User talk:Dimitri Lokhonia

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! --CliffC (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex AfD

Your AfD nomination of Bloomex was incorrect. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (2nd nomination). — Rankiri (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hello, I'm gwickwire, an editor here at Wikipedia. Your recent edits to Bloomex have removed material that has reliable sources. Just because it looks bad to your company to have the information on Wikipedia does not mean we will remove it. Also, the article will not be deleted for that reason either. Please refrain from making these edits anymore, or you may be blocked from editing until such point as you understand you do not own the page. Thank you. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Bloomex shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stop removing validly sourced material. If you continue, you may be blocked without further warning. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many words. I am the founder of the company and information CliffC and gwickwire ( who are the same) is not true. I did a well souced balanced edit today afternoon which was approved by independent editor. Pls leave as it and leave your personal bias against me and the company beyond Wikipedia pages Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, read the words. Your reply implies that you've read them, and are aware of the policies. Your edit has pushed you over the three-revert rule by a lot, so you will be blocked shortly. Also, please refrain from saying I am using multiple accounts, as if you wish to do so, the correct venue is thataway. gwickwire^talk_editing 05:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Bloomex. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - gwickwire

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 indefinite block for being not here to collaborate. You're pushing your own agenda, and not listening when you're told to stop. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply. By the way, please look at the talkpage. You posted one message, and never came back to reply. We've discussed it, and the consensus there and elsewhere is that the content belongs. If you continue to push this, you will be reported to administrators for a swift block for being not here to collaborate for the better of the project. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:CANVASSING for votes. On the other point, no, that'd be considered WP:MEATPUPPETTRY. Regardless, either way, in addition to the 6 editors that have expressed their views publically there, one more has spoken on 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]

Conflicts of interest

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
Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? --CliffC (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dimitri Lokhonia. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

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 our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Cliff, again you are trying to twist in your direction. it is clearly said: You are discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organizations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page. "[reply]

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

Stop

If you duplicate vote at the AfD or call me and CliffC the same person again, you may be blocked for WP:DISRUPT or WP:NPA accordingly. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:07, 23 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 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 blocked temporarily from editing for 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]