Talk:James Murray Wells

Untitled

To claim "He withdrew after Specsavers managing director Doug Perkins objected to his candidacy." suggests the two events were linked, and needs substantiation. It might be more accurate to say "He withdrew knowing registered and qualified opticians would never vote for him, having secured the kind of self-publicity he is famous for." On the subject of self-publicity, there are lots of small-business people whose companies turnover £1m+ per year. Are they all entitled to a Wikipedia page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.25.56.175 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposed wording, "knowing registered and qualified opticians would never vote for him, having secured the kind of self-publicity he is famous for", is an interpretation of the facts (i.e., original research), unsupported by the provided references. What the article's sources state:

1. Murray Wells seeks election
2. Perkins distributes letter objecting
3. Murray Wells withdraws, alleging vote-rigging, commercial interests, etc.
4. Perkins and GOC reject allegations, claiming they're concerned that he's not a qualified optometrist and implying that his candidacy and the resulting controversy were excercises in self-publicity.

The article can't state any more than that without additional sources. Regarding the subject's suitability as the subject of a Wikipedia article, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. However, Murray Wells appears to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines for biographies, in particular, "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". --Muchness 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've totally re-written this article as part of a series of articles I'm writing on Uk Internet Businesses. A lot of stuff here should have been on the page for his company, and more amusingly looked like a contest between two sets of PR people, pro and anti! I also removed a lot of the "grudge match" verbiage. See GlassesDirect. Hopefully it now meets minimum wiki standards. I agree with what Munchness says. Umptious 13:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that some articles refer to him as Jamie Murray Wells instead of James Murray Wells, so I'm adding a re-direct (my first!). If this isn't the correct way of handling such things, could someone tell me via a note on my user page, please? 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umptious (talk • contribs)

Reluctantly, I've decided to remove "The product of a rumbustuous one night stand between author HG Wells and the tennis player Jamie Murray". However if the contributor can come up with a ***source***, this fascinating tidbit can go back in. (Btw - it would have been funnier if rumbustious had been spelled correctly, and if parent's names had been wiki linked.) At least this seems to be random humour rather than a return to The War Of The Opticians.... Umptious (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Murray Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103125119/http://www.glassesdirect.co.uk/release_000/specspensive.php to http://www.glassesdirect.co.uk/release_000/specspensive.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)