Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort

---

Summer Lift Access

Just wanted to let those who care and watch this page know that we are again including summer lift access (foot-passenger only) with Winter Season Passes. I included an edit on the main page and a citation to my announcement in the newsletter. Not sure if my newsletter is a real enough source for citation; feel free to remove or edit to better reflect the facts. This is in direct response to feedback from our local and loyal customers.

It's worth noting that the main reason for the prominent lift hour disclaimer on our website is all the craziness that has ensued (especially here on WP) since the trail map debacle last season. However, it is also our intention to fix the daylight savings time issue, and although it's not set in stone it is very likely that operating times will shift an hour later when DST kicks in this year, meaning some lifts would close at 5 instead of 4.Dhc02 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If yr trail map was wrong why couldnt you even bother to tell us you are closing early when we flew to kalispell, rented rooms and bought tickets. not visiting there, trying schweitzer in sandpoint[1] this year—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.115.208 (talk • contribs) 14:47, October 3, 2008 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lies are unbecoming. Your local to Kalispell and Whitefish. Your IP address is a dead giveaway. Alyeska (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

right-o alyeska, im here now tending house but we are not going to fly family from SF through SLC to kalispell again this year. this place just does not have the value it used to have. re: summer lift access, just throw them a bone, give them something useless & unwanted, then say we listened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.115.208 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't believe you. Alyeska (talk) 01:03, 5 October 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)

Yes they're manipulating

it's really sad what has happened. Donnie, you know full well that the idea of kicking out all of the stockholders was to claim losses against the incomes of the uber-wealthy investors. Thanks for the new chairs, I'm glad we got them before the republicans stole the banks, like Foley.69.144.17.94 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 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)

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)

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)