Talk:Freeboard (skateboard)

Proposed deletion

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)

Mentioning Gravitis in the article

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)

OK, good, but now we need independent reliable secondary sources to support the claim and to establish that it is significant. Also, adding all those links is still just spamming the article. SQGibbon (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

According to your edit you are claiming that the Millionaire.it source supports your claim "Shapes have twin tip design but no kicktails like skateboards do: the asymmetric shape by Gravitis enhances the rider's stance because freeboards ride with bindings to stay firm on footprint" but I see no mention of that in the article. Is there another source you're thinking about because that's the only one I see. Also, please read WP:COI. SQGibbon (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Based on the 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. Freebord is a brand - the brand name used by the "developer" of the original freeboard. The history of the Freebord brand is a significant part of any article about freeboarding generally (the activity using a freeboard of any brand). While much of the terminology and popularity would have developed as a result of the take-up of original Freebord brand freeboards, it remains the case that freeboards and freeboarding are now bigger that the "original" brand. Without re-hashing all of the same information over again (on the basis that Freebord-brand freeboarding is somehow different to non-Freebord-brand freeboarding), any article that deals with the company on its own will likely suffer from WP:PROMO and WP:N issues. From the history of the Freebord article, one can see that certainly was the case. Having an article about freeboards that included the Freebord brand and history, then, seemed like a better idea than an article about the brand that included information about its competitors' products, which it would need to do to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues. Stalwart111 01:22, 17 December 2012 (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)

• Strong support There's clearly no good reason for these to be separate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment From what I can tell Freebord is a company that makes Freebords (and was the first to do so?). As a company they might be notable and deserving of an article. If that's the case then the Freebord article should be rewritten to just discuss the company and then link here for the article about freeboards in general. SQGibbon (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merged

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, Stalwart111 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

External links and patents

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)

(Paraphrased from your talk page) - I have no problem with them being included, nor do I have a problem with them not being included. I had a problem with them being used to replace reliably sourced content with shouted claims about REAL DATA. I suppose if they add some useful info (which I think you could argue they do with proper links added) then there's no harm having them there. But I'm probably 50/50 on the matter. I think it's a little different because they are patents from different people, rather than just one. It might help some understand the timeline. But yes, it has been a constant focus for promo-spammers. Stalwart111 12:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(Paraphrased from your talk page): Since there is no context provided for these patents and since they were inserted by a blocked user and given what I said above about WP:PATENTS and as per WP:EVADE, I think it's best to remove them. If someone were to provide a discussion on the patent issue from a reliable source then maybe linking directly to the patents might be useful, but as it stands it's just a form of spamming by that editor and does not really help the reader gain a general understanding of the subject (who is actually going to read patents associated with a product in order to gain a better general understanding of that product?). SQGibbon (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue with that logic! Stalwart111 13:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved the patents from the body of the article to address Stalwart111's concerns and added them to a external links section as being the only place left where they could be in the article as a way to help diffuse the situation noted at ANI. None of the patents are links to an official page of the article's Freeboard (skateboard) topic and they are only indirectly related to the article's subject (see WP:ELNO #13). The Wikipedia article should be reflective of the topic, not a source to cause those in the business of selling freeboards to feel that their company is missing out if not represented in the article. Thre's no reason to keep the patents in the external links section. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I didn't have a problem, per se, with the patents being mentioned. I had a problem with them being cut-pasted into the article in place of sourced content. But having had some time to consider everything, it seems like consensus is that they shouldn't be included at all and that position has been well explained. Nice work all - thanks for helping out. Stalwart111 13:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gravitis and RA2008U000012

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) Strand is named here, but Grippaldi claims the unique truck design, Strand never speaks of a freeboard in his patent except a sliding-roller-board, even Chen writes of a roller board. Grippaldi has brought it, the freeboard term of the sport we know, the first online mag, further brands, that's known worldwide. Simply the US Gov passed the Chen patent before Strand could update it, Chen maintained separate in his patent, axles & pivot caster and Grippaldi claims this ultimate truck revision, looks like you dont' want to show the European Gravitis the had merit to make it become a sport while everybody knows it.--Bravone (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Demands from sock-puppet

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: November, 10 1998 - US Patent 5,833,252 Steen Strand patented the 'Lateral sliding roller board'. A roller board made of, a (wooden) deck, two roller turning unit, two SEPARATE pivoting units. Jul, 16 2002 - US Patent 6,419,249 B1 Sheng-Huan Chen patented the 'Roller board with a pivoting roller unit (..)' still two turning roller trucks and two separate pivoting units. April, 11 2008 - IT Patent RA2008U000012 Aldo Grippaldi patented the 'freeboard' using two trucks which have, in a UNIQUE part a turning axle and a pivot unit. --Fb rider (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I even checked the http://freebord.com/about/ reference in the page, and they obviously do not show the date of patent registration (1998), never says "freeboard" which Aldo claims, and this wiki page is totally wrong because you write freeboard, while Strand (Freebord) referred to a Roller Board, not yet a freeboard. Even the following patent owner Mr Chen, wrote of a Roller Board. The renowned thing is Aldo Grippaldi the first to legit use the freeboard term, Freebord still calls their boards as freebords: this page must be completely changed to me. --Fb rider (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I changed the wording in the section about patents to be less specific. Hopefully now it's not making any controversial claims. The rest of your arguments are based on original research which are not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. You need to supply reliable sources who discuss these point in detail before we include them in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC) You did a good step, but not enought, because it is still written "Steen Strand conceived the idea for a freeboard" while he concieved a Roller Board, written in all his patent. Same for the following patent. Then again "After developing the freeboard in 1996" it is false, you must include the story of the Roller Board through the patents until Grippaldi 'freeboard' one. Today it is worldwide known that the patent, the use of the word "freeboard" and the promotion of the sport through new types of Bindings and Wheels, and by the Freeworld magazine (use archive.org for "Freeworldmagazine.com and see the WR db in 2007-2008), has been brought by Grippaldi. You are still showing only one brand (advertising) and hide the only company who brought the word 'freeboard', different stuff, and made freeboard become a sport through a magazine, Gravitis. This page is all about freeboard, not about a sliding Roller Board, anymore, the story is uncomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fb rider (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC) It is evident that Strand placed a patent in 1996-7, was registered in 1998 as "Roller board sliding", the newly formed Freebord Mfg could update his patent with all-in-truck-designs, but Mr Chen in 1998 had his Patent approved by US Gov, using a different cam but still about trucks with separate pivoting units. In 2008 Grippaldi placed a patent claiming unique truck design, and Freebord or any other company can not patent the same design anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fb rider (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC) You need to stop. It is obvious this is a sock-puppetry account of an account previously blocked for sock puppetry and for making legal threats. You need to resolve those issues before you make demands of other editors. Your account is obviously going to be blocked so there's no pint discussing this with you. Apologise for the sock-puppetry, withdraw the legal threats and commit to editing properly and you might be allowed to contribute here. Until then, enjoy your block. Stalwart111 21:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC) How can one withdraws the legal threats if you continue to formulate a false history path? One would but can you understand what it's meant? The history is is false reported, or if you prefer, it is uncomplete.--Fb rider (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC) You would need to log back in as your original account (User:Unotretre), or at least the account that was blocked yesterday, and apply for an unblock. Stalwart111 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding contents

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)

Another sock-puppet of which account? Stalwart111 22:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly what you were suggesting is that Wlfeclm was a sock-puppet supporter of the company Freebord, trying to insert mentions of that company into the article. Lucky you were around to create an account only minutes later to revert that edit, stop the evil folks at Freeboard and defend the honour of Wikipedia! Well, at least that would be the case if it were not for the fact that...

Wlfeclm = Masterpiecez = Unotretre = Gravitis

That's right folks, Wlfeclm and Masterpiecez (who reverted him) are one in the same - another Unotretre/Gravitis sock. This time with good-hand/bad-hand accounts trying to suggest that representatives of a competitor company were guilty of sock-puppetry - something 9 Unotretre/Gravitis socks have now been blocked for (in addition to multiple breaches of WP:NLT). Epic fail. Stalwart111 05:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)