This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freeboard (skateboard) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I would like to propose this page for deletion once again. Freeboard is a misspelling of the brand Freebord, and the contributor Unotere is the owner of a knockoff company in Italy. His entries are riddled with subjective language and outlandish, unsubstantiated claims.
Jahjahw ( talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The page created is about the sport thousands athletes spell like that: the user who said was a mispelling of a brand, has just modified it like a sport, so the page is accepted at last.
(Gravitis brand was mispelled like a company, while is a registered mark.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unotretre ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP keeps adding Gravitis to the article. As far as I can tell Gravitis is just one of any number of freeboard-style manufacturers so why should they be mentioned? If it is the only company that makes this type of board then that would be fine. If they do something different and notable then that would be fine also but in either case this needs to be documented with a secondary reliable source. Failing all that there is no reason to mention them except to promote the brand. SQGibbon ( talk) 08:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As written in the article Gravitis brought Asymmetric shapes, cambered boards for rails(not flat), compact trucks. Spin new wrapping bindings. Loko the widest decks. Not a question of brands, while to provide the widest panorama of this kind of board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unotretre ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the content of Freebord be merged into this article. That content appears to relate to a subset of Freeboard and should be included here rather than being hived off into a separate article. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion (though there were few participants - 2, in fact) and the information that can be verified by reliable sources, I have merged Freebord into this article. By the way, I also merged a bunch of references from the Freebord article, though I removed some dead links, repeats and non- RS ones. If anyone has any strong objections to anything I've done, please leave a note on my talk page or raise them here. I undertook the merge boldly so I have no problem reversing it or working to resolve any resulting concerns. Cheers, Stalwart 111 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC).
I removed the patent links from the external links section. As per WP:PATENTS "As a result, patents and patent applications are considered both self-published and primary sources for the Wikipedia's purposes." and "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery, especially for small businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to the existence of a patent." This does not mean that patent information should never be listed but in this case I do not see how it aids the reader in understanding anything about the subject in general and appears mostly to be a means for blocked sock puppet USER:unotretre to spam Wikipedia. SQGibbon ( talk) 12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Further on the above, "IT Patent RA2008U000012" does not appear to be a patent. RA2008U000012 looks more like a patent application published by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office and given the publication number RA2008U000012 (composed of a region code (RA), the year (2008), a letter code (U) indicating type of protection, and a serial number (000012) including zeros). See page 21. Other countries, such as the U.S., use seven numbers for their granted patents, (such as Strand's US Patent 5,833,252 and Chen's US Patent 6,419,249) and have separate patent application numbers (08/717,406 for Strand's US Patent 5,833,252, 09/909,495 for Chen's US Patent 6,419,249) and separate patent application publication numbers for those applications that are published. In general, patent applications are "applications" and do not offer patent rights. This page indicates that no prior art searches were carried out for Italian patent application filed before July 2008. A search of Grippaldi at espacenet.com show's Grippaldi patent applications were filed before July 2008 and does not appear to show any numbers of a granted patent. As noted at Patent prosecution#Invention registration, there is a significant difference between registering a patent application with no prior art search/examination and ones, such as US Patent 5,833,252 and US Patent 6,419,249, having a search and examination behind it. I do not think we can provide an external link in the Wikipedia article to RA2008U000012 per Wikipedia:External links. -- Jreferee ( talk) 11:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sock blocked.
|
---|
Nice you have found it, show the three links w the story indeed, at this point you are partying for Chen when you write "with no prior art search/examination": there's no public accessibility, but watching the history path of patents written, with full probability the patent includes a history art, like Chen did as well. The Italian classification is legit, see this (out of context) example
http://creativejournal.com/images/made/images/uploads/articles/2012-05/notchless-tape-dispenser-kikuchi-yasukuni-architects-3000_660_825_s.jpeg It means if another person (even an American) wants to place a patent, this link is a source, same search did Grippaldi, or who for this.
--
Bravone (
talk)
20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
Sock blocked.
|
---|
on following the controversy today, it is lame you still say you are logic, but SQGibbon restored again the part "The company (Freebord) patented the specific all-in-one truck design unique to Freebord brand freeboards." while we have seen neither the first, nor the second patent shows or claims an all-in-truck-design. It's evident even to a child you do not want to show Aldo Grippaldi or Gravitis designed the freeboard patent, and you have blocked both in blacklist with the excuse of legal threats, but what could one legally do different than repeat it? You should admit it and include Gravitis here who made for first the all-in-truck-design patent and spreaded the sport, and cancel the false sentence reported above here. Patents are written below here I paste them so you could see Freebord designed just a truck with two separate parts only, Gravitis just claims that:
-- Fb rider ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Just reverted the Wlfeclm editing as probably another sockuppet, btw after merging the Freebord page, this should not include Freebord sales data, as the article is about a sport: there are plety of brands, and Freebord is no more #1 in Europe-- Masterpiecez ( talk) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freeboard (skateboard) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to propose this page for deletion once again. Freeboard is a misspelling of the brand Freebord, and the contributor Unotere is the owner of a knockoff company in Italy. His entries are riddled with subjective language and outlandish, unsubstantiated claims.
Jahjahw ( talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The page created is about the sport thousands athletes spell like that: the user who said was a mispelling of a brand, has just modified it like a sport, so the page is accepted at last.
(Gravitis brand was mispelled like a company, while is a registered mark.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unotretre ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP keeps adding Gravitis to the article. As far as I can tell Gravitis is just one of any number of freeboard-style manufacturers so why should they be mentioned? If it is the only company that makes this type of board then that would be fine. If they do something different and notable then that would be fine also but in either case this needs to be documented with a secondary reliable source. Failing all that there is no reason to mention them except to promote the brand. SQGibbon ( talk) 08:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As written in the article Gravitis brought Asymmetric shapes, cambered boards for rails(not flat), compact trucks. Spin new wrapping bindings. Loko the widest decks. Not a question of brands, while to provide the widest panorama of this kind of board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unotretre ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that the content of Freebord be merged into this article. That content appears to relate to a subset of Freeboard and should be included here rather than being hived off into a separate article. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion (though there were few participants - 2, in fact) and the information that can be verified by reliable sources, I have merged Freebord into this article. By the way, I also merged a bunch of references from the Freebord article, though I removed some dead links, repeats and non- RS ones. If anyone has any strong objections to anything I've done, please leave a note on my talk page or raise them here. I undertook the merge boldly so I have no problem reversing it or working to resolve any resulting concerns. Cheers, Stalwart 111 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC).
I removed the patent links from the external links section. As per WP:PATENTS "As a result, patents and patent applications are considered both self-published and primary sources for the Wikipedia's purposes." and "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery, especially for small businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to the existence of a patent." This does not mean that patent information should never be listed but in this case I do not see how it aids the reader in understanding anything about the subject in general and appears mostly to be a means for blocked sock puppet USER:unotretre to spam Wikipedia. SQGibbon ( talk) 12:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Further on the above, "IT Patent RA2008U000012" does not appear to be a patent. RA2008U000012 looks more like a patent application published by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office and given the publication number RA2008U000012 (composed of a region code (RA), the year (2008), a letter code (U) indicating type of protection, and a serial number (000012) including zeros). See page 21. Other countries, such as the U.S., use seven numbers for their granted patents, (such as Strand's US Patent 5,833,252 and Chen's US Patent 6,419,249) and have separate patent application numbers (08/717,406 for Strand's US Patent 5,833,252, 09/909,495 for Chen's US Patent 6,419,249) and separate patent application publication numbers for those applications that are published. In general, patent applications are "applications" and do not offer patent rights. This page indicates that no prior art searches were carried out for Italian patent application filed before July 2008. A search of Grippaldi at espacenet.com show's Grippaldi patent applications were filed before July 2008 and does not appear to show any numbers of a granted patent. As noted at Patent prosecution#Invention registration, there is a significant difference between registering a patent application with no prior art search/examination and ones, such as US Patent 5,833,252 and US Patent 6,419,249, having a search and examination behind it. I do not think we can provide an external link in the Wikipedia article to RA2008U000012 per Wikipedia:External links. -- Jreferee ( talk) 11:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sock blocked.
|
---|
Nice you have found it, show the three links w the story indeed, at this point you are partying for Chen when you write "with no prior art search/examination": there's no public accessibility, but watching the history path of patents written, with full probability the patent includes a history art, like Chen did as well. The Italian classification is legit, see this (out of context) example
http://creativejournal.com/images/made/images/uploads/articles/2012-05/notchless-tape-dispenser-kikuchi-yasukuni-architects-3000_660_825_s.jpeg It means if another person (even an American) wants to place a patent, this link is a source, same search did Grippaldi, or who for this.
--
Bravone (
talk)
20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
Sock blocked.
|
---|
on following the controversy today, it is lame you still say you are logic, but SQGibbon restored again the part "The company (Freebord) patented the specific all-in-one truck design unique to Freebord brand freeboards." while we have seen neither the first, nor the second patent shows or claims an all-in-truck-design. It's evident even to a child you do not want to show Aldo Grippaldi or Gravitis designed the freeboard patent, and you have blocked both in blacklist with the excuse of legal threats, but what could one legally do different than repeat it? You should admit it and include Gravitis here who made for first the all-in-truck-design patent and spreaded the sport, and cancel the false sentence reported above here. Patents are written below here I paste them so you could see Freebord designed just a truck with two separate parts only, Gravitis just claims that:
-- Fb rider ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Just reverted the Wlfeclm editing as probably another sockuppet, btw after merging the Freebord page, this should not include Freebord sales data, as the article is about a sport: there are plety of brands, and Freebord is no more #1 in Europe-- Masterpiecez ( talk) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)