User talk:Dimitri Lokhonia

Hello, Dimitri Lokhonia. You have new messages at Bbb23's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please give it up. You are attempting to misuse policy after multiple times of being told you're wrong. Continuing this will warrant an

That exactly what i am looking for: collaboration. You have reverted my article more then 3 times, but i did not apply 3RR rule.
I did it in good spirit of collaboration: I did changes on March 1st, other editor approved my changes, 

but you reverted it back to the old version without respect for other editors. I understand that you may be an unhappy customer of Bloomex or have some relation to floral industry and you do not like what is happening with Bloomex. As per negative press, give me any name of national floral company in any country and I can give you guaranteed 5+ articles how bad they are from the press. That is the nature of business press and floral industry specifically. Sincerely Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me, I've never been affiliated with bloomex. It doesn't matter whatever you're saying, what matters now is that even after multiple admins have told you to stop. Also, consensus is that the material remains, and when asked for reliable sources you fail to provide them. You aren't here to collaborate, you're here to try to erase your company's history from the internet. That's not allowed. If you continue without providing sources, you will be blocked. I've given you way too many chances, and other admins and users have said that it's getting too far. Either stop and start editing constructively, or leave. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view, but there are other people who have different opinion based on the talk page and the history of editing. And there are more then 1 million of customers we have served to the date, who I am pretty sure have different opinion then you are. ( otherwise we would not be in business, do n't you think so?). By the nature of my work ( I am a Founder and Owner of the company), I do care what other people are saying about Bloomex. I left 2 years ago, but time is on my side now. I am very new to Wikipedia, so I may do some mistakes along the way. I apologize in advance. Sincerely DimitriDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. There are more that have my opinion that is based in POLICY than have yours, which is based in a flawed interpretation of policy. You're the founder, I understand you don't like the information being up, but that's not our problem. You seriously need to read

WP:COI, because you shouldn't be using "I own it" as a reason to get us to take it down. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear gwickwire ( I would prefer to address you by name if you may),

Thank you for pointing that. I appreciate if you provide your edit of Bloomex article. Please feel free to use the history and reference resources available there or anywhere else, Sincerely Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call me gwickwire, gwick, or anything else (within reason) :) Also, I've already expressed my opinion on the article, and others have as well. I'd just like it if you'd listen to us when we're all saying that it's not enough that you want it removed, we need sources saying either the information is wrong or that it's changed. Otherwise, it'll stay. What I'd suggest, assuming it's not removed, is to up front tell anyone who asks that it happened in the past, and that the Wikipedia article just documents it because that's what they are. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly disagree. Since March 1st 6 editors took part in editing Bloomex: Bb23, you, CliffC, Joe, Peter and me. 3 did agree 3 disagree. Even if you count me out as COI party, it is still 3 agains 2. very close. For me there is no consensus here yet. I would like to ask your expert advice: -Am we allowed as per Wikipedia rules to send emails yo our customers asking to help us to express theri opinion and help with article edit? i am mor ethen sure that there are some wiki editors among our customers? -Am I allowed as per Wikipedia rules to ask Bloomex employees to maek a contribution to the artcile edit? Sincerely

Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of e-mails, no, that'd be

WP:COIN on my side if you wish to put it that way, and I've discussed on IRC with some about it that seem to lean toward keeping it in. If you'd like, you can go to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and ask users there to review it, but don't mention any names. Aside from that, there's not much you can do. I'm sorry. I know this looks bad for your business, and I know that's not what Wikipedia is for. However, we can't just bend our rules for one person, I hope you understand. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your help. Much appreciated, DimitriDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri, one comment, on your question "Am we allowed as per Wikipedia rules to send emails yo our customers asking to help us to express theri opinion and help with article edit? i am mor ethen sure that there are some wiki editors among our customers?" Theoretically a company could do that (but it would be wrong, as Qwickwire points out above), or they could pretend to have done that, but the last time a "customer" claimed they'd been asked by Bloomex to edit Wikipedia it was exposed as fakery, just edit Talk:Bloomex and search for "I am a Bloomex customer from Ottawa". The "customer" was asked for a copy of the company's email, to no response, and another editor wrote:

"Sounds like Dimitri to me. Same argument, different day. The idea that a company would contact a customer and ask them to look at a Wikipedia page is completely absurd. This is a sock puppet, as is 206.53.147.92 (below). "I agree with Max." These are such transparent and pathetic attempts I feel somewhat insulted. Adding to sock drawer."

That's all I'll comment on here, IMO most of this discussion should be taking place in the open air, at Talk:Bloomex. --CliffC (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CliifC, thank you for your remarks. I checked history of the article, and it has a lot of different opinion and subsequent edits. I tried to express my point of view more then 2 yeasr ago, but got a fierce comebat mainly from you. I do not know if you have been previous customer of Bloomex or you have some relation to floral industry, but you took very one sided position which sounds like " Bloomex is bad because it has ocaasional press saying Bloomex is bad". As mentioned by other editors in previous discussions, any company of decent size has portion of negative press. That is the nature of press. They do not write story about how great company is. Time alone proves that business is right or wrong. That was the reason i left 2 years ago giving up arguing your stuburness and editor power. I belive today is a different time. Company successfully progressing in Canada along with fast growing opreations in USA and Australia. We have served out one millions customer past December and it was quite a milestone.

As per this discussion, it was not me who started it on my page. You have my permission to copy it to Bloomex talk page if you see it fair and valueable. You are very experienced and professional editor and I greatly appreciate your sincere interest in Bloomex, Sincerely Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri, I'm surprised that during all the Bloomex discussion no one has posted this policy on your talk page. There is also a simple FAQ titled

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see

And that is why I am takingactive role in editing it and providing suggestions. 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you duplicate vote at the AfD or call me and CliffC the same person again, you may be blocked for

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account, which contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dimitri Lokhonia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gwickwire^talk_editing 14:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwickwire, no comments here. Time is showing who is right at the endDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you care, you'll most likely be blocked within the next 24 hours for using sockpuppets, as proven by the Checkuser tool at the links above. Just notifying you of the results. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

WP:SOCK. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account, which contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dimitri Lokhonia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gwickwire^talk_editing 01:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex

The archive link works. Also, if there was no archive and the original was 404, it should be left per

wp:KDL Jim1138 (talk

) 18:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) The issue is that CBC first modified the article and then remove in completely because they admitted information they presented was not accurate. The archive was taken only from the original article.[reply]