Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Bigmountain.PNG

Image:Bigmountain.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off

I stumbled on this page while reviewing the recent changes page, and the silly reverts, chatting, and unsubstantiated additions (from both sides of the "dispute", evidently) don't belong. Discuss stuff on this page, or move on, but stop cluttering up WP with crap. And everyone, again on both "sides", needs to read WP:RS, WP:V, and lots of other acronyms I can't think of right now. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:72.160.33.169 Please, please, please stop adding this material unless you can cite the sources. It is presented in a way that is extremely POV. If you continue, you will leave me no option other than to invoke the 3RR rule. This will cause a block to your account which I am sure you do not want and I hate recommending. Bring your concerns to the discussion page. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am about to make my one and only revert to this article for today. If an IP editor reverts this again without discussion, I will ask that this page be protected from editing by editors without an account (see WP:RFPP; this is doable, and I think would be agreed to by the admins working at that page), and I will then revert the POV material. Use this talk page, and try to create an NPOV article, or all IP editors may lose the ability to edit this article.

I stumbled upon this page by accident, and have no pro- or con- opinion on the management of this resort, but it is on my watchlist now, and I will do what I can to insist that statements by either camp are verifiable from reliable sources, and not unverifiable opinions. --barneca (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Will the person who persists in vandalising this page please stop. If you have genuine problems with the article then use the discussion forum, that is what it is there for. If your problems are with the politics regarding the sale of the mountain, then you are airing your views in the wrong way and in the wrong place. PLEASE STOP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.192.192 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The anon IP vandal is back at it. Alyeska (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasons

If you want to discuss reasons, do so in here. You do not post open discussions in the article itself. Alyeska (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing cited material. The IP of this company had been documented making changes for itself. Is there some reason to exclude "bad" news about this hostile takeover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.14.43 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am removing material that is designed solely to inflame. There is already information in the article about the change of lift times and how the people have reacted. This was also cited. The information you are adding is clearly NPOV. The tone of the information is to inflame. You are writing this information in anger. You are also ignoring the rules of Wikipedia by trying to insert your own comments directly into the article. Those are our reasons for removing your information. Alyeska (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, and when they threw out all of the original stockholders, this was not to inflame? Why do the owners get to write their own material. This site is getting fake with so many thought police around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.14.43 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What they do should not dictate the language of the article. Figure a way to reword it without obvious bias. Wikipedia tries not to take sides. Especially on minor things (and trust me, this is minor). While your at it, don't duplicate already written information. The lift schedule is already mentioned. Alyeska (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you really believe that a hostile takeover of a major employer in our area is "minor", perhaps you should not have the position of editing the thoughts and opinions of others. Are you being paid by the resort? Why do we see the IP of the resort changing material to suit themselves? If your family owned stock for 40 years thay became worthless overnight because some fucked up Californian decided to invade your town, wouldn't you be angry? Please, no evasive answers unless you are being paid to delete undesirable material.

All things are relative. Wikipedia is international, not local. Local issues are not to be written in NPOV language. And now you are making baseless accusations against me, character assinations. I do not work for the resort, I never have. I do not own stock in the resort. I barely make enough money to feed myself as it is. You can read my history quite freely on my Wikipedia page. I will continue to revert your edits, and the Wikipedia community will back me on this. Sit back and calm down. Rewrite what your trying to say and lets see if we can get it into the article. Its not what your saying thats bad. Its how your saying it. People from England don't give a rats ass about a hostile take over of a resort in Northwest Montana. They especialy don't care to hear about people complaining about changes made as a result. Alyeska (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just caught Donnie Clapp, Public Realtions for Whitefish Mountain Resort deleting material he did not like. What a bunch of bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.6.25 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats a rather serious accusation. Do you have proof? Mind you, I am aware that the user in question appears to be a single purpose account. His edit history is restricted solely to the Big Mountain entries. Alyeska (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dhc02 (Talk | contribs) (2,841 bytes) (Removed section describing a recent lift hour misprint on the trail maps for innacuracy and bias.) (undo) THIS IS FROM THE HISTORY. DHC is thought to be Donnie Clapp, Public Realtions for Whitefish Mountain Resort. THIS SITE IS A FAKE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.41.50 (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked you for proof. You provided none. What he put in the edit history doesn't prove anything. What is more telling is his edit history and the fact that his username matches Donnie's initials. Alyeska (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So how mahy DHC's do you imagine would be interested in rigging the copy for the resort which was stolen in a hostile takeover. Alyeska, if you don't come up with some better explainations, I will contact Wiki and let them know about your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.30.160 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your threat is making me quake in my boots. Grow up. Your throwing out accusations left and right here without a shred of proof, just unusual circumstances. I already pointed out the odd connections between DHC and Big Mountain, but I also noted your not backing up your claims with proof. Now you threaten me. I have no bias, and I have broken no rules. You go right ahead and report me to Wikipedia. I would like to see what happens. Alyeska (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also seen the DN number of Winter Sports Inc. deleting and adding material. Who cares if wiki won't do anything, it's a fake site anyway. It's kinda scary that the editors egos seem to prevail. And you complain about "vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.30.160 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You would not stop posting clearly biased NPOV material. I've already explained that if you reword the information into something less biased and more factual, there is nothing wrong. Facts aren't biased. But how you present them can be. Wikipedia doesn't have an obligation like you claim. Conflict of Interest exists when people edit articles about themselves. But workers of a company making edits aren't always a conflict of interest. If they can provide reliable information. Your making wild accusations and throw threats around. I'm still waiting to see you report me for whatever violation you've dreamed up. Alyeska (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(sighs) Yeah, that looks pretty bad. Alyeska (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am, in fact, Donnie Clapp, and I am the PR person for the resort. Sorry if deleting that section earlier was too harsh, but it was honestly inaccurate. I have just made an edit that just removes POV, including quotes around our name and the word pending, which do not require quotes. The current version is exactly what happened. There was controversy, but there was not intense controversy. The incorrect lift hours were printed on the trail maps, but it was printed by mistake and never 'posted' any place. I also added dates to the narrative, and a couple of detail words. If I am out of line in keeping an eye on our entry, I will voluntarily stop.Dhc02 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Those edits look good Alyeska (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More Clapp crap. Donnie why don't you admit that the place is micromanaged and you broke a long standing contract with the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.13.200 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Clapp, Why did your company conceal the fact that the ski days were going to be shortened from passholders who reasonably expected, without words to the contrary, the same operating hours as in the past?

Mr. Clapp, Why did your company also conceal the fact that a decision had been made to refuse summer access to the lifts by Four Season Passholders?

This is called bait and switch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.13.200 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats rather confrontational. And given your clear POV issues, I am going to revert all your edits until you clam down. Alyeska (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We did not handle disseminating information about our decision to separate the winter and summer passes well. We are offering some free lift tickets and discounts to winter 07-08 pass holders, which has made most customers more than happy. Those who feel they were misled and who have asked for further compensation have received it, and everyone I've spoken with has walked away satisfied that they got a fair shake. Our goal is to make every customer happy, while holding to our slowly developing sense of sound business principles. I would love to try and address any concerns you have about your individual situation, but that's going to require that you tell me who you are. Seriously, there is no need for you to take care of everyone else who is our customer. We screwed up, and we're fixing it on a case by case basis. The only people (person?) who are still upset about this are those who are too busy watching our Wikipedia page to simply talk to us about it. If you plan to use the lifts occasionally this summer, then the free tickets and gift certificates should work perfectly for you. If you are a hard core mountain biker or use our services more frequently, our hope is that you see the value in the additions we are completing and support our business by buying a summer season pass. If you don't believe that's fair, all you have to do is shoot me an email and we can talk about it.

As for the winter lower lift hours thing, for the love of God drop it. I'm not going to go to the trouble of reversing your changes, but what was printed on the trail maps was a mistake. Honestly. A mistake. I don't understand why you think we would do something like that on purpose. We caught a lot of flak for it, and even had to apologize to some guests who were inconvenienced. Why, as people who are running a service oriented business, would we purposefully mislead our customers about the details of that service? That would be dumb. Not catching the error on the trail maps was not very smart, and that mistake falls largely in my lap, but printing it incorrectly on purpose would have been downright idiotic.

Looking back in this discussion, I see that at some point there was talk of closing this page to anonymous editing. Please, let's consider that once more. There is a clear history of POV, inflammatory, and incorrect material being posted, and if I am not mistaken this has been done only by anonymous editors. I'm no WP expert, and I'm certainly not demanding anything, but it seems to make sense.

Thanks,

Donnie Clapp Dhc02 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down

Your not making any friends with this attitude of yours. And for the record, I'm a guy. Alyeska (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You should work on improving your reading comprehension skills. You posted "proof" which has a date of just two days prior to your accusation. Furthermore, if you had bothered to read the contents of the discussion, you would note I said I wanted to ask questions. No where did anyone say we are discussing the article behind your back. You are seeing conspiracies where none exist, and making accusations without basis for fact. If you want, ask the admin where my IP traces from. You will find I don't even live in the Flathead valley. I am not connected with Big Mountain, and I only know Donnie through Wikipedia since he responded to my questions. I would suggest calming down and talking with civility.

Furthermore, no law has been broken. There is no law that says people cannot edit entries on Wikipedia that they have interest in. Your anger has become extremely unhealthy, and your making threats and accusations with little basis of fact.Alyeska (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Summer Tickets for Winter Pass Holders

I added links on the main page, but I just wanted to point out that an email was sent to all 2007-2008 winter season pass holders we have email addresses for explaining the 4 free tickets they are eligible for, and also our rationale in the situation. There was a follow up email the next day answering some common questions I received. The first one is archived here [1] and the follow up is here [2]. The information should also appear in this morning's local paper, The Whitefish Pilot. I spoke to Rick Hanners, the editor about including it yesterday afternoon. I know that the anonymous comments have been reverted by NawlinWiki, so this seems out of context, but I just wanted to clarify that it's not a secret, or something we're trying to keep pass holders from finding out about. Dhc02 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake Offer & Cover up

So how many passholders email addresses do you have? Out of 7,000 passholders, how many received notices of this offer? You have my email address, but I have not received any notification. I believe that if this was a genuine effort to notify passholders, you would have run notices in the regional papers, not just a local weekly. Fake as usual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.40.74 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My parents received this email notification over last weekend. They had season passes last year. If you want, I can get them to take a screen shot with contents and time stamp and post it here. Your intent on causing trouble right now, please stop. Alyeska (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of email addresses came from our POS computer system. Are you sure you provided your email address when you bought your pass? Also, is your email address a centurytel.net address? I've been having problems with Centurytel marking all my bulk emails as spam, even though other providers like AOL, yahoo, and gmail let them through. Dhc02 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, it's centurytel on a shared system. We have never received email from WSI even though we've had passes for years. I'll be getting another email account to use. I spoke to the gal down at the ticket office via telephone and she was helpful and straightened it out. I'm glad that the mountain did finally see the impact that this sudden decision would have. Thank you very much for the free tickets. We use them when we bring summer guests up to show them around. Lots of them come back for skiing or riding. I hope you make an effort to notify the rest of the public through the newspapers, etc.72.160.114.97 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell was that? Your not allowed to just delete other peoples comments from a discussion. Your not even supposed to delete your own posts. Don't do it again. Alyeska (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

really? Who deleted the discussion about the ski area editing to suit them?72.160.114.97 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You deleted commentary from this article, both a post by yourself and you deleted one of mine as well. Nothing else in here has been deleted. Alyeska (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories are public information dumbass. Everyone can see your vandalism. Alyeska (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

blow me dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.35.89 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Avalanche

We both know those skiers accessed the area from T-Bar 2 and the area is frequently skied. For all intents and purposes, those skiers were on Big Mountain. Furthermore, they might not have been killed on Whitefish Resort land, but they could still have been on Big Mountain itself. I made a point of saying Big Mountain, and not the Resort. Alyeska (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They were northeast of Big Mountain on slopes of the Smokey Range. They had accessed the terrain by using T-Bar 2, then going under the boundary ropes and entering areas which do not receive avalanche control. Although this area is skied, I don't believe that it is very frequent. The T-Bar runs weekends only, so much of the terrain, even the inbounds area is inaccessable.72.160.19.114 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

I don't want to open myself up to criticism by editing this page any more. Will someone look at the last two paragraphs of this article for POV? There are a couple of assumptions and generalizations that are, in my experience, not valid, but are at the least unverifiable.

--dhc--Dhc02 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to continue editing the article. Others are aware of your position. We are watching to ensure that POV statements don't get to be a trouble. Alyeska (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

POV vs BIAS

I wonder why the views of others are constantly reverted and labeled as vandalism? Is there a conflict here? Alyeska's family seems to be attached to the ski area somehow. Now it's apparent that Don Clapp, Public Relations from the resort is writing his own version. You cannot re-write the history of your company and it's poor treatment of the public during this disturbingly hostile takeover. If there was a misprint on the map as asserted, why wouldn't the resort tell visitors purchasing tickets? Most found out only when the lifts stopped early, stranding ticket holders and forcing them to walk up trails with skiers and riders COMING DOWN the same route. Dangerous situation made much worse by managerial indifference. Don, you can only blow the smoke so far before it hits something. See you on the hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.45.136 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your wording and accusations minimize the validity of your claims. My family has no ties to the mountain. I am just another person like you. However, I am not blinded by anger like you are. I've found that the customer service of the mountain has been nothing but professional. I had a ticket refunded even after I skied two runs just because my father injured himself. I don't agree with everything the mountain has done, but I'm not blind with rage like some people. Alyeska (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah, Like above said, there might be some unprofessional behavior going on here. Great name calling and what makes you think that only one person is trying to submit copy here?

Calm down buddy, no one here is "blinded by anger or rage". Is this some thing Donnie Clapp is telling you in your private emails? Frankly, I don't care if they close the place at noon, just don't hide the fact from the folks that come here to ski. If the map said one thing and they did something else, that deserves an explaination.

If folks came here for many years and a new company barged in and changed important things like shortening hours of operation without telling them, don't you believe that an explaination is in order, or an apology?

They have not even revealed the times of operation for next winter. How are visitors supposed to plan their vacations? #^## —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.45.136 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one making false accusations without any proof. I talked with Donnie over email two weeks ago. I asked him some questions and I voiced some concerns I had. I speak what is on my mind. I do not speak for anyone else.

A change of one hour per day does not affect vacation plans. Opening and closing dates affect vacation plans. Alyeska (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kids don't drink and bad chairlift maintenance

I don't know what your finances are but if I send my kids up to ski and the mamagement kicks them out early, presumably to pack the bars, that's a big deal. We scrimp and save to have enough cash to let the kids get the quality experience we all enjoyed at the Big Mountain, but the new owners can't be bothered to provide it.

Why was there no food available during night skiing? The bar was open, but there was no food for the kids. I realise there's going to be a learning period for the new owners, but the time has come for the Whitefish Mountain to stop frigging around and take their responsibilities seriously.

My son reported a potential derailment on Chair 7 last winter which went unnoticed by resort workers. The sheave wheel had a bad tire, the chair grips were slamming into the wheel and the rope was trying to derail. The lift mechanics got on it right away and the ski patrol gave him a T-shirt for reporting it. There are still some professionals up there but they are slowly being driven out.

Regarding the potential lift disaster, this is not the first chairlift problem we have witnessed up there. In the event that you kill or injure someone, I will take all legal means to see that the Whitefish Mountain Resort management is punished or even incarcerated.72.160.27.187 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More commentary from the peanut gallery Alyeska (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alyeska why are you such a shitty editor? Fuck You

i just don't understand why you deride the opinions of others?

Fuck you and your shitty attitude too.

I'm not the one accusing people of having broken the law. I didn't vandalize the article. I never claimed editing Wikipedia was breaking the law. I never made false accusations about another person. Alyeska (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut the shit about a printing error

youre not fooling anybody. we all know how shitty you treat skiers so stop trying to make excuses.

you changes policy after selling thousands of passes. what bullshit

if there's enough money to hold a wine event for the wealthy, there must be some left over to run the lifts for the skiers.

How I treat skiers? I do not run the resort. You are clearly biased on this subject and using POV language. This is against the rules. Alyeska (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit histories are public knowledge. Your vandalism will not acomplish anything. Alyeska (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: All proceeds from the Whitefish Wine & Food Summit are going to the Big Mountain Fire Department and the Whitefish Fire and Police Departments. Also, this person Alyeska is keeping an eye on this page because he keeps his eye on a lot of contentious Wikipedia pages, not because he particularly likes WMR or what we've done lately. In fact, when we exchanged emails a while back, it consisted mostly of him telling me the things we've done he didn't agree with, and me defending those decisions. He (or she, not sure) is the most impartial person I could think of to be editing this page. I've come to terms with the fact that some people out there will never be happy with how we run this business, but it's ridiculous to blame this guy who lives in Alaska. Finally, yes, it was a printing mistake. Or more accurately, a proofreading oversight. 100% my fault, as I am the primary proofreader here, and something we would all give our left kidney to take back, but a mistake all the same. Let's be clear: our goal, as the folks running this amazing mountain, is to run it well enough that it survives basically as-is. Yes, we have changed operating hours. We did not intend for it to be a surprise or some sort of crazy bait-and-switch (I mean, seriously, we survive or not on the basis of repeat business). We've looked at and considered changing almost all operating procedures and policies in an effort to save this place from bankruptcy. Some of the changes you'll like (probably new lifts, probably the new Base Lodge, hopefully the new downhill mountain bike trail, maybe the reduction of the minimum age for a free super-senior season pass from 80 to 70), some you won't. But you have to realize, in the end, we really want your business. We are trying to make decisions that mean we're offering the best possible product to the largest number of people, both local and tourist. I didn't hear anyone complaining when we decided to push the early season pass sale deadline way back from May to September last year, or when we unexpectedly continued that this year. Anyway, we want to make everyone happy without sprialing into debt as we have for the past 30 years. It's not an easy thing to do, and we haven't made all good decisions so far. But we're trying, very hard, and we'd appreciate your support.Dhc02 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I live in Missoula. However, I am spending this week in Kalispell. I hiked Big Mountain on Sunday. Very nice hike, well maintained trail. The work crews were busy keeping things running and building new trail. Best of all, I rode down the mountain on the lift for free. So I finished off the day with a dinner at Hellroaring Saloon. I disagree with some things that have been done, and I agree with others. My biggest gripe is the loss of parking. I enjoyed parking above the lift and skiing down to it. Now more and more parking is being displaced BELOW the lift forcing people to hike. At least the Homeagain lot is still useful for parking. Alyeska (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

+++lies again+++

If the "printing error" was really an error, why was there no effort to inform the public when they bought their tickets? I never saw a sign anywhere and when I was made aware of this problem by our guests, I called the offices to see what was going on up there. The mountain was not interested in letting customers know that their ski in and out accommodations would not be accessable since they were closing the lifts earlier than asserted. This forced pissed off visitors to climb up slopes which were crowded with traffic going down hill, an accident waiting to happen.

Donnie, stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that the hill was going to go bankrupt, this is absurd. The place did very well before the arrival of the moneyed set and your hostile takeover. Just cut the shit!

If the Big Mountain did not intend the shortened operation hours to be a "surprise", why did you keep it a secret, only to be revealed by experience?

The bike shit, the wine shit, the treetop lame walk, all has nothing to do with skiing. No doubt the excuse next winter will be that there's not enough money or visitors to keep the place 100% open, AGAIN just like last winter.

You really need to realise that we aren't buying this line of bullshit and the controversy will continue until you straighten out and stop trying to discourage the repeat visitors we have cultivated and enjoyed for so many years.

++just lies++

Keep it up and I will keep reverting your edits Alyeska (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

keep what up, expressing views which you do not agree with? FAKE SITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.37.129 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You continue to vandalize the article and post NPOV statements. Read the rules. Alyeska (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Per this request and response at WP:RFPP, I have semi-protected the article for two months. If this page has long-running issues, consider opening up an WP:RFC to get more outside comments. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

This is intended to be an open discussion as to how we can improve the article. It should also involve issues and concerns over this article. However, I would like people to consider this. Wikipedia is not about personal grudges and anger towards a company. NPOV is the way of Wikipedia, something I've had to learn the hard way. Material posted in anger is not the way to improve the article. Making false accusations towards an individuals character and making legal threats is not going to achieve anything positive. Outright trollish behavior through pure vandalism of the article and editing false comments into other peoples discussion text is unacceptable. These are things I have not done, but have tried my best to keep out of the article. The Anon-IP (person or persons) has seen fit to conduct every single violation I have listed. Until we can solve this problem, I must assume edits from this location are in bad faith. Alyeska (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cites to include in Whitefish Mountain Resort article

http://www.zimbio.com/CEO+WIlliam+Foley/articles/3/Steal+This+Town

This article originally ran in local papers and illustrates the frustration original Big Mountain stockholders experienced during the reverse stock splits and the subsequent hostile takeover. It quotes residents who had long associations with Winter Sports Inc.

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/resort_changes_draw_praise_resistance/3113/

This article ran in the local paper and discusses the problems as well as the merits of the new resort management policies.

We have tried to include these cites but have been constantly reverted, called paranoid.

Are we doing this wrong? Wiki is confusing at times.

We are however, very uncomfortable with Wikipedia editors having private conversations with the people they are supposed to regulate.

Thank you 72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed info. I think the Flathead Beacon article looks like a reliable source, and we should have no trouble using it as a reference. The zimbio.com article might need more research before we could use it. Is zimbio.com a reliable source? The Zimbio article looks like it is an anonymous forum posting from someone who uses the handle Ex_Stockholder, and is not the work of a journalist. (If it originally came from a newspaper, how can we find the details of when and where?) If it turns out that consensus does not support including the Zimbio article, is it possible that some of the info about Big Mountain's stock split may be confirmable directly from an SEC web site? Wouldn't all these financial doings to be of interest to state-wide Montana newspapers? Finally, I suspect that bigmtn.info might be usable as an external link (though probably not as a reference). Would like to hear some other opinions on this. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were constantly reverted due to POV language. You were called paranoid because you claimed I was part of a conspiracy with mountain management, or that I was being paid by the management. Alyeska (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alyeska. Do you have an opinion about including the possible references or links mentioned here? EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never had a problem with presenting the facts in a NPOV way. I've let plenty of information from the Anon-IP stay in the article when presented in a NPOV manner. But when the information is presented in a hostile or overly POV manner, I revert the edits. If you read the talk history in this page, you will note that the Anon-IP has a clear bias on the subject. I've had to watch their edits carefuly. They've gone so far as to overtly vandalize the main article, or edit my own messages to make it look like I'm saying things I am not. I don't have a problem with the facts. I have a problem with accusations and POV language. Alyeska (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the edit war is temporarily stopped by the semi-protection, it would be more useful now to discuss concrete improvements that can be made to the article. I'm still hoping to hear your own view on the three references proposed above by the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

+=+=+= Here's the original article that ran in the Missoulian:

http://missoulian.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/mtregional/news03.txt

72.160.51.116 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a reliable source. I formatted the reference in a template as:

Michael Jamison (17 December 2006). "Locals dismayed at Big Mountain ski area stock plan". The Missoulian.

Is everybody happy with adding this as a reference? EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Alyeska (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

=+=+=+ Yes, thanks 72.160.51.116 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alyeska, will you consider adding these refs to the article? I'd prefer not to edit the article myself since I did the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no date on the news article. I would like to get a frame of reference on the news article before I incorperate it into Wikipedia. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the constant POV language inserted in reference to the change in ski hours, so I expect that the ski time issue is now settled since it was not brought up. Alyeska (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

+=+=+= No, the hours of operation issue is in the Beacon article, did you read it? If the resort wants to make a credible rebuttal, they should do so, the excuse of a "printing error" is not supported by their actions. If they continue to break implied contracts with the public under Montana State Law in the future, it will be posted in their article and litigated.

The Missoulian article about the 15 to 1 reverse stock split ran on December 17th, 200672.160.55.167 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I will consider the Beacon article. However, the information is already in the article. Your edits were changing the information into a POV edit. As to the Missoula information, I can get that edited into the article today. Alyeska (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thats a start for getting the information into the article. Do you have any sources over the change in ownership? This is important to people, but the change in ownership was never really mentioned or detailed in the article. Alyeska (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Improvements

Is there anything else that you would consider adding to the article? I would like to try and improve the history section if possible. Alyeska (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent improvements. The references could probably benefit from better formatting. The only style I normally use is the one explained at WP:CITET, though it takes some patience. WP probably has coverage of other ski areas, and if you'd like to make substantive improvements you might get ideas from looking at those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And to the anon IP editor. I do want to improve the article. If you have suggestions, please tell us what they are. Alyeska (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The reverse stock split was the second attempt to get rid of stockholders. The first reverse stock split occured in 2003. There was an attempt to conceal the impending second reverse stock split by management since stockholders had previously colluded and consolidated shares in order to avoid being removed from the board. There was no attempt by management to alert the public that there was a "printing error" on promotional material. Since the hours of daily lift operations had not changed in decades, most passholders were very surprised to find that Whitefish Mountain was not going to uphold their implied contract with the public, nor did they intend to inform anyone of said breach.72.160.51.236 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. The issue has been covered sufficiently. Stop harping on the subject. Do you have anything else constructive to add on improving the article? Alyeska (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

+-+-+-Why don't you care? This should be included in the article. Discussing past events by Winter Sports Inc. is pertainant, revelant and would be of interest to the bill paying skiing public. I'm certain that Winter Sports Inc. would like to conceal this information, but it all happened, was documented by the media and we believe it belongs here in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.54.159 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care because its not relevant. Furthermore, Winter Sports isn't under the same ownership it was back in 2003. So it is quite irrelevant for the general public to care about what the previous owners did. Alyeska (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

so what makes you the god that determines what is revelant? this site is fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.23.68 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Paid off by the Hill

Thank you Alyeska for illustrating your bias. We asked for protection from you on this page and it was granted.

Yes, the public does care what occurs as a matter of policy on their public lands. If a guest pays full price for a lift ticket, then finds that the seller does not intend to provide the services which were paid for, this is very relevant and must be in their article.

Since Winter Sports Inc. pulled two reverse stock splits in order to remove the local residents who built, invested in and supported the place for 50 years from the board, this is also relevant and must be in the article.

Alyeska, you have too many ties to the resort and especially the private conversations with mountain management, please recuse yourself from this article.

I am starting to agree with the above re: fake site. 72.160.51.208 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the page has been protected against you. I can edit the page freely, you cannot. I have no ties with the Mountain. I have not claimed conspiracy. I have not vandalized the article. I haven't vandalized other peoples discussions. I haven't claimed anyone has broken the law. You continue to mention irrelevant information and make accusations of bias where none exist. Edjohnston, I submit that this post by the anon-IP is yet more proof of their refusal to contribute meaningfuly to the article. Alyeska (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You just can't help but throw accusations against me.

• Hello Edjohnson, Thank you for protecting the page and helping straighten out this arguement. I believe however, that postings and communications by the editor of the page may indicate a bias toward the resort. Private communications and a physical visit to the company one is supposed to be regulating is cause for concern. Is there a way to apply for a new editor to be assigned this article? Thanks again for helping. 72.160.55.167 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Donnie once. My email largely consisted of telling him what I don't like about the changes to the mountain. I HIKED on Big Mountain once this year. Dare I accuse you of bias because you ski on the mountain? I am not paid by the mountain and I have no connection with them. Wikipedia can easily track my IP address and can attest that I am not even located in the same city. You can check my edit history and note that I have a long history on Wikipedia, most of it outside of this article. Alyeska (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk page is to propose improvements to the article. Is Alyeska keeping the page from being improved? What specifically should be added here? (Supply a reliable source in each case). EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked them for other improvements to the page. Instead they repeat claims that are already represented on the article and then continue to make accusations against me. Alyeska (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

we asked for protection against alyeska —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.20.48 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to prove I have violated the rules. You have to prove a conflict of interest that qualifies with Wikipedia rules. You have done neither. Alyeska (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

they must be giving him free tickets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.20.48 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You have proof? BTW, I live in Missoula. Kinda a long drive just to go skiing. I would have to pay $60 in gas just to drive to Whitefish and back. Alyeska (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some news finally from Whitefish Mountain Resort "executives"

They just released the hours of operation a couple of days ago.[3] A few days later they added a disclaimer which reveals that the hours are subject to change. How do the visitors who pay the bills perceive this disclaimer? There are not going to be many foreign workers this winter as the Feds have limited the number of visas available. Perhaps the office crew will be pulling chairs again, after they make the beds.72.160.46.220 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lift hours are subject to change at any resort. Alyeska (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are being untruthful.

Here's a list of ski areas in Montana who are willing to post operating times. This list refutes the claims of Alyeska that "Lift hours are subject to change at any resort".

Great Divide [4]

Big Sky Resort [5]

Blacktail Mountain [6]

Bridger Mountain [7]

Discovery Ski Area [8]

Montana Snowbowl [9]

Red Lodge Mountain [10]

Lost Trail Powder Mountain [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.46.220 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That proves nothing for you. A business always holds the right to change hours of operation at any time. I guess that's a foreign concept for you. Alyeska (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rude comment, respect & NPOV a "foreign concept for you".

i'm sure that we all understand the right of business owners to change their hours of operation. that's not the issue. i am concerned about a company which changed hours after selling passes with the assumption that the hours would remain the same, then tried to reneg on the 4 season pass which included summer use after selling about 7,000 of them.

the other resorts mentioned above DO NOT include a disclaimer regarding their hours of operation. why would they? they're trying to serve the public, using public lands.

i believe that the disclaimer from the big mountain office might be in reference to perhaps changing the hours in the March when the clocks spring forward to avoid the problems that the hard morning snow presented last year. they're not too good at expressing themselves, as the recent past illustrates.

give'm a break, they're just not very good at this sort of business. maybe they don't want to do better. it's only a little worse than when all those weird guys from Disney tried to run it. besides we got a great new quad on the front and a better chair2. it's also very funny to hear about the ceo being a chambermaid!

the shorter hours thing is just a power trip designed to distract from the real issues like safety, bad parking, lift maintenance, food and drink for youngsters, etc. 72.160.36.213 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to explain your concerns in a way that regular editors will understand. This is not the page to express your disappointment or grievances with the resort's management. We are merely trying to improve the article here. Let us know if the article could be better. In extreme cases, irrelevant comments (not related to article improvement) can be removed by other editors under WP:TALK. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

that must be why alyeska calls people dumbass the rules don't apply to editors

The only person I called a dumbass had vandalized my discussion post by adding their own commentary to my statements to make it look like I said something I hadn't. That is pure vandalism. I called them a dumbass because edit histories make it abundantly clear who did what. That you take issue with this indicates that your the person I called a dumbass. By extension, you are admitting to flagrant vandalism and rules violations that make my one insult look minor in comparison.

Now to get back on the topic at hand. EdJohnston just summed up the entire issue. You aren't trying to improve the article. You are trying to express your personal grievances with the management. You are making this article personal. This also makes what you post POV. Your rant makes it very clear that you cannot reach a NPOV position because you've refused to see anything beyond what you want. Alyeska (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

why bother its fake go ask donnie clapp what he wants

Will you please revise the article?

Alyeska and edjohnson, we provided you with information regarding hours of operation which could be used to change the article in a positive manner. Alyeska however, finds this to be irrelevant and states his opinion that "lift times are subject to change at any resort". When presented with web pages which DO NOT support his opinion, Alyeska goes ad hominen. There's more information to improve this article, but I'm not exposing myself to Alyeska's ridicule again. Perhaps we should just make a new article and start over.72.160.36.213 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How does posting a change of lift times for a single year improve the article? How is that positive? You are harping on the issue and are clearly aggravated over the lift times. You are emotionally attached to the issue and want to complain about the mountain. Shall we post every single time the mountain changed their lift schedule? That would be a long list.

1953 changed lift times 1956 changed lift times 1962 changed lift times 1963 changed lift times 1969 changed lift times 1971 changed lift times 1974 changed lift times (cut) 2008 changed lift times

What purpose does that serve? How does that improve the article? I have asked for improvements to the article, not your personal pet peeves. Nearly everything you've tried to add has been things about the new management that piss you off. You have an axe to grind. You say you don't want me to ridicule you. Perhaps you shouldn't be exposing yourself and your rather obvious agenda. You post about the stock split because it pisses you off. You post about the change in the season passes because it pisses you off. You post about the change in lift hours because it pisses you off. This isn't my interpretation. You are clearly angry and have presented yourself as such. Your anger is such that you even throw accusations of bias at me just because I disagree. This article is not your personal page to vent your disagreements with the mountain management. The information must be relevant, it must improve the article, and it must be written in a NPOV perspective. If we were to consider the lift time issue, it would have to be written in a language that doesn't contain personal POV, which means no complaining. Alyeska (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

jeez, how did you get on wiki with that attitude?

That attitude? I'm not the one causing trouble here. Alyeska (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Calm down and do your job

The purpose of posting the lift operation times is to correct information currently in the article. Why do you go ballistic when given information to improve the article. I'm not sure where you came up with the long list of changed lift times but it's a prime example of irrelevant material and your NPOV bias. Now please do your job. Thank you72.160.49.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

You just proved my point. You are not interested in posting information, you have an axe to grind with the Management. If you wanted to post information, you would have suggested we merely post the actual hours. Instead you add in your own commentary how this will harm the skiers. Alyeska (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice Job

Thanks, whoever did the edits and formatting, it looks great. The sentence about Tommy Moe might be better if the part about "being dismissed" by the mountain was deleted. Though factual, it's a personal matter which might not be appropriate. Also cannot be cited. The mountain has announced plans for next summer. They're going to build ziplines and an alpine slide will go under chail 6 [12]. I'm not sure if this is pertainent. Please include it if possible. Thank you72.160.49.4 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New Business Structure

"The new structure also allows the remaining owners to claim business losses against their own personal income taxes." -- I'm not sure if this is true, or if it is, whether it is any different than how it was prior to the reverse split. What is it about the current structure that allows this?Dhc02 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Who Deleted Entrys From This Page???

More fake crap from resort personnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.16.228 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I deleted your comment because you didn't format it remotely correctly. Alyeska (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Very mature comparing me to the KKK. Just check the edit history for the anon-IP. He did that with my name. Alyeska (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Convenient, really handy actually. Looks unusually peculiar, too

Why is this page protected again? Is it REALLY because we don't know how to format this INCREDIBLY CONFUSING site? Why couldn't the editor help out instead of getting angry and going ad-hominen, again? Do the new resort owners plan to keep it that way so they can manipulate their own image? Why does the editor of this page insist on deleting material submitted made by others? I believe that Whitefish Mountain Resort is doing it themselves (from home?, I'm not sure how this thing works). It's certain though that there are some elements in the area are determined to manipulate this site. Edjohnson, who requested the protection this time? BTW the anon you all bitch about probably has about 5,000 Flathead area subscribers under that IP. You must have pissed off at least half of them for this to have continued to the comical stage!72.160.42.174 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is protected against because Anon-IPs are again vandalizing the article. I asked Ed to look into the article and it was his choice to protect it. I myself have no connection to the resort. I am just a fellow Wikipedian and Montanan who wants the article to be improved. Venting personal frustrations against the owners of the mountain is not constructive to improving the article. I have not gone ad-hominen. I have stated truth. Just check edit histories. Others have slandered me, accused me of being part of the KKK, and said my editing of Wikipedia is a violation of Federal law. All blatantly false accusations. Alyeska (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

who said you were breaking law by editing? you're paranoid. If you can't stand criticism, don't be an editor, especially one with an adgenda72.160.42.174 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

An agenda of a fair and balanced article that doesn't pander to the extreme of either end of the spectrum? I have watched Donnie's edits just as much as yours. He tried erasing the name Big Mountain and I made a point of bringing it back. I sorted out the article to put in a nice section on Big Mountain history. As for the calls of law breaking. Here it is. Thats not all. I've been accused of being in a conspiracy with Donnie. Being paid by Donnie to edit the article. And the accusation that Wikipedia itself is conspiring with Donnie to present a biased view. I'm not the paranoid one here.

I have tried to get the Anon-IPs to contribute within the rules of wikipedia. To present information in a clam rational manner. They have mostly refused. Alyeska (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're Paranoid, sometimes

thanks for holding the mountain to the same standards as the rest of the contributors. i do believe that the page you refer to above is accusing the big mountain administration of breaking the law, specifically a breach of implied contract. this contribution does NOT accuse any editor of breaking the law. The statute which is refered to is here:

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/28/2/28-2-103.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.42.174 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 

Paranoid? I was accused of being paid by the mountain to edit this article. The paranoia is coming from your direction. Alyeska (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So what about the law, does not apply to the wealthy?

so what about the mountain breaking the implied contract with the public? Is it because of the new owner's obscene wealth that they can break Montana law?

Why are they getting away with this?72.160.42.174 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion about the article, not a general forum for discussion of the subject itself. Please restrict comments on this page to ways to improve the article. For general discussion about Whitefish Mountain Resort, please use local/community message boards and chat rooms for that purpose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been asking them to do this for quite some time now. They will not stop. The article was already protected against them and they still won't stop. Alyeska (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

eee, they won't stop they won't stop. why don't you show us where these community boards are? or is that a fakepedia secret too?72.160.42.174 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your local newspapers and news sites. They are not ran by Wikipedia, and we don't keep links - you'll need to find them yourself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

alyeska, we asked for protection FROM YOU the first time. then when the protection period was over, it got protected again. What are you afraid of, the truth coming out? We had a nice article going, had some nice contributions regarding the hill that of course got reverted. These contributions DID NOT MEET THE EXPECATIONS of the editor so he locked the article up again. (Personal attack removed). 72.160.42.174 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack from the above comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey ed, did you remove 2/3rds of this discussion page? Who removed this? Did it not meet the desires of resort management? Who did this? This site is fake72.160.42.174 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not removed, it was archived as the page was simply getting too big. Follow the archive links at the top of the page to see all of the prior discussions, or follow this link: Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort/Archive 1.

See WP:ARCHIVE for more information on archiving of talk page content. All of the archived content is from September or older, no threads that were in active discussion were archived. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did ask for protection from me. The problem is I was not the one violating the rules, you were. I never vandalized the article, nor did I throw out personal accusations and make paranoid claims about a conspiracy against me. You never had a nice article going. Your edits have been in a constant state of being reverted since before I entered this article. In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't the first person to go about reverting your edits. So its impossible for you to "have a nice article going" when your edits are consistently reverted. You have continually posted biased and NPOV statements into the article to further your vendetta against the current management of the mountain. So don't play the victim here. You are the one causing the trouble. Alyeska (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No Paper Trail

Of course there's no printed account regarding the changed lift operating hours. They tried to conceal this fact. We asked management to notify guests that the maps were "wrong" but they would not even entertain the thought.

We believe that upper management actually decided to change the hours mid-season and make Donnie Clapp take the blame. You just cannot tell me that they printed 100,000 maps with incorrect information, yet could not be bothered to inform the guests.

Also Donnie, I believe that the person quoted in the Beacon article is telling you that overall, you did a pretty good job. Why the disparaging remarks?

We all know that your company shortened the ski day, EVERY DAY, and tried to conceal the fact, so cut the crap.72.160.35.38 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Improve the article with this fact

The maps say that the chairlift closes at 4:30 PM, but we could not board it after 4PM. We received a letter from management explaining why this is so: "Thank you for your interest in Whitefish Mountain. Unfortunatly due to early season conditions Chair 6 was closed at 4PM. The 4:30PM closing time is based on our regular season schedule and is subject to change based on the current conditions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.29.53 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. Early season scheduling changes means nothing and certainly has no bearing on this article. Alyeska (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

are you always this bitchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.29.53 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008

This information is not noteworthy and therefor has no purpose in this article. Alyeska (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't set the rules. Read up on notability as well as the rules pertaining to vandalism. You won't win your case with swearing and vandalizing the article. Alyeska (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

too bad the skiers got screwed by visiting early in the season, bad business practice—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.34.74 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009

Alcohol Sales to Minors at Whitefish Mountain Resort Restaurant

Ed & Mully's restaurant, operated by Whitefish Mountain Resort recently failed alcohol compliance checks. Here's the source:

http://dailyinterlake.com/articles/2009/01/27/news/local_montana/news_8766973209_05.txt

Whitefish Mountain Resort was fined $250 according to the article and could lose it's license after 3 more offences.

Advertisements announcing a "Pub Crawl" during Whitefish Winter Carnival were published by Whitefish Mountain Resort during and after the time of this offence.

The Bierstube on Big Mountain passed this alcohol compliance test.

I know you'll probably say that this is all very impertinent, but some parents have concerns about underage drinking and drugs on the mountain. This could be carefully worked into the article somehow. More adult supervision is certainly needed up there. Parents have the right to know what to expect and what level of authority will come from the management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.23.80 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly notable. Such issues happen in pubs and retail stores all over the country. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just that we don't EVER remember having this problem on our ski hill. at least they offer food now during night skiing instead of just booze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.23.80 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2009

All businesses have the problem. Every once in a while booze gets served to people that shouldn't get it. A lot of the people who work in Mully's are the same ones that have been there for years. Why would they suddenly change? Accidents happen, or some people intentionally break the rules regardless of who the owner is. That it happened matters very little to the article. Alyeska (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Busted Again, Not Cool!!!!

Ed & Mullys just sold alcohol AGAIN to minors. This is pretty fucking disgusting. They didn't learn the first time, like back in January. That in the hell is wrong with the management?

Here's the cite: http://dailyinterlake.com/articles/2009/03/08/news/local_montana/news_8763508012_05.txt

Please note that the other establishments on the mountain were able to comply.

What does single account editor Donnie Clapp think of this crime? Well?98.125.81.28 (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not worthy of inclusion. A handful of incidents are not notable. Alyeska (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Alyeska. It's not notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears from the two discussions thus far, that consensus is against including the information; but I did start an RfC on it to get additional input on the subject from additional users of Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of resort selling alcohol to minors

Discussion re: recent reverts in the article. Dispute about if it's notable and relevant to mention in the article that the ski resort was cited twice for selling alcohol to minors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that:

1. Given the statistics regarding the terrible traffic accidents in Flathead County, the alcohol related wrecks and the number of minors found to be in possession of alcohol, this is relevant to this page and the perps of this crime.

2. Parents have always been able to send minors to the Whitefish Mountain Resort without adult supervision or worry about illegal activity by the mountain establishments, namely: selling alcoholic beverages to minors. This trust on which parents rely, and that had been developed over many years, has been shattered by these two infractions and is thereby pertainent to the article.

3. The Flathead County Sheriffs' Department recognises that this is a major problem and has operated the alcohol compliance checks for many years with the overwhelming consent of the taxpayers who fund this endeavour. The mountain management knew about this program, had received warning about the program, yet apparently chose to ignore it, not once, but twice. Other establishments on the mountain were able to comply with the law.

4. The actions (or lack of )by the Whitefish Mountain Resort management endangers anyone that uses the highways in the area, especially after dark and when the bars on the mountain close.

5. The management at Whitefish Mountain Resort closed a village restaurant after receiving poor grades during inspection by health department officials which demonstrates their unwillingness to operate within the laws of the State on Montana or to cooperate in any way with county law enforcement.

72.160.4.98 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So all your doing is using Wikipedia as a Soapbox for your personal views. You have two incidents, thats it. This is not notable for the article. You can find incidents of a variety of things happening on the mountain. That doesn't make it notable. It has no bearing on the article. Alyeska (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

IP72, you really seem to be on a crusade for this information to be included. A look at your contributions shows you feel this needs to be included as some kind of punishment for the business, or a warning for anyone who might frequent it. Neither one of those is a suitable reason for inclusion of the material. Dayewalker (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so let's just make sure this discussion stays on this page so if there's an incident where injury occurs, the courts may reveal this as having been previously argued.72.160.4.98 (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your implication of legal repercussions borders on making a WP:Legal threat to try to intimidate support of your position. I suggest you follow that link and read it.

Wikipedia is not a public forum, and potential claims of free speech (which in all fairness have not been made at this point) do not apply here. A court simply wouldn't care what was argued here.

Back on subject ... as stated previously, this is a local enforcement issue, faced by retail outlets everywhere. It is not notable for an encyclopedic entry. I tend to agree with Alyeska that this is a continuation of the earlier soapboxing against the sale of the mountain. Also, you imply that the mountain is the root of all evil in this regard; yet per the links that cover the story it is a widespread regional issue (5 out of 9 failed one check, and 18 out of 46 failed the second check). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he is claiming that someone will get into a physical fight with him. I find that highly unlikely. Alyeska (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. He thinks this discussion has a bearing on the culpability of the Resort if someone is injured in a underage drinking incident. IE, he thinks that we (most likely just me) are agents of the corporation. He isn't making a legal threat against Wikipedia. He is making a threat against the corporation through who he perceives to be its agents on Wikipedia. That is very paranoid, IMO. Alyeska (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what exactly IP72 is referring to, but I would highly suggest he reads WP:LEGAL and understands that threatening legal action will result in an immediate block. This page is for discussing the issues, not threatening future legal actions. As long as that's understood, everything is fine and we can continue discussing the relevant matter. Dayewalker (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he isn't really threatening us or Wikipedia. He is threatening the company that he perceives us as working for. I don't know how that should be handled with IP72. Alyeska (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP72 hasn't stated exactly what he means with edits like this [13] where he warns an editor about imprisonment and punitive fines, and this comment [14] about the courts using this as an argument. As per WP:LEGAL, threatening or implying legal action for the purposes of trying to gain advantage in a discussion is not allowed. If the IP would care to clarify his statements, that would be fine, but for future reference he should really read WP:LEGAL. Dayewalker (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

===Calm Down, Donnie=== God, talk about soapboxes. There's a legal problem in Montana with businesses who sell alcohol to minors. Period. If you do not agree, please discuss it with law enforcement and your state legislators. I had heard that wiki was the only encyclopaedia edited by self appointed experts, seems to be very true. What makes you so certain about my gender? It's just collusion by email with mountain management. Call or write Dhc02 and ask him what he wants, he can't edit with a single purpose account, remember?72.160.4.98 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing us with someone else. I am not Donnie, and neither is anyone else in here. Alyeska (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IP72, I don't have any idea what you're talking about. If you think someone here has a conflict of interest, bring it up at the WP:COIN board and provide your proof. Othewise you're just making unfounded accusations, and no one's going to pay attention to you. Back to the subject, how do you feel about the links above that seem to show this as a regional issue, not one specific to this article's subject? Dayewalker (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IP72 believes that I am Dhc02, or am getting paid by Donnie Clap to represent the mountain. Alyeska (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If he believes as such, he should take it to the proper notice board. Otherwise, just slinging accusations of COI at anyone who disagrees with him won't help, especially when it's someone who's been here for thousands of unrelated edits. That's extreme bad faith, and won't get this resolved any faster. Dayewalker (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Alyeska has had private conversations via phone or Email with Dhc02 in the past. Yes, the articles reveal that other establishments in the county (which is nearly the size of Connecticut) also failed the compliance check. However, one third of the total liquor dealers on the mountain at Whitefish Mountain Resort failed, not once, but twice.

The fact that others were caught does not diminish the crime of any of these perps.72.160.4.98 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You have talked to Donnie in this discussion page. That means you have a personal relationship with him and are clearly using your position here as some scheme on his behalf to increase awareness of the Mountain.

See how absurd that is? I talked to him via email like twice. Most of it was bitching about changes to the mountain that I didn't like. So what if I've talked to him? If I caught you talking to him on the street does that make you have a conflict of interest? And who cares about the physical size? Flathead has a population of 74,000. Connecticut has over 3 million people.

The fact is that just about any place that sells alcohol will also sell to minors. Either on purpose, or on accident. What next, should we report every instance of the waiter bringing back the wrong amount of change and accuse the mountain of theft? It is not noteworthy enough to put in the article. Alyeska (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

While the issue itself is notable, it deserves its own article. 60% of the businesses tested passed. Whether any individual business passed or failed, or any individual server passed or failed seems not to be noteworthy.- sinneed (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability.

Why is this advertisement still in Wikipedia at all?

The mountain, as a ski area, is certainly notable, but I don't see notability for the resort.

I also agree that there is not adequate notability for the drinking thing... this was a test, 60% passed. The servers and their employers were fined. They'll be tested again and again. This is a great program, and it might make a decent Wikipedia article, but no, it probably won't merit a mention in the articles (if any) about the businesses. People fail to card when they should. And they get caught and fined.

I think this article may need a PROD and an AfD if that fails.- sinneed (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD

I have put in a PROD for this article. While anyone is free to remove it, I ask each editor to seriously consider whether this belongs in an encyclopedia. wp:not, wp:advert, wp:COI seem to apply.- sinneed (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I killed the PROD. It seems clear that the subject meets the notability guidelines, as it is of substantial importance to the surrounding community.- sinneed (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Source?

I have a question on this line from the article:

... in the winter of 2007-2008 when they closed several lower lifts each afternoon at 4pm, 30 minutes earlier than indicated by a printing mistake on their trail map.

There's a source just before this text which mentions the criticism; but I didn't see a mention of the "printing mistake" in this source. Did I overlook it somewhere? If there's no source, then it amounts to WP:OR, and the wording "than indicated by a printing mistake" should be removed from the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no printed account of the incorrect trail map lift hours being due to a printing mistake (at least that I can think of right now). However, the section of that newspaper article that alleges that the closing times are different "than posted" is no more than an uncorroborated quote from "A vocal critic of resort management, Ted Patten...". So, I totally understand removing the reference to the printing mistake since my testimony is in fact WP:OR. But if we do that, then I would like to see this section read something like, "Ted Patten, a vocal critic of resort management, claimed the resort changed lift operating hours to differ from those posted..." to better reflect the newspaper article, and in fact the actual source of all this controversy. Dhc02 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to take Donnie's post at face value over a clearly biased statement from a 3rd party individual quoted in a newspaper with no position of authority on the subject. That said, it still doesn't meet reference requirements. Alyeska (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WHOA DONNIE: This bullshit was brought to my attention over the weekend. I do not want my site listed here, I don't care who trys how many times to edit my site back into WiKi, that's your problem, not mine.

I really don't know why I even agreed to be interviewed by Dan Testa at his request.

Donnie Clapp, why do you assert that I am the "actual source of all this controversy"? Leave me out of this nonsense and do not ever name me as a perp or you'll be visiting Cummings, et al. Got It? Maybe you were just trying to imply that the news article was the source of the controversy, ok. We'll leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedpatten (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)