Talk:Bloomex/Archive 2

Company locations
I am adding that company has locations in Edmonton, Miami and Sydney Austrlia. These facts I took by searching internet while placing orders last week for my aunts in Edmonton and Sydney. I am not sure why cliffc and andythe grump are deleting it. Comany states in press releases that they opened some time ago locations in above cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.150.195 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You have already been told that material added to articles has to comply with Reliable sources policy. We don't use company press releases, end of story. Find somewhere else to promote Bloomex. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Company has locations in sydney, miami and edmonton. That is the same fact as its having locations in halifax, montreal and so on. that is obvious fact which proven by company listings in phone directories in that cities. 411 listing is a reliable source. I told you, that I ordered from the company gifts to be delivered in Sydney and Hinton, AB and gifts came from Sydney and Edmonton locations. When I checked accidently wikipedia article, I did not see them listed. I added listings by double checking lsting on 411 and other phone directories first. Nicholas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.150.167 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 December 2012


 * Since you are clearly incapable of reading what I have already written, I have no further comment beyond pointing out that per Wikipedia talk page policy, off-topic material may be deleted. You have provided no source complying with Wikipedia policy for the edits proposed, and your posts are therefore off topic. Find somewhere else to promote Bloomex. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bloomex sock puppetry, blatant COI and deliberately obtuse supporting argument seem to peak every year or so, lots of evidence on this page and worth a chuckle here and there. I've asked for page protection, but it looks like it may take a while because of the holiday. --CliffC (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup - seems to be par for the course for online florists. I only got involved in the topic due to a long round of arguments over unsourced puffery in an article regarding another one. It was an eye-opener just how cut-throat the business was. Then again, given the usual business model, I can see why they care so much about promoting themselves. Set up a website, hire a few people to answer phones, create a few virtual telephone numbers to give the impression that you are much bigger than you actually are - then watch the orders come in, and pass the orders on to real florists after taking your giant cut. Easy money... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Press releases can sometimes be used, according to WP:ABOUTSELF. It's obvious that this version is not neutral, and seems to be more about "controversy" than about the company itself, including four sources written by Ellen Roseman: two on a newspaper's site and two on her own site, which describes her as "a brand name for activism and a champion at helping consumers fight back against injustices". Peter&#160;James (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion between Bloomex owner, CliffC and gwickwire which took place on Bloomex owner page
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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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

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)
 * 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)

Bloomex article by owner discussion
hello, My name is Dimitri Lokhonia. i am the owner of Bloomex. i asked 3 yeasr ago to delete the article. It was denied. That is fine with me if you think my business worth to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But I would like to clarify facts on the company and its operations and looks like there are 2 editors: Cliff and AndytheGrump deliberately putting incorrect inforamtion on my company. I will appreciate if other people would look into situation and reflect correct infromation on my company ans its 200+ employees, Sincerely Dimitri


 * No. We are not putting incorrect information on your company's article. We are putting information with valid sources. You're currently blocked from editing for this exact reason, so I won't expect a response soon. However, if you have an issue with it, you'll need to take it up with the newspapers and other sources that we have that say otherwise. gwickwire  talk editing 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, right now the article reflects the unfortunate effects of Mr. Lokhonia's edit war; I request that an admin revert it back to its state at day-end 15 February. Thank you, CliffC (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

editprotected

Grrr. I hate using this template so much you don't even know. Well, the article was fully protected after Dimitri wouldn't listen to us about 3RR and removing validly sourced, encyclopedic content. Dimitri has a major Conflict of Interest, and is only doing this because the controversies look bad on his company. After the first and second AfD nominations, a clear consensus emerged (unanimous, aside from Dimitri) that the controversy section not only belonged, but made the article better. If you look up and down this page, Dimitri has tried so many times to get this information removed, without any basis in policy. Also, Dimitri has been using sockpuppets for years to revert and remove this information. If an administrator could please either unprotect -> semi protect the page, or at the very least make this edit it'd be appreciated.

The edit in question is the reversion of the latest version, edited by Dimitry before the protection occurred.

Thanks, gwickwire  talk editing 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done by User:Bbb23. gwickwire  talk editing 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted unless sources can be found that indicate notability. Most of the sources cited are either trivial or not neutral. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to nominate it for deletion. However, please remember that our sources need not be neutral, only the article. As such, the article stands neutral right now. Just because someone doesn't like that we have controversy doesn't mean we delete it. Thanks. gwickwire  talk editing 18:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter, note also that notability was discussed at length in section Talk:Bloomex above, particularly in the three paragraphs that begin "Mark, I didn't want to", that compare this article to one about another company that garnered almost exclusively negative reviews. --CliffC (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The sources almost entirely consist of this type of coverage (including two posts on a self-published blog by someone who may be an expert but appears to be better known for activism), there's nothing generally about the company and its history that would be required for an encyclopedic article. The Zango has information about the company and its history, as well as criticism and actions both by and against it, and the coverage exists. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The sources almost entirely consist of this type of coverage": We must almost entirely cover the things those sources do. You're misquoting that policy. Undue weight would be us giving the controversy 1 sentence and the employees 2 paragraphs. Basically, X% of sources gets X% of the article, Y% of sources gets Y% of article, so on so forth. Since a vast majority of sources are covering the controversy, we leave it in. Coverage does exist for this company, if even for the controversy mostly. gwickwire  talk editing 19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying that there never was anything stopping the individuals involved from finding and inserting positive material, instead of trying to remove the bad, breath in the good :) Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing in place for the past long time was at most PC1, and I would've gladly accepted any constructive edits. gwickwire  talk editing 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, "there never was anything stopping the individuals involved from finding and inserting positive material", except the apparent lack of positive material. I and others have honestly tried to dig up reliably sourced positive material about the company over the years, I still have my eyes open and my Google News alert active, there's some discussion above of the need for positive material and I hope that everyone new to the article has time to read this entire page. But ultimately, it's up to the company to generate positive material through neutral third parties such as newspapers. Meanwhile, the ongoing BBB rating of 'F' is a heavy burden to overcome. --CliffC (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the lack of positive material. If a company had been mentioned as receiving several awards but there was virtually no information available about the company and its activities it would be similarly difficult to write an encyclopedic article, and in that case, I would also be likely to support deletion. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Peter James. It is a nature of press to write " a story". It is extremely seldom to have a praised article on business. My revisioin is supported by 2 facts: 1. it was more then 3 years any bad article appears about Bloomex. Company have grown internationally since then, so that means business is doing something good since customers are continuing to support it and grow. 2. All these details in controversy paragraph is falling under WP:UNDUE That is why I edited the article leaving the referral on controversy and added facts about company operations Sincerely

Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Time doesn't matter. We still have articles about the 9/11 conspiracies even though they aren't specifically covered still today very often, if at all.
 * No, it doesn't mean anything, because you've not given us sources to say that.
 * No, the details aren't UNDUE, because 90% of the reliable sources anyone can find talk only about the negative aspects. Therefore, ~90% of the article will talk about the negative aspects. I guarantee you there are articles about other companies that talk about innovations, or other things that are good. But just not about this company, because they've had so much controversy. gwickwire  talk editing 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect to say "1. it was more then 3 years any bad article appears about Bloomex". The (external link) article from the Surrey Leader dealing with Bloomex and titled "Beware scams of the heart: BBB" is dated February 10, 2012. I think the reason there are not more recent news stories about Bloomex is because they're called newspapers - if there's nothing new about a company's behavior, there's no news to print. Maybe if some day you were to consult with Ellen Roseman and the BBB about how to rehabilitate the Bloomex image, then take out some full page ads describing how you're going about it, you'd get fresh headlines. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, pls see my points in below in discussion which took place at my talk page. As per media and flower business story, here is just a link for the recent one for Proflowers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/proflowers-complaints-valentines-day_n_2695352.html You can see the notes belwo in the article to understand my point of view fully. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point you are trying to make. ProFlowers screwed its customers by shipping Valentine's Day arrangements that were "incredibly sparse and well, ugly" and are now getting a boatload of bad publicity for it at Huffington Post and commenters over there. Are you saying it shouldn't be mentioned in news media because all flower companies are the same? Or, what are you saying? (2) As a side note, about 50% of the ProFlowers article deals with controversy, the various lawsuits against the company for false advertising, unfair competition and fraud, so it's not just Bloomex that's being "picked on" by Wikipedia reporting sourced negative news about the company. --CliffC (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying that any company of decent size in floral industry has bad press in regards to the service. But these service issues are not mentioned in any Wikipedia article mainly because of WP:UNDUE rule.

Legal issues are being brough to the court. That means they have some grounds since parties decided to go into legitation with all the expenses involved and unpredictability in outcome. That is why actions are essential to be mentioning in Wikipedia article.Agree? Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think something may be lost in translation, but please see WP:NLT. a13ean (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any threat (or threat of a threat) here, I think Dimitri is trying to say that news stories that mention legal cases (such as in ProFlowers) have more standing as reliable sources because someone has spent money and taken the risk of losing to bring the case. This of course is not so. --CliffC (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. Cliff, you are seeing that my words have logic, but you try to twist it every time. I am trying to say: Any large size floral business has too much of negative press. It is a nature of any large size floral business. it does not make sense to metion all of that due to WP:UNDUE rule and common sense. That is why none of the articles for large floral companies like Proflowers, FTD,Teleflora, 1800flowers ect have any mentioning of press article referring to bad service. If you think differently, please feel free edit their arctiles to include easy to find press articles about bad service. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN, you must prove that you have reliable sources that say the information is wrong. Every source I've seen about Bloomex that meets WP:RS is only talking about the criticism. Therefore, the article must talk about what is in reliable sources, i.e. the criticism. You are misusing policy to try to get us to bend to your ways. If you have further issue, instead of continuing this here, take it to a higher power. But beware that you'll receive a major WP:BOOMERANG on your own actions by posting there. gwickwire  talk editing 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will do that as soon as artcile get unlocked. Because me, CliffC and gwickwire are in conflict of opinion, lets agree that we will not edit article and let other people do it. Deal? Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree to stop editing the article, but you definitely should, because you have an acknowledged conflict of interest as the company's owner and president. Regarding your conspiracy theory about me and other editors that you keep throwing around on this page and other talk and project pages, let me assure you that I am not "an unhappy customer of Bloomex or have some relation to floral industry". I never even heard of Bloomex before May 21, 2009, when I put this article on my watchlist after seeing a Request for Editor Assistance titled Constant undoing of blocks of text, refusal to participate in discussion, and looked in to find out what was going on. --CliffC (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you will do that (give us sources) here first, or you'll just be continuing your edit war, which will earn you a longer block. And sure, I might agree to the whole not editing thing, but I know that you will just have an employee "unrelated to you" do it, so I will not agree. gwickwire  talk editing 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having anyone edit the article on your behalf presents the same COI issues as if you are editing the article yourself. If you think there are problems with the article, please add them here and others such as myself will weigh in.  I haven't really followed this discussion, but I sense there might be some tension between you and some other editors.  I'd be happy to assist you where policy permits.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have some tension with editors CliffC and glickwire, who seem to enforce their vision on Bloomex despite different opinion of other editors. In my original and the only edit for the last 3 years, company locations were added, because they are essential to company business model and size. I edited " Controversy" section using WP:UNDUE rule. You can find more dicussion above between me and editors explaining floral industry specifics as well as approach used by other editors when writing about customer service issues. I will put my point of veiw in new edit. Open discussion is very much appreciated then just reverting to the old version maintained solely by CliffC.

Sincerely

Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dimitri: User:Bbb23 and others have all said that you are misquoting UNDUE. Please stop asking us to remove it. gwickwire  talk editing 20:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

do not agree. Following editors are sharing my point of view: William Avery Peter James Joe Decker If you look into editing history, it is even more people, who have different opinion. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dimitri,
 * (1) If you want to change the company's startup year or list its fulfillment locations, just provide a source, even a company source, that users can click on to verify what's being claimed; we don't tell readers to "look it up in the phone book" or "call 411". I think most editors will accept a company source for such non-controversial claims. Post a link on this page and someone will make the edit for you.
 * (2) You keep quoting WP:UNDUE, but have you actually read that policy? Note the sentence "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The 'controversy' section is the size it is because most reliable sources writing about Bloomex have a negative viewpoint of the company. Wikipedia can't change that, only Bloomex can. --CliffC (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggested

 * I would like to offer a compromise based on a few factors.

As for business info is Manta.com considered reliable source? I want to give this article an infobox. I found the average annual revenue but I think you need to have a registered account to see that. Either way the best way ,Dimitri, to reduce the UNDUE weight you claim is to increase positive material which you have yet to even attempt. bloomex manta search
 * Reduce/reword the first Controversy paragraph On March 1, 2008, Toronto Star business. This one is ok because it allows for both sides to have a voice.
 * Remove Following Mother's Day 2009, Roseman noted As neutral as I am even I don't like this one so close to self-published policy and it's the second time Roseman is used in the article that is a bit too much.

Now Dimitri if you take some time to edit this infobox appropriately you will have a large amount of positive material to insert into the article without breaching policy. If you want or need help with implementing this you need only reply here. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Geremy, thank you. Bloomex was incorporated in 2005. here is the link for Industry Canada company profile to confirm that: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html;jsessionid=0000M4bdNWj7RvmY6CtedoCCtVs:16hbaoh4j

we have location in Australia, here is link to confirm our trademark registration and operations in Australia:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon.Result Here ar ethe links for our locations in Canada: http://411.ca/search/?q=bloomex&st=business&ls=null https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=bloomex+halifax&ie=UTF-8&ei=Wb5AUcDdKsTY0gHIwYDACw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bloomex+toronto&fb=1&gl=ca&hq=bloomex&hnear=0x89d4cb90d7c63ba5:0x323555502ab4c477,Toronto,+ON&cid=0,0,3493767907145330360&ei=tL5AUaH5HoiK0QGX54G4Bg&ved=0CL8BEPwSMAE https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bloomex+edmonton&fb=1&gl=ca&hq=bloomex&hnear=0x53a0224580deff23:0x411fa00c4af6155d,Edmonton,+AB&cid=0,0,1069292609799464445&ei=0b5AUa2XHKnP0wH6hID4Dg&ved=0CNgBEPwSMAE

Industry Canada is a reliable source but because of Canadian privacy law, revenue figures and other information for private companies are not publicly available.

I agree with your suggestions. Thank you very much for your help, Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dimitri, the 5 links you posted are not usable; they might work for you because the search data is cached on your own computer. The first two lead to search pages where the reader would have to enter his own search data - Wikipedia doesn't do that. The third is a 411 list that doesn't even mention the locations you claim, did you even look at it? The last two seem to be links to Google maps, but result in an Error 503 when clicked. In any event, a Google map isn't a source stating anything, it's just a map. Doesn't your web site have a simple "About us" page that states these simple and non-controversial claims? Or an old press release? "We were founded in xxxx". "We have fulfillment centers in xx, yy, ...". Make an effort, man, and listen to the other editors here explaining things to you. --CliffC (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Geremy, thanks for taking a look at this. Could you suggest some wording to tighten up that first Controversy paragraph? I think the Following Mother's Day 2009, Roseman noted paragraph should stay, because it offers counterpoint to the paragraph preceding it, in which a year earlier the company "announced new systems to improve customer satisfaction". --CliffC (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point Cliff but it is my opinion that the following In April 2010, the CBC News television program quip covers that territory more than sufficiently and the reference for the item I wish to remove is a self-published. If she was a floral industry leader/expert I would allow it, but she's not. As for reworking that intro paragraph there's a lot of pertinent information there and it would take me a few tries. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When you say "the reference for the item I wish to remove is a self-published. If she was a floral industry leader/expert I would allow it, but she's not", that sounds like what Dimitri and various Bloomex puppets have argued over and over on this page since June 2009, but the consensus is that Roseman is a reliable source. Just scan the page for instances of "Roseman" and the responses by non-Bloomex-affiliated editors. That ship has left the dock. --CliffC (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I find that a little offensive. To stay on topic the controversy's first paragraph contains a reference to an article in a newspaper. The part I want to remove is a redundancy and is a self-published blog. The secondary statement by CBC News is a more valid reference and adequately offers counterpoint to the preceding Press Release controversy portion. Another point to consider is that 1 year in any business environment is not much time to incorporate and implement the new systems Bloomex attempted. The CBC news dates to 2 years from press release and is more valid in it's condemnation of the companies failings from it's formal response. We have two statements there in response to the press release, one can be removed. If I was to pick one to remove it would be the one of Ellen based on the reason I stated earlier of her not being a Floral industry expert and the CBC News being far more in line with wiki policy than the blog site post of Ellens.If this doesn't have any merit of an argument I won't be returning to this acrid talk page. First my efforts were hailed as welcome and within a heartbeat I was stacked in with Bloomex puppets and against consensus. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Geremy, I apologize for my choice of words, not the best. I certainly didn't mean to imply in any way you were part of the Bloomex crowd. I was just trying to point out that the Roseman-is-not-a-reliable-source ship has sailed; not everyone who posts here has read the entire talk page, it's a slog. As to the item in question, I don't see the redundancy, and certainly the fragment "Roseman ... advised consumers to seek chargebacks from their credit-card companies rather than pursuing Bloomex for refunds" conveys new information. Perhaps someone else will weigh in on this. --CliffC (talk)
 * Well, it turns out the article flows just fine without the removed paragraph, I see that now. I added the removed ref as an EL so the Roseman view on chargebacks won't be lost. --CliffC (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

hello CliffC, as per your request above, here is press release refferal about us operating 8 production facilities in Canada: http://bloomex.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=220 Here is press release to Australian location: http://www.prlog.org/12057073-bloomex-opens-operations-in-sydney-australia.html Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Press releases are not reliable sources. You need reliable sources to include the information. gwickwire  talk editing 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See discussion above. I provided information as per agreed approach. DimitriDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no agreement that I see. He asked a question, you took that as "OMG GO ADD IT". We've been more helpful than we need to be, please don't abuse that help. Don't add it again, press releases are never reliable sources. gwickwire  talk editing 18:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not find anywhere mentioning that press release is not a reliable source. bsides CliffC said above"Doesn't your web site have a simple "About us" page that states these simple and non-controversial claims? Or an old press release? "We were founded in xxxx". "We have fulfillment centers in xx, yy, ...". " You can use: http://bloomex.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=200 as well as I do not understand why you are arguing about obvious facts? Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Because WP:IRS and WP:RS state that "self produced sources" (which include press releases) are unreliable sources. First of all, your distribution centers aren't important to the article. You *may* make an edit including the year you were founded cited to your "about us" page, but that's the only thing that you should cite to that page. Otherwise, it'll need reliable sources. gwickwire  talk editing 18:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That may apply only to personal blogs. No mantioning about corporate websites. Bloomex.ca, bloomex.com.au are reliable sources based on thatDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you need to read those pages. Self produced = produced by the subject. Press releases are very clearly self produced, and are therefore unreliable. Also, they aren't subject to the editorial oversight that is needed for a reliable source to be made. Those sites are not reliable, independent sources. gwickwire  talk editing 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

They look reliable for CliffC, but getting short: What will be reliable sources for you as a proof that company does operate in that locations? please refer to fiscussion above,s o I need to find a consencus hereDimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they don't look reliable to him either, he was using them for one thing, and I'll let you use them for one thing too. You may use your about us page to source the year of your founding. That's it. Anything else needs to be a reliable source. Reliable sources include newspapers (except interviews, press releases, and opinion pieces), magazines (not interviews/advertisements), or academic journals. gwickwire  talk editing 19:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, is thsi a proof, that Bloomex has location in Australia: http://www.trademarkify.com.au/trademark/1396917?i=BLOOMEX-Bloomex_Inc http://businessprofiles.com/details/bloomex-pty-ltd/AU-27147609443 Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I added Australia location and 2 references Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's proof you paid a lawyer at KLIGER PARTNERS to file for a trademark in Australia. I'm not going to undue your revision though others may do so. You seem to be getting a little better at this but your number 2 reference is incorrectly configured. You don't need the bracket before the http because it is within the ref tag, I didn't do it because you're showing improvement now fix it. Also stop double signing your posts. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 01:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Business directories as sources.
Please note that a business directory or similar is not suitable as a source for a statement that "products are shipped" from somewhere, or "produced" somewhere, or anything else beyond what it actually states - a telephone number, and possibly an address. If you wish to state such things find a proper source, rather than wasting our time and yours once again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy, that directories list actual addresses where production facilities are located. Why do you see them as "not a proper source"?Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because they don't say that production facilities are located there, for a start. Just how difficult is it to comprehend that you can't quote a source for something it doesn't say? Not that we'd take a business directory as a source for such claims anyway. Read WP:RS, and stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, there are 2 references: one with directory showing the location of Bloomex production facility in each city and the second one: http://bloomex.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=230 reffering to Bloomex website stating that company has locations in that cities. So it is in agreement with WP:RS. Unfortunately I have " to waste your time" because information posted about my company is not complete and accurate as it states now Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Bloomex websites aren't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is that? WP:RS does not say that. Bloomex states that it has production facilities in that cities and 5 different directories confirms that fact. That is the only point i want to prove. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are... promotional in nature...". If Bloomex websites aren't promoting Bloomex, I suggest you hire a new website designer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloomex website is stating the fact, that it has production facilities in that cities. You may question if Bloomex is a " questionable source for that", but 5 independent business directories do confirm that fact, that Bloomex has productions in that cities and provides address for them. I consider that we have clarified the issue and I will be adding production facilities as per my previous edit, Sincerely

Dimitri 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs)


 * And I will be deleting them, as not being cited to a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I have to put it up for other editors to view: all information is cited and reffered to independent sources. The only questionable reference is Bloomex, but there are 5 other sources to prove the simple fact of existence of locations. I would appreciate 3d opinion on the matter, Sincerely, Dimitri Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's my opinion, STOP DOUBLE SIGNING YOUR POSTS!! for the love of all that is holy figure this out already! You have completely botched up the works in the References section of the article and I will be removing the majority of it for a few reasons. 1) Those are not references, those are external links at best and it is my opinion they all don't need to be in the article it is turning it into an advertisement. 2) You are hacking this article up ad nausea. With your poor skills at properly editing wikipedia you should work up this stuff in your sandbox and then submit here (on the talk page in it's own section) for consensus and approval not to mention your COI dictates you should NOT be directly editing the article. I may report you and escalate this matter as you've been told by an experienced editor of the unsuitability of your additions and pretty much said 'screw you andy I'm putting it in'. So that is 2 strikes right there just a few weeks off of a suspension how's that for a 3d opinion. On the topic of production facilities and your additional material. You can say the company services those areas but using the terminology of production facilities is misleading and as I see it an attempt to glorify the company beyond it's realistic stance using puffery. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminder - this is an encyclopedia
As such, the article on Bloomex should be focused on its relevance and notability. I think both sides here are exaggerating -
 * 1) use of primary sources is perfectly acceptable in certain cases. If you don't believe me, go read WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and SELFPUB and refresh your memory. One bit says, for example: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." So those deleting sources about when the company was founded are not following current guidance. Unless you have some evidence or claim that the founding date of Bloomex is disputed, I suggest those reverting on that point drop the stick.
 * 2) It seems the current dispute is around how many locations does Bloomex have, and what is the nature of those locations. Again, Dmitry, normally citations of press releases would actually IMHO be totally acceptable, e.g. "Gap opens new store in Boston", we can then say Gap has a store in Boston. In this case, however, we need to look at what exactly is the nature of these "production facilities" - are they affiliated flower shops with whom you have relationships? Are they separate production factories which are only used by you? etc. For example, check Florists'_Transworld_Delivery, they don't have a list of all of the places where they deliver or produce - this information is generally not encyclopedic. This is not a business directory.
 * 3) It is acceptable for Dmitry to edit this article to correct obvious mistakes or add sources, but in general he should not be adding or removing a lot of content - that is best done through discussion on the talk page. I would however caution the other editors here to treat Dmitry with respect and consideration. He has made a total of around 50 edits to wikipedia as far as I can tell, whereas many editors posting here have made thousands. So please, be patient, don't bite the newbies, and try to find a way to all work towards producing a useful article of encyclopedic quality, and not one that has a huge unbalanced "controversy" section and little else. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * well to begin my retort let's start with your first talking point which is more than likely directed at my removal of the self reference, more explicitly this phrase verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. So to verify that statement would require someone to go to a Canadian agency governing the records of business formation (beyond that finding the right agency and it's correlating searchable database). So you personally go through all the bs to find that info and then click on this link and tell me if that matches up to your quip admonishing my edit. Why not use my link as a resource instead of his link to HIS website? I'll tell you why because it wont drive customers to his website. You seemed to take far too much joy in that stick comment and I see it as a direct attack at me with jargon thrown in to avoid accountability. Survey says?

Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 00:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * no, it is not a direct attack, i am simply pointing out that reverting the creation date of the company because it is self-sourced is wikilawyering of the highest degree, and several here have done so. I didnt see that official canadian link, so that is fine too, may as well put both. And do you really think the whole thing is some clever ploy to trick users checking references to end up at his website? Seriously? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sales Figures
Tried to add the fact that the company does 200,000 sales per year, as per this article: http://www.obj.ca/Local/2013-08-29/article-3369084/Handling-online-criticism/ Continually reverted and not understanding why. Thanks. JSWS2013 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have already explained, the source is only quoting the company owner's claim of 200,000 sales per year - it isn't asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The only 'claim' (single-quotation marks, woo!) is of the 20 online complaints per year; the OBJ is a highly reputable publication which fact checks such things as sales figures.

As well, I have already tried to politely engage your guidance in good faith and you clearly stated that you were not interested in collaborating with me(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#bloomex), in contravention of WP:Civility, WP:Assume_good_faith, WP:Etiquette and WP:BITE. As you have stated that you are "not interested in collaborating" and called me a shill, I have taken your words into account and ask that you please do not respond further to my postings. Thank you. I am looking for other users' opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSWS2013 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * just put that Bloomex reports sales of 200,000, and stop the useless sniping. We take sales figures from company sources, like, all the time.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I agree with Andy. The number should not be reported. JSWS's interpretation of the source is strained. We shouldn't be reporting self-serving comments by the company, even if we attribute it to the company. Given the history of this article, I also think that Andy has ample reason for suspecting that JSWS is affiliated in some way with the company.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy changes
I checked both referral links for CBC marketplace ( it does not exist) and BBB ( it shows no alert and " no rating status) Based on that i did adjustments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.149.137 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Important Notes Regarding Bloomex Article History
This is an old article; almost 10 years in fact. Much of the content has been "cleaned up" by anonymous users over time, as well as known users who were sock puppets for Bloomex and Dimitri Lokhonia. I think this should be kept in mind, as there is much evidence (I've been watching this on and off since 2008) that the company has been deliberately defrauding customers as policy, and the ACCC investigation alleges they've been under scrutiny for 10 years. Not only defrauding customers, but their own employees, and this reported by multiple national news agencies, including TV and newspapers. - pale (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As has been noted, you don't have to go far to find multiple reports regarding the abysmal performance of this company. The owner's own testimony here and elsewhere is particularly condemning. When people say they got dead flowers delivered to a funeral, Dimitri says, "but they were very inexpensive." When someone complains about non-delivery, he will say "we don't provide refunds as part of our policy." This has been going on for over 10 years, and might very well be the only thing that makes Bloomex notable. pale (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Today Tonight
Today Tonight is not a credible source. Today Tonight is notorious for its sensationalist reporting, and is an example of tabloid television: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_Tonight

Who is Chris Baker to call a president of multinational company "A scam artist": Chris Baker calls Bloomex president Dimitri Lokhonia a "scam artist"? Dimitri Lokhonia is a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.167.180 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Chris Baker shouldn't be calling Bloomex president a scam artist? Argument from authority
 * I disagree with the assessment. Chris Baker is a former employee, so this is not a false appeal to authority.  He is a first-hand witness.  Ironically, Dimitri's own assertion that he shouldn't be criticized because he is the "president of multinational (sic) company" is an Argument from authority.


 * Quite likely not the most trustworthy, but doesn't seem to be much different from a lot of other reports. If one googles "Bloomex investigation", all sorts of reports pop up:


 * http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/consumers-urged-to-avoid-dodgy-flower-retail-websites-this-valentines-day-20170208-gu85n3.html
 * http://globalnews.ca/news/1340824/flower-delivery-service-receives-wilting-criticism-from-b-c-customers/
 * http://bc.ctvnews.ca/is-what-you-order-from-an-online-florist-really-what-you-get-1.3268671
 * https://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2014/02/21/flowers_dont_impress_when_sent_on_feb_19_roseman.html
 * http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/those-valentines-day-roses-could-be-a-total-waste-of-money
 * Remove the Today Tonight paragraph and add these? Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Today Tonight episode actually has an interview with Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe who issues a public warning not to use Bloomex. This is a government official speaking on official business.  Whether you credit Today Tonight or not, this is reliable ipso facto. pale (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The conclusion of many is what I have done all along, order direct from the local florist. Jim1138 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no mentioning of Bloomex on Fair Trading:http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Search/Search.page?query=bloomex&amp;queryCategory=

or Austrlian Competition and Consumer Commission:https://www.accc.gov.au/search/accc-funnelback/bloomex looks like the whole piece has to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.167.180 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Today Tonight is a not a credible source. See reference above to Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_Tonight It has a list of long controversy and imporper journalism cases.


 * No, Dimitri, your sock-puppet interpretation is irrelevant. No original research, per Wikipedia convention. pale (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure who is Chris Baker is being quoted as a reference. I checked myself there is no investigation by ACCC or Fair Trading. Anyone can go to their website and do a search on any company. There is no results for Bloomex as per myself check and above mentioned reference to their websites: http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ https://www.accc.gov.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Today tonight as per above is not a credible source. There are some other inconsistency as per above, so I have to remove the the whoel paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Dimitri, your interpretation is irrelevant. No original research, per Wikipedia convention. pale (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree. There multiply reports, that Today Tonight is not a credible source:

1. Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_Tonight

2. Australia Communication and Media Authority: http://www.acma.gov.au/Google-Site-Search?q=%20Today%20Tonight

3. The article is under investigation by ACMA:

From: 	Broadcasting  To:

ACMA reference: BI-325

Dear Ms ...,

Investigation about Today Tonight broadcast on Channel Seven on 7 March 2017

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) has commenced an investigation into your complaint concerning Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd’s compliance with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015.

Investigations of this nature may take several months and you will be notified of the outcome in due course.

A report of the investigation may be prepared. The ACMA usually publishes such investigation reports on its website and includes an investigation summary in its Annual Report and other ACMA publications. A media release or web announcement may also be issued.

Please be aware that, over the course of the investigation, the ACMA may provide extracts of your complaint to the ACMA and other relevant information submitted by you, to the licensee for their information.

You should note that the outcome of this investigation will be advised to the licensee and that extracts from your complaint may be included in any investigation report. Your complaint to the ACMA and to the licensee, along with any related documentation, including the ACMA’s investigation report and any transcript of the broadcast, may receive publicity, regardless of whether a breach is found.

Any material that you provide to the ACMA in the course of this investigation may also be subject to disclosure on the ACMA’s website under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

The ACMA’s privacy policy is available at: http://acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/Corporate/Accountability/privacy-policy

Yours sincerely,

Broadcasting Investigations Section _____________________________

Australian Communications and Media Authority

E broadcasting@acma.gov.au

acma.gov.au

4. There is no national or state warnings or investigations about Bloomex by ACCC or Fair Trading. Do searches for Bloomex at

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/

https://www.accc.gov.au

Because of that reasons, I will be deleting paragrath using citiation to the Today Tonight show. If you do not agree with it, please discuss it first providing arguments as per Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Lokhonia (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The CTV Vancouver article is about online retail and florists in general, not about Bloomex. In this article, Bloomex still ended up having the best prices and the product did match the description. They also got in touch with an out of date contact. The pricing was amended as it was all in US dollars for a Canadian retailer.