Talk:Optical Express/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

COI banner

As the page and the talk have calmed down, and per conversation at User_talk:Theroadislong&oldid=451822715 I've removed the COI flag, this page is now on the the on the watchlists (and hair-trigger revert lists) of enough experienced editors that we can and will come down heavy if trouble starts up again. I think that we can all agree that editors with strong POV in either direction should propose their changes on the talk page first and I look forward to watching this page develop. Failedwizard (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack McConnell joins Optical Express Board

I think this is very news worthy. Jack Wilson McConnell who was Scottish First Minister and is now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale has joined the board of DCM Optical Holdings as an non-executive director. I want to add this to the article. http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/jack-mcconnell/32600Rotsmasher (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but DCM Optical Holdings is not Optical Express. This is not related to Optical Express and should not be on this page. Do we have to go through more personal attacks on Optical Express from Rotsmasher? Is this started again?PKdundee (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we have more time for proposed edits to be discussed properly without posting straight away. This page is being watched closely within business hours UK. As there is strong POV from Rotsmasher, then I would at least like the opportunity to discuss proposed changes before they are posted. Obviously the same is true of any posts I would wish to make.PKdundee (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies but I assumed that DCM Optical Holdings was the parent company? I can't see any personal attacks by Rotsmasher?Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say parent company [1] Failedwizard (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it is written thus:

Jack Wilson McConnell is a non-executive director on the board of DCM Optical Holdings,[35]the parent company of Optical Express.PKdundee (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Frank Blin from PWC? He joined board too according to Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234jac (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Souter Keep the Clause campaign

David Moulsdale CEO and Chairman of Optical Express was one of Brian Souter's publicly acknowledged supporters for his campaign to stop the repeal of Clause 28. This is very newsworthy and I think it should be included in the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_the_Clause_campaign Rotsmasher (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20000402/ai_n13947084/ Rotsmasher (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be better suited to an article on David Moulsdale as he is barely mentioned in this article.Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there not guidance against writing about living persons. Please be very careful.PKdundee (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of guidence - but also if RS wants to go edit the 'Keep the cause' article then they are entirely free to do so. I highly encourage you both to do some editing on different parts of wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery would be a lovely place to start :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SVP numbers

As the three SVP companies registered with companies house Harrow, Wimbledon and Gloucester are dormant with no activity. This suggests that Optical Express currently have no SVP locations at all despite advertising for these for over a year and claiming that their SVP campaign is fully up and running. This is relevant to the articleRotsmasher (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC372952Rotsmasher (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC363683Rotsmasher (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC363684Rotsmasher (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rotsmasher, glad to see you back :) This looks like Original Research to me, I'm afraid :( Failedwizard (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New developments

The Dental Clinic page now advertises 13 sites. It appears Shrewsbury has now closed. The page should be amended.Rotsmasher (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just popped by to do this, but see that it has already been done - good catch. I've made a small rewording (including updating the 'as of' tag. Happy New year! Failedwizard (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DCM

The recent posting has two issues. 1. This is not a page about DCM Holdings. 2. The information is not properly verified. There is no link to the information. Rots2 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack McConnell joins Optical Express Board

I think this is very news worthy. Jack Wilson McConnell who was Scottish First Minister and is now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale has joined the board of DCM Optical Holdings as an non-executive director. I want to add this to the article. http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/jack-mcconnell/32600Rotsmasher (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but DCM Optical Holdings is not Optical Express. This is not related to Optical Express and should not be on this page. Do we have to go through more personal attacks on Optical Express from Rotsmasher? Is this started again?PKdundee (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we have more time for proposed edits to be discussed properly without posting straight away. This page is being watched closely within business hours UK. As there is strong POV from Rotsmasher, then I would at least like the opportunity to discuss proposed changes before they are posted. Obviously the same is true of any posts I would wish to make.PKdundee (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies but I assumed that DCM Optical Holdings was the parent company? I can't see any personal attacks by Rotsmasher?Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say parent company [2] Failedwizard (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest it is written thus:

Jack Wilson McConnell is a non-executive director on the board of DCM Optical Holdings,[35]the parent company of Optical Express.PKdundee (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Frank Blin from PWC? He joined board too according to Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234jac (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Souter Keep the Clause campaign

David Moulsdale CEO and Chairman of Optical Express was one of Brian Souter's publicly acknowledged supporters for his campaign to stop the repeal of Clause 28. This is very newsworthy and I think it should be included in the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_the_Clause_campaign Rotsmasher (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20000402/ai_n13947084/ Rotsmasher (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be better suited to an article on David Moulsdale as he is barely mentioned in this article.Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there not guidance against writing about living persons. Please be very careful.PKdundee (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of guidence - but also if RS wants to go edit the 'Keep the cause' article then they are entirely free to do so. I highly encourage you both to do some editing on different parts of wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery would be a lovely place to start :) Failedwizard (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SVP numbers

As the three SVP companies registered with companies house Harrow, Wimbledon and Gloucester are dormant with no activity. This suggests that Optical Express currently have no SVP locations at all despite advertising for these for over a year and claiming that their SVP campaign is fully up and running. This is relevant to the articleRotsmasher (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC372952Rotsmasher (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC363683Rotsmasher (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC363684Rotsmasher (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rotsmasher, glad to see you back :) This looks like Original Research to me, I'm afraid :( Failedwizard (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

New developments

The Dental Clinic page now advertises 13 sites. It appears Shrewsbury has now closed. The page should be amended.Rotsmasher (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just popped by to do this, but see that it has already been done - good catch. I've made a small rewording (including updating the 'as of' tag. Happy New year! Failedwizard (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DCM

The recent posting has two issues. 1. This is not a page about DCM Holdings. 2. The information is not properly verified. There is no link to the information. Rots2 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Hardlygone

Handlebarman (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Just noticed all my recent edits removed by user "hardlygone". I have replaced them. What is going on?

Good evening Hardlygone, nice to see you around - I'm going to have a good look at the change, but I'd like, for various reasons, not to make any particular courses of action for the next 24-hours or so. One thing to bear in mind is the guideline Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle - generally if someone reverts you, bring the issue right here to the talk. (I've not looked at the edits in detail at this stage - so you might have not be 'reverted' as such) - will be back soon.Fayedizard (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely disgusted. Please can someone let me know why Optical Express get to control their Wiki page??Groutflipper (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Having viewed the removal of negative comments from the Optical Express page in the last couple of days it is clear that for whatever reason there is a positive bias being shown towards the company. This is an affront to free speech. The www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk Nominet decision is very important and if you view http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/16/optical_express_gripe_site_still_up/ you will see it has a quality independent reference.Groutflipper (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good evening, I'm FayeDizard and I'll be your good cop for the evening. Thank you very much for bringing your concerns to the talk page - actually I wasn't aware of the register having an article on the subject (largely, of course, because the article only appeared a few hours ago, it's that's a much more reliable source than we've seen previously and would probably support some level for inclusion into the page - maybe something along the lines of 'In 2012 Optical Express complained to the web registration agency nominat that a 'gripe site' was infringing on their web presence, the claim was denied" - what do other editors think? Fayedizard (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SECTION REMOVAL

The stuff that keeps being removed seems to me to be factual and relevant to the page. Is this not the case--85.195.87.250 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)?

To repeat what I said above - The register is a much more reliable source than we've seen previously and would probably support some level for inclusion into the page - maybe something along the lines of 'In 2012 Optical Express complained to the web registration agency nominat that a 'gripe site' was infringing on their web presence, the claim was denied" - at the moment there is just a lot being made from the source... Would you be happy with that? Fayedizard (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

that sounds ok to me. what do others think?--85.195.87.250 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Fayedizard (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like this removed for persistent vandalism of the page. The IPs involved here are used by individuals who have been previously (some weeks ago and beyond) blocked for vandalism and sock puppetry.Hardlygone (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Um - you might have to be a bit more specific - what do you mean by "this" in your comment - the article? the thread on the talk page? Fayedizard (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bit rich coming from someone who has admitted sockpuppetry himself--Bantheprocedure (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fayedizard. When you tidied up the section on Nominet why did you remove the details on optical express being in the mix to buy ultralase?--Bantheprocedure (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Fayedizard. I meant remove the recent inclusion to the page. The reason is that the IP/identities have been blocked for sockpupperty and their comments removed previously. The posts have been made by the same two sockpuppets that were banned a few months ago.Hardlygone (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on that basis, this section should be removed.Hardlygone (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

From your own talk page and the archives it appears you are a sockpuppet and a vandal. That is the case Hardlygone?--85.195.87.250 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Let us be very clear. This article is a mess largely because two distinct fractions are fighting over it without taking the time to volunteer generally at wikipedia to see how the place works. Both sides of have breached all manner of sensible policies that wikipedia has for sensible reasons. I would like to get to a point were, even if you guys can't work together - you can at least use wikipedia productively. So - play nice. Not because of blocks, not because of policy - but because it's how people should treat other people. I removed the 'in the mix' part because it was giving undue weight to the story in an already messy article - but it's not really that much of an event in it's own right - if they do buy the other company that would be a thing - but right now it's just talk. Fayedizard (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

i accept your points regarding the ultralase thing. I don't accept the two factions hypothesis though. The company has tried everything to get any negative factual content removed. --85.195.87.250 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Um - yes, that would be one faction - and you would be part of another....Fayedizard (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIES

I think it would tidy the page up to have these all moved into one section rather than spread throughout the text. The danger is that representatives of the company could try to have them removed or whittled down during this exercise possibly if previous history repeats itself. However, assuming good faith, it seems like an idea to tidy the page up.--85.195.87.250 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going though the article now to, effectively, re-write it. I'll take this into account - in the meantime I'm removing this "David Moulsdale has had areas of controversy reported including a friendship since childhood with one of Scotland's most notorious gangsters and drug lords Tony McGovern. " as being not about optical express - comments welcome. Fayedizard (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's beyond doubt that the article needs a tidy up, but the constant editing by coi, spa, sockpuppets makes it all the more difficult!Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just gone though the article in a reasonable amount of detail. Comments welcome.Fayedizard (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the part about 32 court judgements, another editor has replaced it calling it an "important historical issue!" I think it is poor quality secondhand journalism with inferences, claims and denials, together with with an unnamed financial analyst. It does not appear encyclopedic and it's intent appears to be to denigrate the company and NOT improve the article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been consistent attempts by this company to sanitise the article of any negativity. The issue of CCJs is important when taken as a part of the many controversial elements of this company and should be included in the article. The analyst was from PWC. Interestingly their ex CEO is now on the Optical Express Executive Board.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I consider that it's inclusion gives undue weight to the negative and I resent the charge that I am somehow sanitising the article on behalf of the company. My edit history will show that is not the case. Articles need to be neutral in tone, Wikipedia is not here to support anti Optical Express campaigns.Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you were sanitising it. The company has through two main players over time. There is a lot of negatives because the company has a lot of negative press.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the part about 32 court judgements again - in addition to the points put forward by User:Theroadislong, quite a lot of the content isn't even in the source given and it's something that's almost 15 years old now... Fayedizard (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is definitely one for the talk page - given [3] this diff - do we have any evidence that the two sources are talking about the same case? They appear to contradict each other... Fayedizard (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy arose for Optical Express in 2007 when it became engaged in a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs" - surely "Controversy arose" is OR. Would it not be more factual and nuetral to say "In 2007 Optical Express became engagged in a dispute..." Hardlygone (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"and its store at Cross Street in Manchester was given the largest ever fine" - can I ask that this is reviewed? OE was never issued with a summons and the case was dropped. I am not sure this is of any significant value to the article. Hardlygone (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You were asked to provide citations supporting the fact that the case was dropped on appeal many moons ago and you didnt provide any evidence of this.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"In 2007 Optical Express became engaged in a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs over a disputed £10.9 million pounds in tax. Optical Express lost the case and were initially not given leave to appeal due to factual inaccuracies in their provided information. At review they were given leave to appeal.[15] [16][17][18]"

This is not factual. Firstly the case was against DCM Holdings and not OE. Secondly, OE did not lose. If you read the citations fully you will understand that a more accurate account is:

"In 2007, DCM Holdings became engaged in a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs over a disputed £10.9million pounds in tax. HMRC rejected the original appeal citing factual inaccuracies. DCM Holdings won its tribunal case at the Court of Session. The UK tax authorities have since contested the decision and the case remains under appeal. At the same time DCM Holdings lodged its own appeal in an effort to obtain further VAT exemptions." Hardlygone (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine except i would clarify that DCM Optical Holdings (Not DCM Holdings) is the parent company of OE.I WOULD MAKE SURE THIS IS CLEAR IN THE PARAGRAPH.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

is that not repetition. Mentioned a few times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.18 (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Since 2008

I do not accept that is standard procedure Worldwide for the patient to only see the treating surgeon on the day of laser eye surgery. This statement needs removing or valid citations provided.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerns moved from my talk page

Sorry if this is an intrusion, but I am (as you know) not experienced with WIKI. You have made a number of edits that are quite correct by editing guidelines. However there are a number of things I would ask you to look at:Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Watchdog: The reference link to BBC Watchdog features content about OE pricing and not the posting on the WIKI page of OE that talks about clinical procedure - ie 7 out of 10 were not offered to see the surgeon. Should that therefore be edited or removed as there is no proper citation?Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this because as you state it wasn't referenced.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The advertisements that ASA have approved (or rather not rejected) make the 1,000,000 procedures performed worldwide.Hardlygone (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here.Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a WIKI guideline that anything obvious and in public domain does not need referenced - ie anything obvious. My point is that if the ASA has accepted the "1,000,000 procedures performed worldwide" claim (because OE has provided confidential information to ASA backing this up before the new TV ad was aired across the UK), then surely this fits under this guideline?Hardlygone (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen such an unlikely guideline? Sorry.Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The removal of "claim to be UK's No.1" was harsh. 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)

Edits 21.09.2012 by Hardlygone

I want other editors to review these. There is a blatant attempt to remove information regarding previous and current dental clinic numbers within an edit stated as being to remove an out of date ref.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rotsmasher (aka Golfbravoecho - another Single Purpose Account). I agree. Let's have one of the impartial ediors review the page...and not SPA editors. My reasonings for edits:Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the opening of the history: 'Optical Express is part of the Optical Express Group, which aside from opticians, also operates in the optical, dental and cosmetic industries under the brand names The Cosmetic Clinic, The Dental Clinic and the Bridgewater Hospital.' This does not make sense...in addition to opticians we operate in the optical industry. What is the difference and under what brand does OEG do this? Please reinstate or correct to a factual level.Hardlygone (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Dental Clinic PDF reference (13) does not exist, so the information is not supported and therefore appears to be OR.Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously the gripe site text was edited by an experienced/senior editor to remove overt promotion - and I believe gave reasoning why. Having web site URL in articles other than reference is self-promotion - and these I have seen are always typically removed summarily. I was only reverting you edit which was a blatant attempt to overrule a senior editor and without any request for review on the talk page. I was happy with the previous version but if you are intent on sabotaging the article, then there is ground to have this entry removed so you have less to sabotage.Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to state in regard to Watchdog that 'The programme was critical of Optical Express's pricing.' because that's what the reference link supports. Later in the article you will see that ASA upheld a complaint against OE pricing and it might be good for a balanced article for those to be placed together although I had not done that - perhaps that can be reviewed?Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I corrected it's and its. You seem to have reverted that.Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The main body of the text had become overtly negative and to keep a balanced and neutral article, I moved Charity into the main body. I was once advised by an experienced editor not to create too many sections and keep the flow in the main article.I welcome the recent re-write to clean up what was a messy article and I believe that incorporating sections (into the main article) is another positive step forward in keeping a good flow.Hardlygone (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It also seems fair (and to help the experienced editors) for GBE and his sockpuppet accounts not to edit the main article directly but to put requests on Talk page. I will then do the same.Hardlygone (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made some edits to improve the article and remove fairly (in the scheme of things) insignificant entries that have attracted persistent vandalism from SPA editors intent on bringing their own personal agenda to the page - and also actually degrade the article and therefore WIKI (imho). I have left in the significant issues - Watchdog, Which, HMRC, ASA, etc and tried to provide balance and neutrality to some of these - for instance it would seem unfair to mention that Watchdog criticised OE pricing in 2011 without mentioning in proximity that even though as far back as 2007, ASA rejected a claim that OE pricing was misleading.Hardlygone (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

watchdog didn't just criticise pricing though. Not by a long chalk. They criticised pressure selling, frank lies told by "laser councillors" who are in fact glorified salespeople.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, Hardlygone - that some time ago you agreed to keep to the talkpage yourself so as to avoid COI issues cropping up. Have I missremembered? Fayedizard (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

he has pledged that on his talk page. Rotsmasher?! Grotsmasher!--Golfbravoecho (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. On the basis that Rotsmasher (been on several times under different sockpuppet SPAs and now parading as Golfbravoecho) (and other agenda-driven SPAs) did likewise. That was initially policed well, but this is not been the case lately and over the past week has posted and reposted insignificant and uncredited material.Hardlygone (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Parading?! I liked Fayedizards version. You obviously don't.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately while it was a massive improvement, it has inaccuracies and outdated reference links that no longer have content being referenced. And it remains overtly unbalanced and unneccesarily sectioned to silo good and bad content suiting a negative agenda. Why should advertising and Charity and from 2008 be sections? It's illogical and only suits one agenda.Hardlygone (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

let's face it. Your instructions are to censor the article and give it as positive a spin as possible. It is a shame that Optical Express have been so controversial but I didn't influence that. An encyclopaedic article has to include the negatives too.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet SPAs and blocked users reposting

Can I ask an experienced editor to look at changes in the article made by Golfbravoecho and IP 85.195.87.250, both of whom are individuals previously blocked from the article for persistent disruption (and edits removed completely). I will not edit the article directly if "faction" SPAs and blocked users do not - and that includes a revision of current entries by this faction.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In that spirit, therefore, can I ask an experienced editor to look over the following requests to improve the article for neutrality and remove sections (in what is a relatively small article) to prevent silos of negativity created by the protagonists.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

'Optical Express is part of the Optical Express Group, which aside from opticians, also operates in the optical, dental and cosmetic industries under the brand names The Cosmetic Clinic, The Dental Clinic and the Bridgewater Hospital.' This does not make sense..."in addition to opticians it operates in the optical industry". What is the difference between operating opticians and in the optical industry, and under what brand if not OE, does OEG do this? Please can this be corrected to a factual level. "in addition to optical, it operates in the cosmetic, dental and healthcare industries..."Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Hardlygone (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like addition to the "Europe expansion"- 'In 2004, Optical Express acquired two Free Vision Euro Eyes laser vision correction clinics in Amsterdam and The Hague,[10][11] marking the first large-scale UK optical chain to extend its laser vision correction business in Holland.[12] Further acquisitions in Germany, France and Croatia, added to its sizable UK and Ireland business has made Optical Express the largest laser eye surgery provider in Europe.' ...in the company information panel, reference to teh OE websites existence is proof that these are facts. And this acquisition expansion is also in reference 21 (Journal of Refractive Surgery).Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Dental Clinic PDF reference (13) does not exist, so the information is not supported and therefore appears to be OR.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express have simply removed the link to the download on their dental website. See alternate ref.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously the gripe site text was edited by an experienced editor to remove overt promotion and it was added by a sockpuppet SPA who was banned and all posts removed as vandalism. This is a blatant attempt to overrule an experienced editor by a bias SPA (previously also blocked under a different identity) without any request for review on the talk page. This persistent sabotaging of the article, surely gives ground to have this person blocked and entry removed because it is obviously has one single purpose...unless it is now allowable to promote URLs on WIKI for promotional purposes.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"and its store at Cross Street in Manchester was fined £25,000 for city centre ". This text has been given undue weight for a fairly insignificant and contested claim. Does anyone other than the SPAs believe this a significant landmark in the history of OE and of importance?Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to state in regard to Watchdog that 'the programme was critical of Optical Express's from £395 pricing.' because that's what the reference link mainly supports. It also seems only fair to add in the same piece that years earlier the ASA rejected a claim that this pricing was misleading.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I request a correction to the false claim that ASA had partially upheld a complaint against the website. The complaint made against the website was rejected. The original posting was misleading and an SPA creator reinstated this false statement when it was corrected in good faith. Surely this is grounds to question the SPA editor's motive (if not already obvious) to have editing priveledges removed (again).Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The main body of the text had become overtly negative in places and to keep a balanced and nuetral article, I suggest removing all section headings (why are they needed...are they of any significant importance) and incorporating the small sections Advertising and Charity (into the main article) to give a chronological flow and balance where due, as above.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My intention (and agenda if you like) is to ensure the article is fair and balanced (nuetral) and I do not intend to remove or request removal of the significant entries. However, I do expect that experienced editors and admins keep entries nuetral and balanced with the correct facts as per references and not OR, and removal of fairly insignificant agenda-driven pieces. Until recently this has been largely achieved until the reappearance of previously blocked SPAs and sockpuppets.Hardlygone (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. You are proven to be both a user of sockpuppets, a vandal and an SPA. It is clear to me that Optical Express wishes to control this page.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I submit that user Hardlygone has a conflict of interest--Golfbravoecho (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And you are?Hardlygone (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any hope for the neutrality of this article until Hardlygone and Golfbravoecho both stop edit warring and leave this article alone, they both have a conflict of interest and are single purpose accounts.Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

i was happy with your revision Theroadislong.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Fayedizard rewrote the article and everyone was in agreement it was in the right direction before you and other SPAs thought to grab an opportunity to recommence peppering it with your agenda. I only became involved after days of observing your antics - and only to correct wrong statements and remove previously deliberated versions. Please don't come across as an innocent - same as Rotsmasher MO. you reverted previously deliberated edits and have systematically removed valid edits with a return of grammatical errors and outdated references.Hardlygone (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

you know that a valid reference for 35 dental clinics was available on your own website until you removed it. You know you will not allow - opticalexpressruinedmylife - to be on wiki and ideally, no mention of a gripe site at all. you closed 28 dental clinics since 2005, why can you not allow this factual information on wiki? The problem with Optical Express is that you do controversial things such as lie in adverts, fly tip, get county court judgements, shut dentists and have multi-million pound VAT disputes but the only thing you want on wiki is a glorified PR piece sanctioned by David Moulsdale--Golfbravoecho (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Opticalexpressruinedmylife website

Optical Express were happy to fight this and thus tacitly accept that a negative outcome would lead to a series of facts worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and also that the opticalexpressruinedmylife website would continue to exist. So why are they so keen to remove all reference to it from here?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

this blatant self promotion was originally inserted by a sock-puppet and removed (as were all comments/posts) by a senior editor, due to SPA and agenda-driven - the SPA history was removed completely. This should not be a matter of discussion any more. Golfbravoecho should be blocked/removed if they persistently repost this deleted information. You are showing traits akin to that of Rotsmasher.Hardlygone (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not object to the re-written entry, however as Golfbravoecho seems persistent on vandalism of the article and revised statement (after debate) and as might other sockpuppet or SPA accounts in future, the complete removal will prevent this in future.Hardlygone (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

what a load of rubbish! you just dont want - opticalexpressruinedmylife - on Wikipedia--Golfbravoecho (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you are reverting a previously contested and reviewed issue. I am only reverting to that decision. Ok I may have been all of the above and sinned, but that was over a year ago. Since then you have been banned and blocked several times, but persistenty return under a different guise, but still really the same SPA, vandal, sockpuppet.Hardlygone (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Revision

Hi, I understand my edits on the page, while meant to be constructive and helpful, were wrong given the COI and SPA activity of two differing factions. I apologise to experienced editors who have spent considerable time and effort on assisting with the article under difficult conditions. I had become fustrated by edits of other SPAs and two wrongs do not make a right. I have put up in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hardlygone/sandbox a proposed revision to the article to improve it for the reasons already outlined on this page. I would welcome if experienced and independent editors can review this and provide a view or suggest improvements. The intention is to remove section heads and incorporate the entries into the article in a chronological order that seems to be taking shape in the main sections. This will balance the article and make it more nuetral imho. Thank you.Hardlygone (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

if that is the case why have you removed the Opticalexpressruinedmylife section again. The truth is you have been previously warned for this kind of thing and you know you may get blocked. Have you not got better things to do during your working day? I am also a bit confused why your previous contact (the senior editor) is not currently active for you?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not find any of your agenda-driven disruptive edits valid or without challenge as per references provided. However you have deleted all of my own edits summarily - even when I have corrected grammar - that's called edit warring. If an experienced editor backs up your claims, then I would obviously have more respect for your input. I would thus suggest that you stop direct edits on the article and put your views on the talk page and I will do likewise.Hardlygone (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Honesty & reliability of Wiki

I have always regarded Wikipedia as a dependable source of information and am disappointed to find this is not the case.

Having made a few minor edits to the main page I've returned to find almost the entire section gone!

If it's a fact & has a verifiable source and reference, then why are people allowed to delete?

Given this new understanding I can no longer depend on Wikipedia for honest and factual information and will certainly advise others of the same.

I will be interested to see whether or not Nazi supporters are given similar freedom to delete truths posted on Wiki! (RingARoses (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

PM to Golfbravoecho

Hi, please refrain from undo-ing systematically and please check your corrections - you have already been warned for edit-warring on your talk page. Sometime soon someone will take more notice of your disruptive editing. Much of the information and sources you are trying to re-instate re: dental Clinic does not exist. There is no reference in your citations to 2005 and number of clinics - your entry therefore appears to be OR. Thank you.Hardlygone (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I only noticed him reverting at that time, but this whole article appears to be a battleground between you two. I'd suggest that you seek a dispute resolution method. Silvrous ^Talk 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I have suggested a simple resolution that has been ignored by him - that both of us stop posting on the article and seek views to proposals from independent experienced editors (not SPAs).Hardlygone (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

as long as the article is left as you like it before we do that, with the gripe site and dental clinic stuff missing eh?!--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand!!

Re "what a load of rubbish! you just don't want - opticalexpressruinedmylife - on Wikipedia--Golfbravoecho (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)"

Hardlygone works for Optical Express so presumably he's paid to delete anything controversial?

Answer would be appreciated from Hardlygone?

I'm a newbie to this, but if I noticed then surely there must be a VERY senior editor who can see what's going on here!

Please don't corrupt Wikipedia! Allow truths to be told!

(RingARoses (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

25th September.

Good evening all.

I've just reverted the article to it's last know good state - which was by theroadislong several days ago. Given that neither side is happy with it I'm willing to call that a compromise. There is also a request for page protection pending. I've said this before but now I'm inclined to be less polite - Hardlygone, my life, and I suspect other people's lives would be easier if you stick to the talk page. without exception your current offer of 'I'll stick to the talk page if some other guy does' is far to close to 'I'll stick to the talk page as long as the article is how I want it' for people to take the offer seriously.

Everybody else - please stick to one account - I don't know how many of there you are but currently the impression is of one person who is pretending to be many people, which doesn't engender trust.

For everybody, and I mean everybody - most of the problems on the article would be solved by you spending time on pages other than this one - we can't make you into good editors if you insist on getting a half-baked idea of how wikipedia works from a fight here - but we can if you have a bit of a tour, explore and help the encyclopedia be better. Fayedizard (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good Evening Fayedizard. The point of my edits on this version was that the information and references are wrong. And they remain wrong. I will re-list the issues below.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding The Dental Clinic. The reference [13] is invalid/broken. There is no evidence presented to suggest that there were any set number of clinics in 2005. Therefore this statement is OR and that's why I removed it. Given that there is no significance in the fact there whatever number of current locations on the website www.thedentalclinic.com, I removed that also... In an earlier existence I was berated for listing how many locations OE operated - at first I listed all locations by name and category and country and when that was rubbished, I listed numbers of locations - and that was rubbished also. If this "seven clinics" remains as an important encyclopaedic fact, I would like to request that the number of cosmetic, optical stores, consultation clinics and treatment clinics operated by the OE group in each country is listed also. Number of locations seems now to be a significant statistic of importance, whereas before its insertion in the article was akin to a federal crime.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the gripe site. I thought this was deliberated quite some time ago (by yourself) and agreed that promoting the url or the name of the site was overt promotion. I was reverting the edit to that decision and only where you failed to back up your original deliberation - if you can check your own notes that would be appreciated. The main issue with the gripe site was unlawful content. There were several actions against the site including that publicised. The main issues including unlawful content were resolved. The domain is a much lesser issue that was only part of a larger complaint that was largely satisfied. Regardless, if self-promotion of websites in WIKI articles is now allowed I am pleased as I will no doubt take you up on the offer to visit and edit more pages.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the statement 'Optical Express is part of the Optical Express Group, which aside from opticians, also operates in the optical, dental and cosmetic industries under the brand names The Cosmetic Clinic, The Dental Clinic and the Bridgewater Hospital.' Surely this should be 'Optical Express is part of the Optical Express Group, which aside from optical, also operates in the cosmetic, dental and healthcare industries under the brand names The Cosmetic Clinic, The Dental Clinic and the Bridgewater Hospital.' not that it makes any difference...I am actually genuinely trying to improve the article.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my insertion on expansion in Europe. This was fully backed up with a proper citation that referred to dates an number of clinics acquired. I can see no reason for its re-insertion and if number of locations can be reported then all the better.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the ASA complaint against the website www.opticalexpress.co.uk (let's name what web site in the article in case there is any confusion). This is wrongly reported. The complaint against the website www.opticalexpress.co.uk was rejected. Please read the citation thoroughly if you are going to reject this claim. It does not say what the entry says - this is it OR or misleading reportage (is that OR as well).Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sectioning. These silos split the article into positive vs negative. The article, although improved in content, is not in any sensible order; neither chronological or structured. It's still a messy and illogical structure. Can you tell me why "Since 2008" is a major heading? Neither is it possible to say why Advertising and Charity deserve mention as such small sections - surely overdue weight. We are talking about a pretty small article, not war and peace, it does not need sections and surely overview and history should be chronological. If you are going to afford particular attention to dates, then all years should be headers - otherwise surely you are also promoting particular POV.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, the fly-tipping piece has been given undue weight. For an article on a company of this magnitude with some of the success and issues faced - some of which censored (ie £10m tax dispute, £1m investment in each laser clinic, 1 million eyes treated), the mention of a disputed £25k fine is pretty petty yet it is given more space than any other item - some of which have been previously censored.Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You may not agree, but all requests above are intended to improve the article based on these criteria - to be fair with previous editing decisions imposed on this heavily censored article (ie locations and URL promotion); to be factual (ie ASA reportage, number of dental locations in 2005); to have a balanced article that is not manipulated to create positive/negative division (ie silos); to prevent undue weight to any item/s (ie fly-tipping and very small Advertising and Charity sections).Hardlygone (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect Hardlygone, it seems you are mistaken when you say, "The main issue with the gripe site was unlawful content. There were several actions against the site including that publicised. The main issues including unlawful content were resolved. The domain is a much lesser issue that was only part of a larger complaint that was largely satisfied."

Page 5 of Nominet's Decision (http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/decisionssearch/?searchText=D00011271&x=35&y=6) clearly explains that the "unlawful content" you mention referred to personal stories from Optical Express patients.

Referring to campaigner Sasha Rodoy, Nominet's expert Keith Gymer wrote,"She states that the Domain Name is not for sale, and had hosted patient’s personal accounts of how their lives had been ruined by Optical Express surgery (apparently taken down after a complaint made by the Complainant to the hosting service provider)."

As can clearly be seen on the Opticalexpressruinedmylife website, those patient's personal accounts you refer to as "unlawful content" are an integral part of it.

If there were other actions please reference them, as I am unable to find anything to support your claim that "The domain is a much lesser issue that was only part of a larger complaint that was largely satisfied." (RingARoses (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

How cynical Hardlygone... Again 35 dental clinics on your own website. How incompetent to actually leave this on after stating otherwise on the record on here. Bet David Moulsdale will be pleased? Oh by the way.. Screenshots taken.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) http://group.opticalexpress.com/careers/dentistry.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfbravoecho (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hardlygone - please feel free to edit your website so it no longer misleads the public or potential dental business employees. Remember though that I do have screenshots of the page proving that you Optical Express did indeed have 35 dental clinics in 2005 and your attempts to call it OR are patently false.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The fly tipping fine was the largest ever levied in Manchester. In addition trawling through the archives it appears you have never provided any evidence that Optical Express either appealed or were successful in getting the fine reversed. Relevant to the discussion and the fly tipping issue is relevant to the article.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Content Disputes

“This article is a mess largely because two distinct factions are fighting over it without taking the time to volunteer generally at wikipedia to see how the place works.” Fayedizard (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am one ‘faction’ and my COI is declared on my user page; I am an employee of Optical Express.

I would like to see a Wiki page that is balanced and neutral showing content that is a. worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion b. as factual as the given reference will allow and c. within the guidelines of Wiki.

As such, would editors please discuss the following suggested edits of the page in its current form?

1. Overview and History

Current:

Optical Express is part of the Optical Express Group, which aside from opticians, also operates in the optical, dental and cosmetic industries under the brand names The Cosmetic Clinic, The Dental Clinic and the Bridgewater Hospital.

Requested edit: delete and merge with page’s opening paragraph to improve flow and remove duplication

The Optical Express group of companies (subsidiaries of DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd) operate in a range of healthcare services including the optical, dental and cosmetic industries under the brand names Optical Express, The Dental Clinic, The Cosmetic Clinic and Bridgewater Hospital.

Hardlygone (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

so just ignore the serious comments above? I notice that you have amended the website as I suggested. Why not just come clean. You had 35 dental clinics in 2005 and have 7 now. You don't want this information on Wikipedia. Similarly with the - www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.com website. You lost the Nominet dispute fair and square and you don't want that fact on Wikipedia.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The requested change sounds fine to me.Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we assume that there is agreement on this simple change? Can someone action it?Hardlygone (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph at the start of 'overview...' but not touched the lede - my understanding is that duplication is desirable in the lede - but thereadislong might be able to correct me on this... Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Theroadislong (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Overview and History

Addition: Encyclopaedic entry stating when OE first offered laser eye surgery

Optical Express entered the refractive surgery market after it bought the Health Clinic in October 2002.

http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2004/10/22/12845/Optical+Express+buys+Boots'+laser+business.htm

Hardlygone (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume there are no objections?Hardlygone (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Overview and History

Optical Express acquired the dentistry and laser eye surgery services of Alliance Boots in 2005 - the dental services now trade under the name `The Dental Clinic'. In 2005 this had 35 locations but now has 7 listed on the company website.

Requested edit:

Optical Express acquired the dentistry and laser eye surgery services of Alliance Boots in 2005. http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2004/10/22/12845/Optical+Express+buys+Boots'+laser+business.htm

Reason: While this was reported in 2004, the deal was concluded in 2005. The current edit is incorrect and without citation as there is nothing stating how many clinics were acquired as prt of the deal. Hardlygone (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume there are no objections?Hardlygone (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise - I've removed the content on numbers as OR. But someone clearly objected above. Yes - it's unhelpful for them not to do so in the most useful place, but you are either not reading their comments (which would be odd as you've commented under them), or pretending they don't exist. Neither of which are optimal strategies for engaging with wikipedia.  :( Fayedizard (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Overview and History

In 2007 Optical Express became engaged in a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs over a disputed £10.9 million pounds in tax. Optical Express lost the case and were initially not given leave to appeal due to factual inaccuracies in their provided information. At review they were given leave to appeal.[15] [16][17][18] and its store at Cross Street in Manchester was fined £25,000 for city centre fly tipping by Manchester City council after rubbish was dumped behind the store. The company did not attend the court case. An Optical Express spokesperson said This is a ludicrous case. We were never served a summons so it's hardly surprising we weren't in court. Our lawyers are lodging an immediate appeal.[19]

- References 15, 17 and 18 are all from 2007. Reference 16 is the most up to date report from 2011.

Requested edit: the tax case summary is inaccurate (both factions initially agreed to a rewrite but one faction then undid the edit) and also correcting grammar linking the next story.

In 2007, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd became engaged in a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs over a disputed £10.9million pounds in tax. HMRC rejected the original appeal citing factual inaccuracies. In 2010, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd won its tribunal case on appeal granted by The Court of Session. The UK tax authorities have since contested the decision and the case remains under appeal. At the same time DCM Holdings lodged its own appeal. A store at Cross Street in Manchester was fined £25,000 for city centre fly tipping by Manchester City council after rubbish was dumped behind the store. The company did not attend the court case. An Optical Express spokesperson said This is a ludicrous case. We were never served a summons so it's hardly surprising we weren't in court. Our lawyers are lodging an immediate appeal.

Hardlygone (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I assume there are no objections?Hardlygone (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just quickly - which source are you using for "In 2010, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd won its tribunal case on appeal granted by The Court of Session. The UK tax authorities have since contested the decision and the case remains under appeal. At the same time DCM Holdings lodged its own appeal."? Fayedizard (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fayedizard, it is taken from the current sources which include the following text (verbatim):

Existing citation 15 (printed 2011): “In spite of the fact that DCM Holdings, Mr Moulsdale’s Cumbernauld-based operation, which controls several hundred outlets in 10 countries, last year won its tribunal case over the way it calculated the partial exemption of VAT, the UK tax authorities have since contested the decision and the case remains under appeal. At the same time, DCM, whose activities include laser eye-surgery clinics, private dentistry, healthcare services and cosmetic surgical and non-surgical treatments, as well as the core optical division, has lodged its own appeal in an effort to obtain further VAT exemptions.”

Existing citation 14 (printed 2007): “The Court of Session has now allowed DCM’s appeal”

Thanks.Hardlygone (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Since 2008

This has previously been discussed and edited by a Wiki editor. An editor from one of the disagreeing factions undid the edit. In 2012, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd complained to the domain name registry Nominet that the 'gripe site' opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk was an abusive registration[31] The claim was denied [32]

Requested edit: removing self promoting website and correct grammar

In 2012, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd complained to the domain name registry Nominet that a 'gripe site' was an abusive registration.[31] The claim was denied.[32] Hardlygone (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Confused dot com :(

Please explain why the gripe site is - as Hardlygone claims - a "self promoting website"?

It's a fact, and surely less self promoting than, "Optical Express entered the refractive surgery market after it bought the Health Clinic in October 2002"!

Why so desperate to hide a fact?

Also, what on earth is wrong with "correct grammar" - innit ;)

As I previously said, PLEASE don't corrupt Wikipedia, let's allow truth!

(RingARoses (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Can I assume there are no real-people objections? RingARoses COI is that she is the owner of the gripe site and original editor of the post - therefore why I view it as blatant self-promotion.Hardlygone (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Can I assume there are no real-people objections?" might be the rudest thing I've seen on this page. I can only assume I'm reading it wrong.Fayedizard (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to point out that this "real person" has two identities on this article as it stands and had two identities already removed by admins for disruptive and libellous editing. While I have no doubt this is a real person, I meant that they were not being genuine.Hardlygone (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Charlotte Gosling, Beatthecyberhate, PKDundee, Hardlygone, Beatthecyberhate2... Admitted vandalism, COI, blanking. Bit rich.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Having only just read the accusation from Hardlygone, I'm wondering what gave cause for the assumption I'm a 'she' and not a 'he'?

However, regardless of gender, I can assure 'him' this is my only identity on Wikipedia and I have not "had two identities already removed by admins for disruptive and libellous editing".

My question: "Optical Express is the fourth largest high street retail optician in the UK, which, combined, account for 55% of the optical goods market, of which Optical Express has a 6% share.[2] The company provides eye tests, spectacles, contact lenses and laser eye surgery and is the largest provider of laser eye surgery in the UK.[3]"

Could Hardlygone please clarify: does Optical Express have 6% share of 55%, or 6% share of entire optical goods market? (RingARoses (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Recent Edits

Can I request that to prevent further edit warring that the posts made by Golfbravoecho are removed. There is no proper citation.Hardlygone (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A proper entry is: In October 2012, Optical Express Group consolidated its optical retail store portfolio in order to focus on its flagship locations and online business. 40 tertiary locations were closed with the Group continuing to trade from over one hundred locations across the UK. Most of the employees of the closed locations were transferred. http://www.propertyweek.com/news/news-by-sector/retail/optical-express-calls-in-administrators-to-close-around-40-stores/5043539.article Hardlygone (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I request that edits made by Golfbravoecho are removed. These edits are largely OR and news reporting ... Up to 40 will be closed.... And not fact.Hardlygone (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect Hardlygone, I found the following post @ "http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/08702202020/46Bunchoftossers 3 h 11 min ago I don't know where the store closures are, just mine and my colleagues. I know my stores lease isn't up and speaking to a couple of other managers neither are theirs. I reckon we are doing a runner from our stores! We were told to pack everything up the same day and it was all being collected the same day. Why such a rush??? Fishy! Caller: Optical express"

Doesn't confirm the claim, "Most of the employees of the closed locations were transferred."

Therefore, surely neither quote can be upheld without solid source?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RingARoses (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the relevant section. Just as a general question - do you guys have any general interests or hobbies? (for example I quite like painting watercolors) I'd like to be developing you as editors and it would be good to find other areas where you have interests.Fayedizard (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I request that someone reviews the recent edit by GBE as having too much weight to the story. The adminsitration was reported and he is determined to add undue weight to the article - this is not a newspaper. Further much of the report relates to JJB and not OE...if I can quote the headline "JJB Sports’ demise leaves out-of-pocket landlords demanding level playing field".Hardlygone (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done.Theroadislong (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The material has been added back, I don't thin it belongs in the article because it is unclear what amount relates to Optical Express and which to JBB sports, it is also an undue weight addition by a SPA editor who appears to have a grudge against the company.Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Theroadislong that this SPA has a grudge against the company and has a history of undo-ing without reason or discussion what he does not agree with whether it right or wrong, spelling error, or unsubstantiated.Hardlygone (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Again...

I just reverted this [4] - due to much of the content not being in source, due to the non-neural language, and due to being fairly aware of a slight problem we may have with recentism.Fayedizard (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit: Market Share

To clarify, the Mintel source states that Optical Express has a 6% share of the total market. Hardlygone (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

SPA Editing

I would like to request that someone reviews the latest insertions by GBE as undue weight to the reporting of the subsidiary administration by a SPA editor who appears to have a grudge against the company, as has already been highlighted by Theroadislong. These additions do not add anything to improve the article quality or administration coverage which has already been reported. I would also like to highlight that I have suggested some edits in the sections above and these are still pending review. Could someone please review these and action if agreed, or make comment on improvements or reasons why they have been ignored? Thanks. --Hardlygone (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity.... are you aware that you are an SPA? and also that it's not necessarily a bad thing...? Fayedizard (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fayedizard, yes and on advice from Wiki community editors I have declared my COI on my talk page. And I do agree with you. Hardlygone (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

GBE Edits

Would it be possible for an editor to review the recent edit by GBE. I don’t believe any of the content contained within the edit is in the source. Can I also point that this SPA is now editing the page without any discussion on this page and that he has a history of editing the page without any discussion and without any references. Hardlygone (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity.... are you aware that you are an SPA? and also that it's not necessarily a bad thing...? Fayedizard (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that an editor reviews the recent edits by GBE on the following basis:

1) Closure of stores - this is OR and none of the edit is supported by anything referenced.

2)The content within the Daily Mail article does not reflect what has been included in the edit. The points made within the edit is complete conjecture and the edit has been written to reflect a biased individual’s interpretation rather than any basis in fact. Wording such as “coerced”, “specialist consultant” and “financial penalty” are misleading and OR.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the most recent GBE post in addition to their edits. I would suggest it is clear that this user has an agenda or an undeclared conflict of interest. They have continually made unconstructive edits with a heavy bias on negative reportage, and in many cases are blatantly untrue. Hardlygone (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits and sockpuppet

Can someone review the recent edit by IP 85.195.87.260 (sockpuppet of RingARoses, owner of the gripe site)as these are the most recently published information. OE remains the number four player in the market and unless a stat can be produced that states otherwise, then this post constitutes OR.Hardlygone (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review the recent edits by IP 107.6.124.48. This is projecture and OR...there is no reference to back up any of these claims.Hardlygone (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review the recent edits by GBE? This is OR with no reference to back up any of these claims --Hardlygone (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail article so not OR. Just face it. Your company is attracting negative press because the culture is poisonous. You close stores with no notice. You expect patients to travel hundreds of miles to new clinics for treatment, you attract loads of negative comments on patient forums, you upset landlords by avoiding your quarterly rent on 80 odd stores, you cynically change the company name from Optical Express Southern Ltd a day before calling in the administrators, you close most of the dental practices and then deny you ever advertised 35, you close laser eye treatment centres after formally stating that this wouldn't happen in the recent bankruptcy, you pursue the gripe site - opticalexpressruinedmylife.com vigorously and then when you lose, you don't want any mention of it on Wikipedia. If I were you Pat, I would be casting my net out for a new position because the way it is going, the boat is sinking.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The post above contains unsubstantiated defamatory statements - see WIKI libel definition. I would remove them and I would be more careful what you say. I am sure an experienced admin might want to advise.Hardlygone (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review these malicious edits from a disgruntled senior ex-employee. In particular:

"In November 2012, further Optical Express locations closed down with minimal notice including Hamilton and Metro Centre Gateshead. This flagship Laser Eye Surgery Centre closure means that previous statements by Optical Express that their Laser business was unaffected by the closures of a quarter of their stores is now not the case"

This is OR and the reference is a store and clinic locator on the OE website! what part of that backs up this claim? This whole edit shoud be removed as there is nothing to back up any of it. Not even the reference to the statement is accurate.

"In November 2012, The Daily Mail ran an article about Optical Express being the preferred partner for Bupa for Cataract surgery and how patients were being coerced to use Optical Express instead of specialist consultants. The article alleged that Bupa patients were being presented with a financial penalty if they decided not to have the cataract surgery with Optical Express"

This is blatant OR and bias reportage. Nowhere in the DM article did it state that patients were being "coerced" or "being presented with a financial penalty". Further the choice of wording "specialist consultants" is OR and suggestive that the other 10,000 BUPA-approved consultants are not "specialists", which is complete nonsense.

I am genuinely surprised that experienced WIKI editors are allowing these edits to exist.Hardlygone (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, however Hamilton and Metro Centre Gateshead have not closed - they are being relocated to better locations and will be put back on the web site soon - when re-opened. Using the OE web site clinic locator as a reference is not encyclopaedic and therefore OR - i.e. the fact that these locations ever existed is not referenced there - although we are not denying they were - only saying that the references do not support the statement. The original OE statement that only 40 store locations (and no clinics) were affected by closure remains true, however some clinics are being relocated to better and more appropriate locations. Further, more laser eye and intraocular lens consultation clinics are being opened across the UK and that will be visible on the OE clinic locator over the coming weeks.Hardlygone (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gripe Site

Can someone review the history around this gripe site? The use of the url is overt promotion and posted by the owner of the site. I would like to request that the URL is deleted from the post, if not the full post itself (as it is a fairly insignificant event)? Hardlygone (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone review the history around this gripe site? The use of the url is overt promotion and posted by the owner of the site. I would like to request that the URL is deleted from the post, if not the full post itself (as it is a fairly insignificant event)?Hardlygone (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The history of this might be beneficial to any editors reviewing this request. It will come as no surprise that the original OERML site contained defamatory and libellous statements mainly from its owner, amongst stories and opinions from individuals. Takedown requests were simultaneously made to 123-reg (hosting) and Nominet (domain) regarding the "abusive" content. 123-reg removed the abusive content and therefore by the time Nominet reviewed and made its decision on the domain, the site was merely a holding page. The site has been reinstated without the libellous material, because even though the Nominet decision upheld the registration, 123-reg had already ruled on the original content being against its terms. OE are satisfied with the outcome as the purpose was to prevent defamation, not to prevent free (lawful) speech. However, this has been manipulated to unfairly represent that OE had complained about the web site in its current form, and GBE still maintains this tact. The site owner and very small band of followers have posted and reposted the URL (which has been deleted a few times by independent WIKI editors - and not OE) and that is why I believe this is overt promotion. I was of the opinion that promotional URLs were not allowed on WIKI and were usually only allowed as reference sites.Hardlygone (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If, as Hardlygone claims, the Nominet DRS ruling re gripe site opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk "is a fairly insignificant event", then why is he so anxious to delete its mention? I was under the impression Sasha Rodoy may have in fact set a precedent with her victory, but perhaps someone with more knowledge in that area can advise? Meanwhile, I have replaced the website URL, and, whilst I am not the owner as Hardlygone claims, what I actually am is unclear why he has taken offense so long after the URL was reinstated by a senior editor. It must also be noted that Hardlygone's version of events, esp "libellous material", does not match the information published in Nominet's DRS decision itself. Would advise Hardlygone refresh his memory by reading the full content of said decision.RingARoses (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardlygone's allegation also begs the question, if content is/was libelous (one 'l'), then why has it remained since August without Optical Express taking legal action against site owner Sasha Rodoy? I would also appreciate an explanation of what he considers to be "libellous material" as 'Danny's story' is posted on numerous forums, including a video on YouTube. RingARoses (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at this content again I feel that the whole section should be removed as undue weight. The site has received very little media coverage and the only people wishing to retain it are single purpose accounts connected to it and so have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a battleground or outlet for anti business campaigns. At the very least the website address should be removed and certainly the inline external link HAS to go. Ryanair had a similar problem with "Ihateryanair.co.uk" this NOT however mentioned in their article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably not mentioned in Ryanair's article as they won their case and "ihateryanair.co.uk" was removed, whereas OERML is now a relatively high profile site with the Nominet decision discussed on numerous legal pages. RingARoses (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Two entries in October 2012 refer to the same event. Can this be edited to:

In October 2012, Optical Express Group announced the closure of 40 stores, after a subsidiary went into administration. The Group was quoted as staying that staff would be redeployed and fewer than 100 people would lose their jobs.[32] An Optical Express spokesperson responded to criticism from the British Property Federation regarding their plans to buy back 40 of the 80 stores placed under administration.[33]Hardlygone (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Expansion in Europe

Can The second paragrahph be added to complete the story of European expansion?

In 2004, Optical Express acquired two Free Vision Euro Eyes laser vision correction clinics in Amsterdam and The Hague,[8][9] marking the first large-scale UK optical chain to extend its laser vision correction business in Holland.[10]

Further acquisitions and expansion between 2005 and 2009 in Germany, France and Croatia, added to its sizable UK and Ireland business has made Optical Express the largest laser eye surgery provider in Europe.

References if required: (www.opticalexpress.com, www.opticalexpress.de, www.opticalexpress.nl, www.opticalexpress.fr, www.opticalexpress.hr) I am amused that every statement has to have a reference making this article one of the most referenced for a short article (see Tesco which has very few references relative to article size)

The statement below also found on the UK site is self-explanatory:

"As the leading supplier of refractive vision correction equipment and per procedure consumables in Europe we can confirm that Optical Express purchases more AMO refractive procedures per annum than any other provider in Europe, including UK".

George Neal Division Vice President Global Sales Abbott Medical Optics Inc.

Hardlygone (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hardlygone I will have a look at your suggestions as soon as I can. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I dont have a problem in principal with your suggested addition on expansion it really needs some references that dont belong to the company, if the expansion is notable then it will be covered in either the general or specialist press. If anybody can find some reliable references then we can add the expansion bit. Oh just a note about the number of references without picking on any specific examples in wikipedia it is normally a sign that somebody is trying to push a non-neutral position, if the fact or opinion is reliably sourced it should need more than one or if a complex subject two references per sentence, so any more than two is a bit of a red flag rather than a sign of good referencing. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Gripe Site Owner/COI

RingARoses is the owner of the gripe site (and has been posting boasts on other forums of her progress on WIKI vs OE) and a sockpuppet of an IP belonging to the gripe site owner, and this will be reported on the COI and SP pages as per MilborneOne’s advice. Secondly, as I have outlined previously, the action against the gripe site was to remove defamation. This was removed prior to the Nominet investigation, and therefore anyone writing about the ruling would be unaware of the full facts surrounding the case. The fact that the site has “operated since August without action being taken” is because the defamation has been removed. Further the owner of the gripe site has an ongoing campaign and litigation vs the clinic that treated her and her lawyers no doubt will be behind PR to raise awareness on legal sites, so there is little surprise given the full background that a few legal web sites and a few legal blogs has covered this matter and in some cases might be posted directly. The weighting of the influence of several bloggers, I believe, is being over-stated in this instance.Hardlygone (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as RingARoses discusses things on this talk page and doesnt edit war or spam the actual article (or make any other non-controversial edits see WP:COIU) then they can work within the conflict of interest rules. They clearly need to gain a consensus to add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)#

This is becoming farcical! I would suggest Hardlygone provides evidence to support his unmerited accusations, including proof of "posting boasts on other forums" as a "sockpuppet, blah blah...". It would also be interesting to hear which "defamation" he thinks was removed from the the gripe site, because, having read the full Nominet DRS decision here , it's my understanding the "defamation" claimed by Optical Express referred to personal accounts of their problems written by Optical Express' own patients. I would advise Hardlygone thoroughly read the Nominet DRS (as I have), look carefully at the gripe site content again, and perhaps then he will admit the patients accounts were the "defamation" alleged by his employer's legal team. It's a sad day when a company as large as Optical Express must resort to lies and false accusations to protect their seemingly decaying reputation. 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) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt, if Hardlygone has evidence of wrong doing then it should be raised at the appropriate forum, but as nearly every one on this talk page has an agenda then perhaps we can stop taking swipes at others. Some editors are close to being blocked if they carry on in that direction. As for the alternate website you need to convince other editors that it is notable and gain consensus for it to be added, in the end you have to convince fellow editors that it is notable, not undue weight and encyclopedic. Oh and remember this is an encyclopedia, not a company promotional page, not a blog or a whinge site. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

All I wanted was my contribution to be reinstated, without a need for its own article. "In April 2012, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd complained to domain name registry Nominet that Sasha Rodoy's registration of gripe site opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk was an abusive one. In August 2012 their claim was denied. "

A simple fact with a verifiable source.

Before my own contribution, I trusted Wikipedia. Now I have an insight into its machinations, and deception from some editors, I can no longer trust Wiki as a reliable and impartial source of information.

Shame on you all responsible! RingARoses (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Optical Express admit to trying to trace Wikipedia editors.

A concerning development. User Hardlygone has admitted that "the company" meaning Optical Express know my identity. They are mistaken but I am very unhappy with the implication that they are attempting to trace people who post things they disagree with on Wikipedia. I think that this is an attempt at intimidation and it requires urgent senior Wikipedia editor review.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OK guys you need to stop this behaviour it is clearly harassment if Hardlygone publishes or uses what could be a real identity in wikipedia. If Harldygone thinks that User:Golfbravoecho is a banned user then you should raise a report WP:SPI with appropriate evidence, otherwise leave it alone. Hardlygone has declared that he works for Optical Express so has a conflict of interest and a bias but this puts them at a disadvantage in that they clearly shouldnt edit the article directly but needs to raise the issues here to gain consensus. This raises the temptation for other editors to just change the contents without considering other opinons or gaining consensus. We need to get a balance and appropriate weight between criticism and to provide an encyclopedic entry so rather than attacking each other we need to discuss concerns and changes on this page first. I came here as a non-involved admin to try and restore the balance and end the constant edit wars, it would be good if you guys worked with me and other editors to put this article into order. That said I would appreciate that all changes are discussed here, if we have any sign of edit warring then I will need to lock down the article but I would rather work with people first. So cut out the personal attacks and edit warring and lets discuss the issues, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am agreeable to that but GBE (aka Rotsmasher) should think about their own posts (as above) before crying wolf...

"If I were you Pat, I would be casting my net out for a new position because the way it is going, the boat is sinking.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)"

Hardlygone (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

GBE (aka Rotsmasher) is yet another hostile and baseless comment. I was just giving you advice. Obviously you are free to ignore it. --Golfbravoecho (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to note if you guys carry on anymore with personal comments than you will get blocked for disruptive behaviour, you may not get another warning. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point I would ask that a senior editor also evaluate my recently deleted contribution: "In 2012, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd complained to the domain name registry Nominet that the registration of gripe site http://www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ was an abusive one[ref] The claim was denied [ref]" A simple entry, factual with verifiable sources (as previously quoted). I therefore fail to understand why Hardlygone has such an issue with the OE gripe site mention, especially as the BBC Watchdog reference remains. Contrary to his previous posts that the site is libelous etc the site exists and the owner not been sued. My research shows Hardlygone has not provided any facts to support his argument otherwise and if in any doubt I again suggest he reads the Nominet DRS decision. Concerningly, Optical Express are treating Wikipedia as a free advertising platform at the expense of silencing negative facts. I would therefore like to repost my contribution with the assurance from a senior editor that Wikipedia remains a source of true facts, not a platform for the equivalent of political spins!RingARoses (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a source of true facts, it only reports what reliable third party sources have said, your anti Optical Express website has received little coverage in the media, so it would be undue weight to include it, and for you to keep including it would be considered spamming. regardsTheroadislong (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling on unbiased senior editor here! Firstly, not MY website! Secondly, disappointing to hear that Wikipedia "is NOT a source of true facts". Thirdly, I can't imagine a more "reliable third party source" than Nominet for verification. Fourthly, would advise Theroadislong to look at Wiki's own definition of "spamming" Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Theroadislong claimed to have no allegiance/relation to Optical Express?RingARoses (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The spam definition I was referring to is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam I do indeed have no allegiance to Optical Express I have some 17,000 articles on my watch list, I am here to build a neutral encyclopaedia, with reliable third party references, I don't think the gripe site is remotely notable and other senior editors have agreed.Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re spam definition :"This page in a nutshell: Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea; it is considered harmful, please do not do it and if you find some, please remove or rewrite the content." I don't believe the mention of a gripe site can possibly fall into that category. And, with respect to you and other senior editors who have agreed, although you "don't think the gripe site is remotely notable", the Nominet decision found it to be "not an abusive registration" and in my opinion therefore, notable for that decision itself. Perhaps if this continues to be disputed here it would be simpler if the Nominet DRS decision re opticalexpressruinedmylife (recorded as a precedent on numerous law firm websites) were published as a separate article? RingARoses (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to be persuaded if there are numerous law firm websites which mention it.Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk – Bad Faith Registration Or ...

Forgive the presentation! There are countless more as can be seen should you simply google the domain name! "opticalexpressry=uinedmylife.co.uk"www.bllaw.co.uk › ... › intellectual property › news and updates ... the case involving opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk and whether it was bad faith ... This was the question considered by a Nominet expert in the recent case of ... this claim, the expert made reference to the decision in 'ihateryanair.co.uk', ... Nominet permits www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk to continue ...

www.capitallaw.co.uk/site/publicationsandnews/.../ip3sept2012.html Sasha Rodoy created the site www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk to ... Digressing from the decision made by a previous Nominet expert to transfer the ... opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk: not an abusive domain name ...

www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?task=download&option...fid... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View 23 Oct 2012 – opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk to the owners of ... it differs from an earlier Nominet decision, in ... at ihateryanair.co.uk, as to the degree to ... Nominet finds critical website not an abusive domain name registration

www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g...42f2... 30 Oct 2012 – This decision differs from an earlier Nominet decision concerning ... site under the domain name 'opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk', ... For example, the expert in Nominet's 'ihateryanair.co.uk' decision (DRS 08527) said that: ... Nominet | law, less ordinary - legal opinions from Browne Jacobson

www.law-less-ordinary.co.uk/wordpress/tag/nominet/ The Expert in opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk suggested this approach ... not an abusive registration, and (b) that Nominet's decision was not properly reached.RingARoses (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In the end it is down to appropriate weight in the article, is it really important or notable in relation to the company, I cant see any evidence from the above that it is notable to the company or in fact encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the coverage of the incident in the media justifies a small, neutral, mention. One that doesn't include a link to the gripe site in any form. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is probably the best compromise.Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Though I would have preferred that the actual domain name wasn't mentioned.Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.RingARoses (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am very dissappointed in this post as I have pointed out above and more recently on COIN. I maintain this post is self-promotion, fairly insignificant and misrepresented. Three independent and experienced editors have removed this independently and separately, only for this COI to repost again and again.Hardlygone (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)