical, dental and cosmetic industries and is the UK's largest provider of laser eye surgery." (REF) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/05/optical_pricing.html

• Comment Please bear in mind that the purpose of WP is to write an encyclopedia not create a battleground for pro and anti propaganda about the subject of the article. In my opinion the whole article needs rewriting to be less promotional and also have less criticism of the company. The whole section of what is essentially news items should go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree.Hardlygone (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Concur with Hogbin. Every company has praise & criticism. But that sort of material generally does not belong in an encyclopedia, which should be devoted to neutral, objective facts of an encyclopedic nature. Praise or criticism can be included if it is very noteworthy, is supported by strong sources, and is relevant to the business's essence. Best is to stick to facts that are well documented, and try to avoid opinions. See WP:CRITICISM for some more thoughts on this. --Noleander (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I found this abandoned RFC and it appears that this specific section of the talk page has been untouched for over 30 days. It appears the original RFC concern has been resolved, however it does appear that there are still areas which are actively being discussed. From my initial review of the page, and looking back at some of the difs it appears that the current page is properly weighted and well constructed with proper sources for most areas. I did remove one youtube reference since it violated the copyvio portion of WP:Youtube. I would suggest that we could close this RFC, unless there is still sentiment that there is an edit war going on. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Of all the 17000 article's on my watchlist this seems to be the most contentious and fought over, it desperately needs more neutral eyes on it.Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Optical Express posts £1.5 million loss

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/company-news/optical-express-posts-15m-loss.19745769?_=ed7b8be68eb0840ce06aa52d98275dbf19000149

This story is worthy for inclusion in the article. In addition it seems appropriate to change the employees numbers in the info box to 1998 as posted in the up to date accounts. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If no one is going to comment either way, what is the point of this process. Please comment so a consensus can be reached.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am returning from a holiday induced wikibreak. :) I am looking at that article now. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks credible. Per the above agreement, I will go ahead and introduce these new facts into the article later today. If you have a proposal of where or how these should be integrated, feel free to post a draft here in the talk. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest as a last paragraph in overview and history. Thanks for doing this.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added the loss as requested, please be aware that OTHER editors have more than one article on their watch lists...I for example have approaching 18,000. Some of us are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to make pointy edits to a single article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a bit pointy.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry ; ) Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't this post be balanced? For instance, the profits in previous years have been significantly higher than this loss, however these were not found significant enough to post in the article by any independent editor, and would have been met with incredulity if they had been requested. I suggest, as below, that if this type of information is considered credible, previous trading history is included into this statement, or the statement removed.Hardlygone (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

interesting edit Hardlygone. Is that information you just removed incorrect?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that despite this, and based on a strong financial performance historically, Optical Express continues to trade and is in the process of opening 50 new state of the art eye clinics in premier locations to replace the outdated stores that were in tertiary locations. Also, some clinics OE would have chosen not to close were closed because agreements were not reached with some landlords, and these locations are in the process of being relocated to better locations. This was the "minor" edit that you removed. Did you remove it because it is factually incorrect? Perhaps one of your recent relocations to a small residential flat would provide evidence that both "state of the art" and "premier" are flights of fancy?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I understand that other editors have a large number of pages on their watchlists, I would appreciate if one could review this section of content within the article. There was a voluntary agreement between everyone that we would post any comments we had here for review by neutral editors. So far, there doesn't seem to be much response in terms of this. Again, whilst I appreciate other editors may be busy, I would appreciate if you could review this section. To reiterate, I believe we should either balance the post with all reported profit reports or remove it. Hardlygone (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We are now several weeks down the line with this edit. I have asked that an independent editor review it previously and no one has done so despite the agreement that was reached towards the end of 2012 to address some of the issues with the article and the way it was being edited. As I have stated previously, I don't believe that the last edit is noteworthy enough to be added to the article, regardless of whether it was reported. If I had asked for every year that Optical Express had posted profits to the article then I would have been shot down and rightly so. I believe that we should either remove this statement or balance it with records of accounts for every single year that Optical Express has been operating. Again, I would appreciate comments from independent editors on this matter. Hardlygone (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, it's neutral, factual and well sourced, but I'm really not bothered one way or the other.Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Theroadislong. My feeling is that it isn't a significant event since these P&L from accounts will be posted every year. The article reference itself mentions a near profit of £6.9million the previous year. Perhaps we should update the Wiki sentence to reflect this "Accounts filed at Companies House for the calendar year 2011 reported a loss of £1.5 million. Accounts posted the previous year ahowed the company made a profit of near £6.9million." Hardlygone (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added it for you.Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hardlygone (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Companies House Edit

In terms of the recent edit, I don't believe that this information is worthy of inclusion in the article. Optical Express are almost 22 years old and would have posted accounts every single year at Companies House. I really don't think that this is noteworthy of inclusion in the article. Are we going to include the information from every year that Optical Express has traded? I would welcome other editors thoughts on this.Hardlygone (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

companies house edit? It was widely reported. A very significant loss linked to the closure of a quarter of your stores.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

New clinics

http://www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=4283 This seems to be noteworthy after the major closures.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

123 Leeds Ltd administration

I have altered the wording to my edit. Is everyone happy?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to own the article I give up.Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add further information concerning the company's name change of some clinics to 123Leeds/OE Southern now in administration with many of their patients in litigation being told they have no recourse even though Optical Express continues to trade.RingARoses (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

COI Resolution Section

As copied from the COIN board: I believe the best way to go about this, is to request that all involved editors to:

1. voluntarily stop editing the article directly;
2. contribute their suggestions and references to a new talk section that will be created, and post the information they would like to see added to the article.

Then several un-involved editors will go about sorting, vetting and including that information as appropriate. A couple of ground rules:

1. I suggest a voluntary edit pause of 1 month from all involved involved, non-neutral editors;
2. talk page submissions will be regarding the article content, and will be focused on why their content should be included;
3. No edit warring, personal attacks or debates about other involved editors will be tolerated;
4. voluntary agreement to a temporary block of 24 hours for any violations from involved editors.

Please contribute below Tiggerjay (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no involvement with Optical Express but I am more than happy to stop editing the article directly.Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of these proposals:

1. I have already voluntarily stopped editing this article and agree that other WP:SPA & WP:COI editors should take the same action. I don’t believe this should be for a period of one month though. I believe that any editors who are WP:SPA or WP:COI (and I include myself in this) should not post directly whatsoever and all edits should be made by neutral editors after reaching consensus on the talk page. I would say, however, that it would be unfair to stop neutral editors who have helped to improve the article and overall situation recently from posting on the article as they have made a difference. I would also request that the page is only edited directly by respected editors who have a wide experience of Wikipedia and of editing a wide variety of articles. Therefore, all new users or anyone with a limited range of posts should not be allowed to directly edit the article. I believe this would help keep the article neutral in tone.

2. Happy to agree with this

3. Agree with this. I do wish to comment, however, on some of the comments made within the COI page. I have not been edit warring and completely refute this allegation. I have not made a direct edit to the article since 25th September and any issues that I have raised have been made on the talk page using WP:EP. Other editors advised that if I believed there to be an issue then I should use either WP:SOC or WP:COI and I followed that advice. To then be criticised for that is very harsh.

4. I agree with the block but why make it 24 hours? As stated above, I don’t think that any WP:SPA or WP:COI (again,myself included) should post directly whatsoever on the article. I would suggest a voluntary agreement that any violations from involved editors should be blocked permanently.Hardlygone (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

But what happens when someone logs out and adds non neutral content as has just happened?Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

good question. I am keeping a close watch on this page and will revert such activities. I'll warn the IP and if it becomes a problem we can always have the page protected or semi-protected. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I trust those more experienced will correct me if I'm posting in the wrong place. Meanwhile I have added a reference to opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk gripe site as I believe it has now proven it's validity to the history here. Anyone choosing to argue otherwise should look at the True Stories & personal accounts on the OERML forum with reasons why this should be deleted from OE's Wikipedia history. In the same way recent BBC news item should be included: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRJHzfXMtcw RingARoses (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I notice that recent edits have taken place on the Optical Express article without reaching any consensus on the talk page, as was previously agreed. The content within the edit has previously been removed on the basis that it was providing undue weight to the article, as had been agreed by a wide range of independent editors in 2013. It was agreed that the article had reached a point where it was properly weighted and well constructed with proper sources for most areas and I am disappointed to see that this issue has arisen again. This editor has a known COI whilst there is clear evidence of disruptive POV editing, both historically and with their recent edits. I request that these edits are reverted back, and a review of this editor’s conduct given the previous agreement in relation to COI editors editing the page directly. --Hardlygone (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case

The DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case, now mentioned in the article as "In 2012, Optical Express disputed the domain "opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk"", actually was filed by DCM (Optical Holdings) Limited, not Optical Express, and the name of the case is DCM (Optical Holdings) Limited v Sasha Rodoy, Case No. D00011271, 3 August 2012.Mondaq September 24, 2012/law-now.com September 21, 2012. Mondaq is a Wikipedia reliable source and a better source than The Register. The DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case is relevant to a DCM (Optical Holdings) article, but I don't think it relevant to the Optical Express article. The Optical Express article should be limited to the main topic of the article, namely Optical Express. I think mention of the DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case in the Wikipedia Optical Express article should be removed. Information from the DCM v. Sasha Rodoy case decision text itself might have good information for the Optical Express article. You can get the.pdf version of the case decision by going to nominet.org.uk and searching D00011271 as the case number. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC) DCM is the same as Optical Express Group, which is the parent company name for Optical Express. The dispute was about the Optical Express brand, not about DCM or Optical Express Group, which are the parent companies of the brand. Optical Express Group owns a few other brands [1]. If we followed your logic and limited this article to only matters that were related to Optical Express without any involvement of the parent company, we'd have to reduce the article to a sentence or two. Gigs (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry to disagree, but see above. DCM is not the same. The statement is OR and it seems to be a case of why let the facts ruin a good story - why should the article not be a few sentences if that's what's actually factual - apologies for my cynicism.Hardlygone (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not clear who made this recent edit, but hopefully I have not offended anyone by reverting to the inclusion of the Nominet DRS decision - other than Hardlygone of course, who seems singularly obsessed with keeping this factual reference out of the article. It should be noted that DCM (Optical Holdings) IS the parent company of the Optical Express brand, with David Moulsdale currently CEO. Why would their legal team have fought the Nominet DRS on behalf of Optical Express if unconnected? When they become separate entities then perhaps independent articles could be considered.RingARoses (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I made the recent edit, as the 'History' shows. The article is meant to be about Optical Express not all the bad things and good things that we can find out about them. I was being a bit bold but I was trying to remove things that are just items of news about the company or are overly promotional. I know the things that I removed were sourced but that does not mean we have to put them in. At the moment the article seems to be a battleground between supporters and opponents of OE. That is not the purpose of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Forgive me, I didn't check the History. Battleground or not, as I have previously noted, the Nominet DRS decision alone is worthy of its mention. Am I also allowed to be bold and replace the version recently reverted by Gigs? RingARoses (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC) It appears that RingARoses is again making edits without any consensus. Edits by Martin Hogbin improved the article into something which was beginning to resemble a neutral, encyclopaedic version. Although the edits removed a number of positive OE stories,I made no complaints as the article was improved by someone who has clear experience within Wikipedia and is a completely neutral editor. Elements of these were then changed by one COI editor. If that is the case, why don't we just go back to the beginning and put the positive stories in as well? I have taken a step back and made no edits as promised to allow neutral editors the room to make the article a balanced encyclopaedic article. However, it is clear that other editors have no intention to do so as they wish to pursue their own agenda which is definitely not to have an article in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I really want to stop this battleground and give NEUTRAL editors the room to create an encyclopaedic article. However, others are continuing their battleground mentality and actually abusing normal editors/admins in the process. Hardlygone (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC) I was not "abusing" anyone, which is why I posted my intentions here before making the edit. It should be remembered that Hardlygone's activity here is paid for by DCM (Optical Holdings) with the aim of keeping negative history out of the article. It makes sense that a business is prepared to sacrifice some positive stories to prevent negative ones.RingARoses (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Somehow this important section was archived, until resolution it needs to remain live. Twobells (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Firstly, I am disappointed to see that others have broken the agreement to not directly edit the page but instead to reach a consensus on the talk page. I firmly believed, and continue to do so, that is the best way of ensuring we have a balanced article which meets with Wiki policies. In terms of the actual edits, I do not believe that the current version is neutral or encyclopaedic at all. I would make a suggestion that the wording is changed to something like "On 21st July 2013, Optical Express founder David Moulsdale purchased debt that the firm owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland and injected more money into the nationwide provider." which actually reflects what is said in the source. There are some elements of the current sentence that lend undue balance to the sentence. --Hardlygone (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to enforce the agreement that was made that POV and/or SPA editors would not post directly on the page and would reach consensus on the talk page? --Hardlygone (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Image

Optical Express have a new logo on their website. Perhaps someone could update the image to the current version to keep the article up-to-date. Image at http://www.opticalexpress.co.uk --Hardlygone (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating the new OE logo would simply be advertising and were the image updated to "keep the article up-to-date" then references to http://www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk & Nominet DRS decision should similarly be included to "keep the article up-to-date". I look forward to neutral and unbiased discussion. RingARoses (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

I would like to request that the protection template which has recently expired be extended as we have seen a number of non-registered accounts edit the page recently. I also note that the agreement of not editing the page directly by COI editors has been completely dis-regarded recently. I don't wish to see a return of the edit warring that has previously taken place and would appreciate a neutral editors view on how to ensure edits are discussed and agreed on the talk page prior to being made on the article.

I would also like to request that a neutral editor revisits some of the recent changes made to to the article to improve the encyclopaedic nature of Wiki as opposed to newspaper style reporting. The text that I am specifically referring to is:

"On 21st July 2013 Optical Express narrowly avoided being foreclosed by its lender RBS and Moulsdale averted administration by purchasing the bank's loans.[18]

1 October 2013: Accounts filed at Companies House show DCM (Optical Holdings) recorded a pre-tax loss of £15.1m in the 12 months to December 29, 2012, wider than the £1.5m loss in the prior year. Founder David Moulsdale unveiled the intention to appoint an administrator for DCM Optical Clinic and then buy back 16 of the 19 stores. This application to appoint an administrator happened one day after the quarterly rents were due echoing the timing of the previous administration.[19][20]"

The further edit under the brand section in terms of The Dental Clinic could also be construed as original research and I feel that this adds nothing to the article.

I would appreciate if a neutral editor could respond with their thoughts below. Thanks Hardlygone (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the protection, and asked a the COI noticeboard for more eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole landlord issue is very pertinent to the article and request that a mention be made to the issue landlords appear to be having with the two recent administrations.

--Landlordvexed (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 Edits

I believe the recent amendments to the page should be reversed by a neutral editor on the basis that this is Original Research. I also don't believe that it is relevant enough to Optical Express to be included in an article specifically about the company. It should also be noted that this was made by an editor with a Conflict of Interest who has consistently refused to work with neutral editors in the way that was agreed previously. This is another example of disruptive editing by this editor. As stated previously, I have agreed not to edit the page directly but feel that it is highly unfair that other COI editors are afforded different privileges. --Hardlygone (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC) November 2013 Edits

Assuming that Hardlygone is referring to my addition, concerning the Ten Minute Rule Bill presented by John McDonnell MP in Parliament on 20 November, I fail to see how this can be classed as Original Research? This information is highly sourced, unless of course Hardlygone does not accept the UK Parliament as a reliable source? According to Wikipedia, "The Hansard of today, a fully comprehensive account of every speech, began in 1909 when Parliament took over the publication."

In his presentation John McDonnell said, "Eight years ago, we found that many of the corporates in the sector employed aggressive sales tactics to secure clients. Recent evidence from clients and former salespeople shows that the problem continues and has got worse. It often starts with a phone call, the offer of a time-limited discount or entry into a competition for free treatment. Patients visit the shop on a no-obligation basis for a consultation; then the phone calls start. We have evidence of people receiving 20 phone calls in a single day. Some salesmen are described as counsellors or refractive technicians, but have minimal training in what the surgery involves and come under intense pressure from their managers to clinch deals no matter what. Patients are often not given adequate information on the potential risks. One former Optical Express salesman described pressure from managers not to give customers all the available information for fear of scaring them off. Material used by some companies to promote sales has been proven on several occasions by the Advertising Standards Authority to be unfounded, lacking in evidence and misleading. In 2011, the ASA upheld 17 complaints against Optical Express brochures."

I think it's time that there was more honesty on Wikipedia instead of allowing paid editors to delete facts to keep their employers happy. RingARoses (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to my original text as I see no valid reason for Theroadislong to delete well sourced facts. I have referenced two ASA links in support, although if Theroadislong prefers references to all 17 ASA complaints can be added to the 'Advertising' section below?RingARoses (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you a reference that Optical Express were publicly criticised for aggressive sales tactics and misleading advertising in the ten-minute bill? the refs you have added have nothing to do with the McDonnell bill and it doesnt appear in the Hansard record. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"One former Optical Express salesman described pressure from managers not to give customers all the available information for fear of scaring them off." Mentioned in the Hansard record. "Material used by some companies to promote sales has been proven on several occasions by the Advertising Standards Authority to be unfounded, lacking in evidence and misleading. In 2011, the ASA upheld 17 complaints against Optical Express brochures." Mentioned in the Hansard report and sourced from the same 17 ASA complaints to which McDonnell references. Perhaps Theroadislong and MilborneOne would prefer I include details from all 17 ASA complaints in the for clarity?RingARoses (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As MilborneOne has pointed out, your text is NOT supported by the references you have supplied. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is. You interrupted with an Edit conflict before I'd finished writing! RingARoses (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please can you point us to the reference that supports your statement that "Optical Express were publicly criticised for aggressive sales tactics and misleading advertising" ? My edit "noting that the ASA upheld 17 complaints against Optical Express brochures in 2011." WAS supported by the reference however. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I gain no financial reward from my input as an unpaid Wiki editor, my interests the pursuit and publication of truth, therefore, as I have to get up for work tomorrow, will respond to Theroadislong later when I intend to propose that previous deleted references to http://opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ are replaced in the article. A Google search for "Optical Express" ranks the OERML site high on the first page: last month parent company DCM (Optical Holdings) made a second complaint of "abusive registration" and content to the site's host and Nominet. Complaint D00013417 As the OERML site is managed by Sasha Rodoy, My Beautiful Eyes campaign manager, named by John McDonnell in Parliament and noted in the Hansard report, I see no valid reason for exclusion of its mention. RingARoses (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have made a very serious allegation that I am somehow being paid to edit this article!!!! Please can you elaborate. Did you actually read the edit I made? I have absolutely no connection with the company or anyone connected with it, my edit history is extensive and wide ranging with over 20,000 articles on my watch list. I think it's clear who has the conflict of interest here an. d it is not meTheroadislong (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was extremely tired and confused you with Hardlygone! I have amendedRingARoses (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and comment Theroadislong & Millborneone. I think it is clear to see there is a disruptive editor who is trying to push their POV and is willing to edit without gaining any consensus, personally attack other editors and has previously engaged in edit warring. It was agreed that COI editors would not edit the page directly, otherwise action would be taken. Whilst I have completely stuck to this agreement, other editors have clearly breached it on a number of occasions. In addition to my belief that this is a piece of original research, I also believe that including it within the Optical Express article would give undue weight as to its importance. Optical Express were mentioned very, very briefly in a wider presentation about the refractive industry. It should be highlighted that this particular discussion gained no mainstream media coverage whatsoever, which only serves to highlight it’s lack of noteworthiness, certainly in the context of Optical Express specifically. This is one of hundreds of discussions that take place in parliament on an ongoing basis, most of which don’t even pass through the full parliamentary cycle, and I believe adding it would give undue weight as to its relevance to Optical Express. Hardlygone (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

May I also draw your attention Theroadislong to comments made on this page. Hardlygone (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that wanting facts included in an article is "disruptive", whilst it is fact that Optical Express own approx 50% of the UK refractive eye surgery industry regarded as "the market leader". However "brief' the mention of Optical Express was, to suggest they were not targeted in McDonnell's speech is implausible.

According to Wikipedia: "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"

The link to the Hansard report and televised recording of John McDonnell's presentation on 20 November is definitely not OR. Q.E.D.

Re "this particular discussion gained no mainstream media coverage whatsoever": again I disagree, unless Hardlygone does not consider the BBC "mainstream"? 'My Beautiful Eyes' campaign Manager Sasha Rodoy was interviewed by Paul Ross and Penny Smith discussing the Bill on BBC London Radio

Re: "This is one of hundreds of discussions that take place in parliament on an ongoing basis, most of which don’t even pass through the full parliamentary cycle". No merit as the Bill's second hearing is scheduled for February 2014.

It is apparent that any sourced and documented facts published here are strongly argued against and eventually removed if detrimental to the reputation of Optical Express/DCM Holdings. This includes the Talk page. One has only to look at the edit history to see how this article has reduced in size as a result.RingARoses (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to note it is not really original research that is the problem it is adding things to a statement about McDonnell's bill that were not actually said. As for not allowing things that are detrimental it is all a matter of balance, this is not an attack page on the company it is an encyclopedia entry so has to be balanced, nobody has argued that the ASA complaints (which are already mentioned) or even the fact that the ten-minute bill was raised should not be here. What we dont want to do is make stuff up we just need reliable sourced balanced information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your point but don't believe I added anything not mentioned by John McDonnell and on that basis suggest that reference to OERML website should be included as encyclopeadic, given its history and second complaint from DCM Optical Holdings. It is unrealistic to believe it is always possible to provide a balance: when negatives outweigh positives, or vice versa, then that is surely unattainable. I have no doubt I could find many examples to support this argument if I look through Wiki pages.RingARoses (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to give a balanced view I have tweaked the statement to reflect the sources. I also added the 17 complaints in 2011 to the Advertising section, although to be fair we could do with a secondary source as to that being notable rather than a statement of fact. As for OERML which is not part of this discussion so perhaps you should start a new discussion on that if you want to include as consensus was against it last time, perhaps an RFC. MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

MillborneOne, I would argue that the ten-minute bill should not be included in this specific article. As above, this is one of thousands of bills that are discussed in parliament each year. Referencing the Parliament’s own website “Ten Minute Rule Bills are often an opportunity for Members to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation, rather than a serious attempt to get a Bill passed.” This statement, coupled with the fact that this particular bill or mention of Optical Express therein gained no media coverage at all after it was presented, leaves me unable to understand why you see this as being notable enough to be included within this specific article. Are we to assume that all bills raised in parliament should be added across all Wiki articles, especially those at the early stages of a long process? The addition of this is only done so to serve a particular purpose and that purpose is definitely not to maintain or improve the quality of the article. By inclusion within the article, undue weight is being giving to something which only briefly referenced Optical Express to suit a POV of an individual editor.

With regards to OERML, MillborneOne, I know of absolutely no reason why that discussion should even be raised again when consensus was reached previously, regardless of whether any specific editors like or dislike the decision. Nothing has changed since that consensus was reached with regards that it would still not be relevant in the Optical Express article, it would still be original research and there are certainly not any new reputable sources reporting it.

It seems to be the case that if an editor attempts to own an article, pushes their POV, is embroiled in edit warring, personally attacks other editors, adopts a battleground mentality, edits the page without consensus and criticises the general Wikipedia community then this is the most effective way of controlling the content on the article. I have attempted to engage and work with neutral editors for well over 18 months now but it seems that other methods gain a more favourable outcome. Hardlygone (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree... neutrality doesn't seem possible on this article...I'm really sorry.Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I came in as somebody neutral and took my best stab at it, I suspect whatever I did somebody will not be pleased. The fact that a ten minute bill was was introduced and given a second reading shows that the industry has some issues, the fact that OE was acutally used an example so I thought it was worth a mention. As for OERML I dont agree that it has a place in the article but it doesnt stop anybody raising it again for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"MillborneOne, I would argue that the ten-minute bill should not be included in this specific article. As above, this is one of thousands of bills that are discussed in parliament each year." With respect to Hardlygone, I believe only one 'Private Members Bill' is introduced each Wednesday, being only 52 of those in a year, therefore "thousands per year" not possible With the Second hearing scheduled for the 28 February 2014 I believe it advisable to refrain from claims that this is not "a serious attempt to get a Bill passed". Looking at the documentation on the OERML site alone I believe you are jumping to uninformed conclusions. However, I welcome your argument on this. Nor do I consider that I have "personally attacked" any Wiki editor. If you consider my mentioning the fact that you are employed and paid by Optical Express/DCM Holdings as an "attack" then I welcome further neutral discussion. RingARoses (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

RingARoses if you are now saying "I would argue that the ten-minute bill should not be included in this specific article" why did you add it in the first place ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lost in translation MilborneOne, I was quoting from comment by HardlygoneRingARoses (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is an attack! I have no idea why you still seem to consider that I am paid by Optical Express? I have absolutely no connection with the company or any of it's employees, I also have no particular interest in the company or what they do or don't do. I am concerned with building a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable sources. You seem to be misreading the talk page as well as my edits!Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That was NOT one of my comments! Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to Theroadislong, for some reason I keep confusing you with Hardlygone! Have amended name. RingARoses (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." RingARoses (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Theroadislong and MilborneOne – thank you both for taking the time to look at this as neutrals, as frustrating as it might be. MilborneOne – you mention the fact that the bill was introduced and given a second reading meant you thought it was worth a mention. A second reading doesn’t guarantee anything. The passing of a bill is a long process with many stages and different readings so a second reading isn’t a particularly significant event in the grand scheme of things. If it was so noteworthy, surely it would have been followed up and reported by the either mainstream or industry media? It hasn’t been followed up by either. I don’t feel that it is significant enough event to be mentioned within this specific article, in keeping with general best practice within Wikipedia. Hardlygone (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to include the content, though it would be better had there been a reliable secondary source reporting it. Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)