User talk:Floralexpert

You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Floralexpert. You are welcome to join the discussion at WP:COIN#User:Flowerman11. Concern has been expressed about your removal of a reference to the company's low BBB rating from Bloomex's article. Editors who have a WP:Conflict of interest are advised to limit their contributions to article talk pages. Flowerman11 has now been indefinitely blocked due to similar issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have conflict of interest.I did not remove BBB reference. I removed Ellen Roseman mentioning. I have conflict of common sense: I spent decades in floral business and know that: A. Non of high volume florists have good mark from BBB. It is just a nature of the business B. Quoting personal blog of the reporter who writes about everything just for the sake of writing is not correct. C.the reporter opinion is very negative towards Bloomex because of legal issues with first article and retractin Toronto Star published later. see http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/326335 Floralexpert (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floralexpert, if you continue to edit the article directly, and not just the talk page, you may be blocked. This article has caused a lot of problems with conflict of interest editing; there have been at least two blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, please do the same warning to Dougweller and CliffC who have the same "professional" interest in the subject. Please post the article for reviewing by other editors who were not involved in previous edits and could make independent judgement Floralexpert (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller is an administrator. Cliff is a long-time contributor who works on a range of articles and is familiar with Wikipedia policy. And, neither of them has 'floral' in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CliffC states "I am not now and never have been a member of the floral industry, and never heard of Bloomex until 2 or 3 weeks ago. I admit to having visited Canada in my idealistic youth." --CliffC (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I know the industry I can not contribute?only people "not now and never have been a member of the floral industry, and never heard of Bloomex until 2 or 3 weeks ago." provide the correct opinion? Becides they are not Canadian and never heard of Bloomex before? No offence but we need to leave a subject to Canadian editors who are familiar with e commerce or floral industry Floralexpert (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we had any "Canadian editors who are familiar with e commerce or floral industry" other than yourself working on the article you'd probably accuse them of being in league with the competition. I won't put up any blue links for you to read because you don't show many signs of having read them in the past. --CliffC (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CliffC, I guess you have to step back from editing this article- your professional feelings are heart. I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now. From my professional activities I know Bloomex operations, but I do not have direct association with Bloomex. I consider myself an expert in floral industry and I did edit in the past articles related to floral industry in USA, though I did not bother to create login until recently until I came across article about Bloomex, the Canadian company. In my opinion, the problem arise when one of the unhappy customer ( or an unhappy local florist) edited article to include words like" scam" and included posts online forums. That post triggered further editing with COI from folks from the company, unhappy customers and editors. Before that article was published for 6 month without any major editing. I am ok to include BBB mentioning, though from expert point of few it is not 100% correct: 1. All florist by default receive rating C if they are not " accreddited by BBB ( read: pay money to BBB). The process of accreditation in Ottawa BBB is faulty and it has great coverage with fraud Ottawa BBB was involved by accrediting several companies involved in fraud ( national govermant new agency CBC had coverage on that with numerous coverage in local press:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/07/ot-fraud-080207.html

2.THERE IS NONE OF HIGH VOLUME retail florists in Canada, who has good rating with BBB.- you could check it yourself, type " florist or flowers" in BBB search and select Canadian provinces or cities. there is no canadian florist with 100 or more complaints with rating higher than F. I do not agree about quoting Ellen Roseman as an expert, because

otherwise we have to quote her in all Wikipedia articles about

large Canadian business. See her articles about: a) Sears: - 35 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=sears#919

b) Canadian Tire- 42 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Canadian+Tire&sa=Search#922 c) Future shop - 50 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=future+shop&sa=Search#981 d) even grocery chain Loblaws has 18 articles http://www.ellenroseman.com/search.php?cx=006319560383011813216%3Aa0fo_0bgvwo&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Canadian+Tire&sa=Search#922

Please reply to my argument in logical way Floralexpert (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my feelings are not hurt. You suggested that I have some sort of conflict of interest and I made a clear and complete statement that I have not. As to the rest of your post, there is no point in making the same argument in several different places, it's less likely to be read and any replies will be scattered. We all have the Bloomex talk page on our watch list. That's the place to talk. --CliffC (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not see your rely on the discussion board yet. Please adviceFloralexpert (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomex

You don't read much in the way of consumer advice columns, do you? She doesn't say she wants the company to go out of business. She is recommending chargebacks – as do many consumer advocates – because the choice for the company is to provide better service or potentially go out of business. Why are you reading so much more into it?

Just to clear the air, I really have no commitment to this article. I only examined the case because you posted a COI check request. If I was really motivated, I'd AfD the article for no statement of notability. So just what is your connection to Bloomex? It seems to me that there are several Bloomex-related editors determined to ensure that absolutely no negative commentary on the company appears in Wikipedia. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you don't like what Roseman says regarding advice on how to deal with poor customer service, you need to take a different tack than trying to convince others (to date unsuccessfully) that she's sometimes a reliable source and sometimes not – on the same subject that's her expertise. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blog issue has been explained and in this case it is non-material. I have seen nothing that says she wants the company to go out of business, just that if enough chargebacks occur, the company will be at risk of doing so … if it doesn’t better address its customer satisfaction issues. Most of the anti-Roseman posters seem to me to be meatpuppets associated with a pro-Bloomex party; indeed, the most recent admitted to solicited off-wiki to participate in support of Bloomex. If things keep going as they are, I expect some blocking will be forthcoming.

In any case, there are many other problems with this article, so I’m going to shortly be bold and try to offer a compromise solution as well as incite encouragement to fix up this article for the better. I hope that will prove a satisfactory, non-disruptive solution. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bloomex

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bloomex. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]