Talk:Optical Express/Archive 1

Padraig Harrington

Let's thrash this out here. I did a Google News search, and the most recent sources are still suggesting the advert is banned. Patrick, do you have a source to the contrary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A complaint against the original TV advert was upheld by ASA in April 2011. The appeal was made against a specific point [11] of that ruling and not the whole 26 point ruling. Although point 11 was revised, the ASA decision outlined the full original ruling as was reported recently. It is correct that the complaint against the advert was "upheld" but that was an historic ajudication. The advert itself was not banned, just one small part that was changed in May 2011 and cleared for broadcast. I can provide sufficient evidence on Monday that the revised version was cleared. Can it be assumed that this information is correct until that time? If I don't supply 3rd party evidence, I will abide by your decision/wrath. In terms of the copy explaining our new advertisement, they are merely recording fact. I will have a press release written on Monday and published in many news sources as reliable as the ones being used to promote negative tones. I will then reinstate the TV copy we had written with our facts and figures - stating the advert content - with numerous credible 3rd party sources...if this is what yo wish. User talk:PKdundee

Your points in turn. The tv ad is not allowable for broadcast in its current form. The fact that the adjudication is historical is immaterial. The appeal was very recent and widely reported. The copy for the new ad is marketing drivel masquerading as facts. This is one of the key reasons that I find Optical Express COI editors frustrating. Show me the verifiable third party proof for the "facts". Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is what is frustrating. The TV ad IS allowable for broadcast in its current state - that is my point. It was not allowable in its previous state as per April 2011 and we never set out to mislead - the advert did not ever claim or set out to mislead that Padraig Harrington had been treated by Optical Express and as we are bound by patient confidentiality I would not wish to comment further personally. There is plenty of reference out there as to what did and didn't happen. While we disagreed with the ASA decision, we fully accepted it. We appealled only a small part of the 26-point ruling. I will provide evidence on Monday that we can run the advert if we wish. Since there had been much controversy over the advert we chose to remake a new advert rather than re-broadcast. I also took the liberty to state exactly what the advert promoted so that everyone could be clear of what we are allowed to say - since so much has been made of what we are not allowed to say. I think that in context of an Advertising section that this factual information is pertinent and of interest. Again I will provide 3rd party evidence of the advert's content asap and hope that the numerous press citations will enable this to be recorded as fact. Thank you. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Based on what I said above, that Optical Express did not appeal the TV adjudication ruling and only appealed a few of the points not the full adjudication, I intend to change the edit made by Rotsmasher "The ASA dismissed Optical Express's appeal on this adjudication on 17 August 2011.[35]" on the basis that is may mislead the reader to believe that the TV advert adjudication was appealed and rejected, to "On 17 August 2011, the ASA dismissed Optical Express's appeal to a few of the points on the original adjudication.[35]" Does anyone (except for Rotsmasher) have an issue with this change? I will give this 12 hours for your views. PKdundee (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher

Can we also thrash out why Rotsmasher has only posted on Optical Express and in a very negative manner? Is there an undeclared conflict of interest? What is the motivation of their interest? Many thanks. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

One could ask the same about you - you've only edited the one article and in an obvious promotional manner. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that he declares his connection on his userpage (and as an OTRS agent, I can confirm that what he says there is true), and his edits are not obviously promotional. He has worked, with some advice from myself, to improve the article. A little assumption of good faith goes a long way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest at all. The quality of the article has been improved greatly by my edits and the vigorous debate these have caused. RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rotsmasher. I agree that the quality of the article has been improved greatly through this process. User talk:PKdundee —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Possible reasons for PKdundee edit removing most of this talk page

My thoughts are attempted manipulation to remove the link with beatthecyberhate which is obviously blatant censorship. RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not mean that at all. I was simply ignorant and saw all that as clutter. Happy to have it stay and scroll down to the recent talk each time. No problem. Hands up. PKdundee (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I think everybody who has edited this article in the last 48 hours needs to read this guideline. Let's start judging edits on their merits, and not who made them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC) If a company representative removes nearly a whole page of info which is full of contributions from a sockpuppeteer who is also from that company. How can the edit be judged separately from the individual who makes it?

You were quick to challenge me on a purported COI. The poor history of repeated blanking, has to influence people's responce to further Optical Express led edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotsmasher (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not quick, and I'm still not convinced you don't have an agenda, given that your only edits have been to and about this article. But I judge your edits on their merits. You should pay others the same courtesy. After all, why would an editor openly declare his conflict of interest if he wasn't going to act in good faith? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that repeated blanking was the result of repetitive personal and vindictive editing by Rotsmasher. We accept we were ignorant of Wiki editing policies and handled this badly. PKdundee (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned that you say "we". Wikipedia is only intended to be edited by individual users and not groups or companies?Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" meaning the individuals with individual accounts who edited the article previously. Please assume good faith. PKdundee (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean you and the person who had a named account and 2 sockpuppets? Also the IP that vandalised an admin page? Or should I assume good faith eh? Yours Rotsmasher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotsmasher (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think that beatthecyberhate (blocked) and beatthecyberhate2 is any way an attempt at deception to hide identity. We are on shared IPs so individuals may have the same IP. Three individuals, not two, have been involved and to whom I have refered to as we. PKdundee (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition PKdundee on 11th August Your IP vandalised my user page. You wrote a comment this evening before signing in which is in the edit history of this page and then you undid it, signed in and rewrote it verbatim. This IP messed with my page on 11th August and was warned for vandalism. Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of vandalism on your page, I don't recall this. I can only possibly think that I did not know my way about Wiki and may have posted a message that was meant to sit somewhere else. Yesterday evening, I posted the comment before realising I was not signed in. I signed in and manually replaced the anon (sic) IP with my own signature to ensure that the comment was attributed to me and not someone else on the same IP. PKdundee (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Om 11th August your IP changed my statement on my user page in a childish and petty way. This change was almost immediately reverted by a wikipedia Admin. This is pure vandalism. It was not a case of writing something on my page. What I had written was changed to mean the opposite. I reckon this was not picked up by Wikipedia during the week spend working with you to change the page? Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Frustration, but wrong. I apologise. I was on a precious family holiday that was cut short because of this issue. PKdundee (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That reflects more negatively on Optical Express than on you. I accept your apology. Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, although the decision was entirely mine and Optical Express neither suggested, requested, or expected it of me.PKdundee (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)