Talk:Mount Waterman

	Sports portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Looks like the purchase was already made pending forestry service license renewal. you can see the complete article dated March 30th at www.pe.com.

{Newcombe assembled a group that appears ready to oblige. "They're just a bunch of long-time Waterman skiers with money" is how he characterizes the saviors. Newcombe expects he and his group will be in control of the property after June 1. He also expects them to win permission from the Forest Service to operate it unmolested for two decades.

"As long as we get the thing running properly, we should get a 20-year permit," he said.}

Great job on this page by the way...this is a bit of ski history that needs to be preserved.

--12.9.33.203 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is John Burr and how is he going about starting this foundation. I would like to see it happen.

Tom Moriarty TomMoriarty@HomeSmart-Inland.com 951-445-3625

Permit

No, I talked to the cartakers who live on the hill(June 4), they say that it has not been sold yet and talks havent really started. I got so much information from them, people should go up and talk to them for I cant remember everything they said

Article title: "Mt." vs "Mount"

Why was the article moved to "Mt. Waterman"? The standard naming convention is to spell out abbreviations. No other mountains are named "Mt.". See [[1]]. -Will Beback · † · 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, as written, should probably be at "Mt. Waterman Ski Resort", or whatever the name of the operation is going to be. "Mount Waterman" should probably be used for the mountain itself. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name for the mountain is Waterman Mountain. There is another page for that name

Aha, so there is, Waterman Mountain. I've re-written the intro to clarify that. That still leaves us with the question of what to name this article. -Will Beback · † · 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've settled that, I'm inclined to move this article back to "Mount Waterman". Wikipedia avoids abbreviations, even in article titles. Any objections? -Will Beback · † · 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION!, the name is, always was, and hopefully always will be Mt. Waterman, NOT Mount, Mt. Waterman Mountain is the name of mountain the resort is situated on. If you guys think its "Mount" than how do you explain http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1325348310038509881LRFYuh%7Cthis picture]? AND Waterman's OFFICIAL ski patrol website?

NewcombHwy2 · 5:51 PST, 8 January 2007, Location - Los Angeles County

I can't see the picture (the webpage has exceeded its quota), but I presume it's a sign that is spelled "Mt. Waterman". Wikipedia avoids using abbreviations whenever possible. When spoken, the name of the place is always "mount waterman", not "m t waterman." This is equivalent to "Main St." - the name of the thoroughfare is really "Main Street", no matter how often it is abbreviated "Main St." Do we have any solid source for what the new owners are calling the ski area and/or the new corporation. Please stop moving the article until this is settled. Page moves of the type your doing are potentially harmful to the system. -Will Beback · † · 02:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Trails Mag Waterman.jpg

Image:Trails Mag Waterman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Waterman web site

Pleae visit our new web site www.skiwaterman.com for current information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.28.232 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website seems to be defunct (October, 2020). Desoto10 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mount Waterman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]