Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort

wp:BLP and wp:copyright would be problems as it was written. The article is about the resort. If he needs or has an article, maybe that would be a home for some of that, but probably not.- Sinneed 14:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:of course it's about the resort and the history, no matter how unsavory the events may have been. It is not your job to sanitise or render PC the entrys submitted. You asked for refs, they were provided, yet this does not warrant inclusion? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 May 2010

::Removed the wp:BLP violation. If this continues the pages can be semiprotected. See wp:BLP, wp:NPOV to understand why the content you added does not belong.- Sinneed 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#William Foley - Whitefish Mountain Resort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

::::An example:The source says the reason for splitting the stocks was not to make it impossible to buy as you stated, but only to increase the cost/pain by making the company pay each stockholder for 149 shares, instead of, say, 1 for 1490 shares.

::::Another ... he ordered... rather than what the source says, that he pushed it through. Since even at the last mention I see you adding, he only held 48.9%, he could not order... only talk real loud.- Sinneed 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the link to bigmtn.info:

• {{LinkSummaryLive|bigmtn.info}}

The link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitefish_Mountain_Resort&action=historysubmit&diff=365435251&oldid=364853393 was removed] earlier this month by {{user|Yworo}} with the edit summary stating it was "unofficial site full of google ads". It [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitefish_Mountain_Resort&action=historysubmit&diff=369178122&oldid=368794100 was then re-added] by {{ip|72.160.57.222}} with the summary "unofficial link predates official site by many years". After reviewing the site, I agree with the removal. The site is advert-heavy with the content being only travel guide material, not expanding on the understanding of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:I also had reviewed the removal, and supported it. Support leaving it out.- Sinneed 17:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

too bad you did not bother to view the site during the ski season when it gave us the snow report

WTF did you think would be there during the summer?

this site is just driven by corporate greed and self appointed experts who pander to them

Barek, how many times have you been to the resort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.88.3 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so when marketing caught flack some years ago for trying to sell the mountain as being 7,000 ft in elevation (as to be higher than the competition) they backed off and adopted a benchmark some distance from the summit as the "official" elevation.

The elevation of the Big Mountain actually falls far short of 6,818 feet as purported in the wiki article and on WSI maps, brochures, etc.

Just Google Earth the area, the benchmark is easily found over on FAA hill. It's .40 miles distant on an azimuth of about 308 degrees from the Big Mountain Summit.

So, let's be accurate and truthful, please. Our visitors deserve nothing less.Tedpatten (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

{{tlx|editsemiprotected}}

CHANGE THE ELEVATION TO THE CORRECT HEIGHT

IT'S UNFAIR TO ALLOW THIS CORPORATION TO DECEIVE

72.160.38.221 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:{{notdone}} You didn't supply a source for the "correct height". Assuming you wanted me to look it up on Google Earth, that's WP:Original research, and not permitted here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

how about the USGS maps which show that the Big Mountain does not even cross the 6,800 foot contour.

These maps were published in 1968 and could not possibly be original research72.160.60.213 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is of importance to guests who rely on scheduling to plan their day.

Please do not delete long standing material regarding this company's operations.

Tedpatten (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel guide. As you point out, the scheduling is available on the resort's official website, which is where people should be looking for schedule info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:: Agree with Sarek. Wikipedia isn't a travel booking website. Dayewalker (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)