Talk:Optical Express

message: I would like to suggest an editor to change the areas served, and remove France from the list of Optical Express have pulled out of working in France.
Apologies if this is not the correct place to inform someone of this, it's just because I don't yet have the status to edit this myself. Thank you all. SamDemeda (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2014 

message: The recent accounts for DCM (Optical) Holdings ltd give a loss for the company. Surely the facts box should be updated to keep the article up to date?--212.95.228.154 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update the info box, if you have a reliable reference.Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't as I am not verified. http://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/SC146610--  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.228.154 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to be "verified" to edit? Better to register with an account though as your ip address will be visible until you do. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see no account figures at the link you provided either? Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent accounts  

message: Last year Hardlygone fought to delete all references to www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk website and the Nominet DRSD00011271 decision ruled by Keith Gymer in favour of the site's author (My Beautiful Eyes campaigner Sasha Rodoy). Eventually all mention of OERML was gone from the Talk page as well as the Article. I believe Hardlygone argued the site too insignificant to be mentioned at that time. Optical Express saw fit to make a second complaint against OERML in October 2013 which was again rejected by Nominet Ind Expert on 1 January 2014:
"This is an attempt at a second bite of the cherry, within a short period after an unsuccessful first attempt," said Nominet panellist Bob Elliott.
He added that there were insufficient grounds for a rehearing of the case and rejected Optical Express's complaint."
This was published by the The Register yesterday http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/07/optical_express_ruined_my_life_site_wins_nominet_battle/
Optical Express have today lodged an appeal against Bob Elliott's decision fb.me/14PDOCY6u http://opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/index.php/forum/optical-express-ruined-my-life-discuss/7692-optical-express-complaint-to-nominet-drs.html
This cannot support any argument Hardlygone is likely to return that it is too insignificant and I ask for agreement that details should now be included in the OE Article
RingARoses (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this is remotely notable enough for inclusion but I see you have added it anyway. I will await others opinions, I'm not going to edit war. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I won't get involved in this, because my involvement here is as an administrator, not as a party to the dispute. I will, though, make two observations: notbaility, by Wikipedia's definition, means extensive coverage in multiple secondary sources (note, for example, the Hansard is not a secondary source; The Register, if reporting facts recorded elsewhere, probably would be). And, if "Optical Express Ruined My Life" is to be mentioned, it should be given due weight—it should not dominate 15% of the article, and it probably should not have its own section (which implies it is worthy of the same weight of the whole of the company's history, which is confined to one section). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  16:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith, the content you added is not entirely supported by the reference you gave and as the admin above stated "notbaility, by Wikipedia's definition, means extensive coverage in multiple secondary sources". It may all be totally true but Wikipedia requires impeccable sourcing for contentious issues and Wikipedia is not the place for promoting "causes" no matter how noble and worthy they may be. Theroadislong (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with your comments aboveRingARoses has bullied the content into the article but as he bizarrely considers I am being paid to edit, I will leave it to others to revert or change the content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

text: You could do that, but I'm not sure it's worth a full-blown RfC; you could just ask at WP:COIN or somewhere for an editor with no previous involvement to make the decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree it should be removed, it was discussed at length before and no consensus to add it was reached, I just don't like to be the one who is always doing the removing though! Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PS RingARoses who added the material is currently blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a consensus to me, so (acting as an uninvolved admin), I've removed the paragraph in question. And, for the record, RingARoses is blocked for slightly different reasons. They're welcome to advocate for its re-inclusion once they return (though restoring it against consensus would be disruptive editing). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  consensus my fat NewYork ass. You are so up Pat's ass it is a crime.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.197.167 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Why would any of us listen to a radio programme before deleting anything, each edit is measured on weight and notability when it is suggested or added. Is "heavy handed editors" a personal attack on other editors, it might be worth re-wording that bit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks, do we know if a transcript will be available or do we have to listen to the broadcast/podcast ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: My input is that I think we need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion, regardless of the nobleness of the cause. I am assuming good faith but several editors on all sides of this topic seem to be conflicted by promotion of their own interests. Personally, I don't see how this is anywhere near notable enough for inclusion nor improves it. I have also taken note of previous editor behaviour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbhoy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

text: It may be best if you dont add it yourself, let me have a look at the Guardian stuff and I will come back with a suggestion, although at first pass I was a bit concerned with "Rodoy had previously run a website called Optimax Ruined My Life, until she came to a confidential settlement with the firm." might mean all is not what it seems. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So why go after a rival company when she already has received compensation from Optimax? MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

text: You're welcome to propose an alternative version, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to list every detail about everything but to provide a summary of the information available on a given topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's governed by consensus, which is determined by strength of argument and its content is decided according to the reliable sources. As it is, two editors with no connection to OE or OERML have stated that they believe the current wording is sufficient. If you want to change it, the onus is on you to make an argument that will convince enough people that we reach a consensus. That's how it works on the other 4.5 million articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  23:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

text: What about the third? Do you see somebody connected with OE or OERML expressing an opinion on MilborneOne's edit? I see me stating that the coverage in the Guardian is significant enough to warrant a mention; I see MilborneOne attempting to write a neutral summary; I see Theroadislong agreeing with MilborneOne's addition; and I see you, who won't rest until the article is little more than an anti-Optical Express propaganda piece, accusing everyone else of bias. The editors here are working to keep the article a neutral summary of what is written about Optical Express in reliable, third-party sources (that is, it neither endorses nor condemns Optical Express). Remember that they are volunteers, doing this in their spare time, and probably have no real interest in Optical Express; you are making the environment very hostile for them, which is likely to have an adverse effect on their willingness to contribute here, which in turn will mean that we return to the old days when the article went back and forth between pro-OE advertising an anti-OE propaganda. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominet DRS00011271 + DRS00013417 

message: David Moulsdale has shifted his loss making dental business to Bupa Dental Services Ltd. Surely worth including in the article?217.137.247.25 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental gone to Bupa 

message: Hi, I would like to propose an edit to the opening paragraph of this page. 
Optical Express is predominantly a refractive surgery brand and Europe's leading provider in laser and intraocular lens surgery. Please refer to the <ref>https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/laser-eye-surgery/article/laser-eye-surgery-best-and-worst-companies/laser-eye-surgery-companies-compared<ref> which states 'The biggest chain is Optical Express: it is said to do 6 out of 10 laser eye procedures in the UK, and has over 100 clinics.'
More information to back up the point that Optical Express is the UK's leading provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery can be found in the following Mintel Reports: https://reports.mintel.com/display/715750/#
https://reports.mintel.com/display/792411/#
Optical Express also has almost 130 clinics in the UK.  The list of these can be found here: https://www.opticalexpress.co.uk/clinic-finder
I propose the opening paragraph be amended to the following:
Founded in 1991, Optical Express has grown from just one location to almost 130 clinics and has become the UK’s leading provider of laser and Intraocular Lens surgery. As well as providing eye surgery the company also supplies glasses and contact lenses, making Optical Express the UK’s only complete eye care provider. 
Trees88 (talk) 16:30,  10 January 2020 (UTC)
: entirely inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that is still not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, it sounds like something from your marketing department. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

text: We write articles in a neutral tone see other laser treatment articles Specsavers, Optimax and Ultralase. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

text: As per the advice `at The Teahouse, "You are, understandably in view of your COI, finding it impossible to take the neutral stance which is expected of Wikipedia contributors. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "said to be the UK’s largest provider of laser and intraocular lens surgery, with almost 130 clinics" is not neutral it is marketing puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2020