Talk:Artificial ski slopes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Snowflex trademark 1.1 Snowsun 2 Cima 3 Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Quixada 4 information on revert war wrt cima

[edit] Snowflex trademark

SnowFlex is a registered trademark of Briton Engineering. I'm not sure whether we need to indicate this on the main page.

[edit] Snowsun

Snowsun is a italian company. I'm not sure whether we need to indicate this on the main page.

I take this on the first page of snowsun's websites: Snowsun boast a 40 year-long experience in the field of synthetic ski slopes. Experience, research, development and technical testing have lead to a high-quality synthetic slope coating. The continuous improvements on materials, geometrical design and structure allow to conform to all requirements so to satisfy all skiers, even when in lack of snow. I think that, if take of that company you must take of all company name and link.

Hi there. You are making statements without backing them up. The wording above is taken from the company website which itself has no references to back up the statements it makes. In fact, both pictures on the website show skiers using Dendix rather than the Cima product, whatever it is. With both the Permasnow and Snowflex products, it is easy to locate slopes using these materials as well as the older Dendix matting. You need to realise that no company is advertising their products. There is no link to any company's website on this page. You have been inserting links to your company's website not just on this page which is in direct violation of wikipedia's policies and it is for this reason that the article is now under protection.Snecklifter 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cima

Cima is not widely recognised and the section on it contains little real information on the product in comparison to the others. These are my reasons for removing until real factual information can be found. References for example. Why talk about horse-riding? Snecklifter 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can speak about Cima if you want chack his company product.

No, I dont. I have done considerable research into dry/artificial/synthetic ski slopes and have not yet encountered information regarding the product you are talking about. It appears to be of the extruded plastic variety that was used several decades ago and was commercially quite unsuccessful.

Still no explanations, citations etc. Snecklifter 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Snecklifter if you delete more cima's company i will contact winkipedia and i ask to that company to delete yourself! You cant do maketing here only for your company snowflex.

Thank you for finally entering into discussion rather than randomly adding information. Wikipedia is certainly _not_ the place for advertising and I am not doing so with Snowflex. As you will see there are a number of other products mentioned on these pages and the article presents a fair and balanced view. The problem with your edits is that they lack factual statements, you make no mention of who Francesco Cima actually is and you spam articles with your external links, as you did with the Snowflex article (which I did not start) and the Tubing article. You have been warned on several occasions about this and I would like you to contact a Wikipedia moderator very much so this can be resolved. Until then I will continue to revert your edits unless you add quality content rather than advertising. I look forward to your comments. Snecklifter 11:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are clearly spam and should be deleted. Indeed, the spelling isn't even right: "Artidficial ski slopes"? I will refrain from changing the article at this time for fear of entering an 'edit war'. But there needs to be a resolution here. Maybe restricting edits to Wikipedia members only? dq 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a brief period of restriction to members only might be a good idea as they really don't seem to be understanding the concept of no advertising. I'm voting for, based on their previous edits but not sure of the way to get this done. Snecklifter 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request to an Advocate here. Also, you may want to read this for further information. dq 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Quixada

There has been some concern with the editing of this article, and a request for assistance has been placed with the AMA. The concern is with some external links, and with mentions of certain companies. Some guidance on external links can be found here: Wikipedia:External links. However, as with all areas of Wiki, what happens in each article is a matter of consensus between the editors involved. I don't see strong evidence of vandalism here. But I do see differences of opinion. A discussion in which editors explain their reasoning would be helpful. SilkTork 08:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After an anonymous edit in which material about Cima was entered, I have taken the important details from the edit and worked them into the article. I haven't done any research into Cima. Nor is my edit to be seen as condoning the information - I merely wanted to reduce it to the essentials. SilkTork 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. I am by no means a major contributor here; I just removed some spam and then got taken up into the avalanche that has been the continual reverts to this article. If you check the article history, the spammer persists in adding the link to a seemingly random (and hard to navigate) website. As well as adding content that is questionable. Anyway, whatever happens, I hope this is a learning process for the contributors of this article (alleged spammers included). dq 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor who is concerned with Cima doesn't appear to be interested in discussion, and it may be a case of giving this article semi-protection. And if necessary backing that up with a series of IP blocks. I would rather though, that the editor got involved in discussions. SilkTork 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based purely on the past edits of the user who insists on blatant promotion of a product that has no significance on the synthetic ski slope scene - the product itself appears to be a close replica of the very early moulded plastic variety - I am reverting all mention of it for the reasons already mentioned. I had hoped that earlier dialogue above might continue and it would be in all our interests for the user making the edits to register a username and enter into some kind of discussion as to why the cima product merits inclusion.Snecklifter 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] information on revert war wrt cima

I ask why snowflex can put his name on the wikipedia and photo, story and Cima's can't. In the Cima's ski center was play the international championchip without Jean Claude Killy and other. And so we can show all the story or nothing.

Thanks for entering into a discussion! This article is not an advertisement for Snowflex. This is an article about artificial ski slopes and talks about the history of the different materials. The current batch of products have been installed in numerous locations - this includes Dendix, Permasnow and Snowflex. As far as I can see it is not biased towards one current surface over another. It is not acceptable to add links to products on this page and as you have been warned several times against this (I see you also continue to edit the tubing article with a link to your website only) I remove the mention of it because the cima product is not of significant importance in the history of synthetic ski slopes. Instead it looks like moulded plastic of the very early variety which has been proven not to be commercially successful. You also talk about international championship - what is this? - and Jean Claude Killy - who is he/she? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia - it contains factual information and is not for advertising on. Snecklifter 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at both sides in this debate and tried to be fair to Cima in presenting that information without bias. However, Cima appears to be a product without any notability. It is difficult to make any case for information on Cima to be in the article. As the information is put in, so it is removed. If information on Cima is inserted again, the next stage will be semi-protection of the article to prevent a revert war. SilkTork 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it happened again.Snecklifter 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection now in place. Please keep me informed if there are any further negative developments. SilkTork 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I changes U.S.A. to United States because it redricted there anyway...