We show the documents
The original photographs, videos of the repairs, communications with Henan Dinis representatives, Alibaba’s own messages, records of the dispute process, correspondence with Rackhost, and independent Dutch press coverage.
We do not ask readers simply to believe us. We present the documents and let readers draw their own conclusions.
1. What did we order – and what did we receive?
Click the image for the full-size view. On mobile, tap to open it.
During receipt of the equipment and preparation for commissioning, we documented numerous problems. The images below show only a small selection.
2. Bodywork and construction issues
The photographs show the condition documented after receipt of the delivered equipment. We are not publishing every defect, but representative examples that can be readily verified.
3. The “finished unit” shown to us was not the specific unit that was delivered
Before shipment, Henan Dinis sent us a photograph of the finished equipment. On the unit actually delivered, the same clearly identifiable detail is different.
Comparison of the two original photographs shows that the physical unit presented as the “finished unit” and the unit actually delivered to us are not the same.
4. Welding workmanship
We do not intend to draw conclusions about structural strength or make expert findings based solely on photographs where a technical examination would be required. We show the original condition.
5. Electrical system and protective earthing
The electrical installation was one of our most serious concerns. During inspection, in addition to the way the electrical connections had been made, we found that the equipment had no protective earthing.
During commissioning, we had to rewire the electrical connections and rework part of the electrical system.
Original condition → after modification
The two upper images document the condition at delivery. Below them are two details of the electrical system after modification.
Absence of protective earthing. The overview image above, crossed out in red, documents that when we inspected the delivered electrical system we found no protective earthing. Because this is electrically powered equipment used by people and incorporating a substantial metal structure, we regarded this as an extremely serious safety deficiency. We therefore carried out the necessary electrical safety modifications before commissioning.
6. The photographs shown represent only a small part of the documentation
The photographs shown on this page do not represent the full range of problems identified.
The photographic and documentary material in our possession is substantially more extensive. We also documented some of the repairs and modifications on video, and we retain the complete written correspondence with the Henan Dinis salesperson.
7. What did Henan Dinis itself say in response?
From this point onward, our primary purpose is no longer to present our own assessment. Henan Dinis’s own correspondence will be presented chronologically: what it acknowledged, what solutions and compensation it proposed, what promises were made, and what ultimately came of them.
The correspondence below is reproduced in full so that the sender, date, subject and complete wording can be read in their original context.
Brain Niu’s first message to us on 5 September 2025 was sent on behalf of Henan Dinis Entertainment, but it came from info@sxfertilizermachine.com. Alibaba’s own AI Mode associates this address with Zhengzhou Shunxin Engineering Equipment Co., Ltd. and identifies Brain Niu as a manager/contact person of that company.
We draw no conclusion from this; we simply document the detail.
8. And what did Alibaba do?
This story is no longer solely about Henan Dinis. Alibaba’s own dispute-resolution system was aware of the case. In 2023, we posted a one-star review on Alibaba describing in detail the technical and safety problems we had experienced.
Our review published on Alibaba and the response it received
The two screenshots below are parts of the same documented communication. The first shows the beginning of the review we published; the second shows its continuation, the relevant part of the Alibaba Trade Dispute Mediation Department message, and Alice Zhao’s public response dated 7 December 2023 For this reason, we publish the two images together so that the full context can be understood.
Nearly three years later, the important question is not whether we are satisfied. The question is: what actual protection can a European business expect from Alibaba when it has a documented problem with a supplier operating on the platform?
The most important questions are still ahead — especially if you work in this industry.
What follows changes the perspective of this case: independent press coverage, further documented correspondence, and — most importantly — Alibaba’s own current and historical records.
9. The case reached the Dutch press in 2024
The article covered the Flying Car, our documented complaints, and the dispute with Henan Dinis. The publication also used our own delivery photograph as the lead image.
Looopings – 4 May 2024
Article title:
“Entrepreneur publicly denounces Chinese amusement-ride manufacturer: ‘They build killing machines!’”
Why this matters: readers do not need to leave this page to verify that the case received independent European press coverage. The original article remains available as a source link below for those who wish to read it in full.
The most important update today is remarkably simple: nearly three years later, the case remains unresolved.
Open the original Dutch article →
Note: some browsers or privacy/ad-blocking extensions may prevent the Looopings page from loading correctly. The essential publication details are therefore reproduced above on this page.
10. Henan Dinis also contacted the hosting provider
Henan Dinis contacted the Hungarian hosting provider regarding the content of henan-dinis.com. The site was temporarily restricted. After the content was modified, Rackhost reviewed the site again and stated in writing that, in its then-current form, it did not violate its General Terms and Conditions. Following a later renewed complaint, the provider asked the complainant to identify precisely which current content it objected to.
The two original Rackhost emails below document the sequence directly: the initial hosting-provider notice, followed by Rackhost’s later review of the modified website.
The initial hosting-provider notice — 21 August 2025
This original Hungarian-language email records that Rackhost received a complaint concerning henan-dinis.com and instructed the site operator to remove the disputed content or make the site unavailable, otherwise the service would be suspended.
Rackhost’s subsequent review — 27 August 2025
After reviewing the modified website, Rackhost stated in writing that, in its then-current form, the site no longer violated its Terms and Conditions and asked the complainant to identify precisely which current content it still considered objectionable.
11. The real questions for European buyers
The questions are: what actual protection can a European business expect from Alibaba when it has a documented problem with a supplier operating on the platform?
And there is another question that directly affects every prospective buyer: what can a buyer actually find out about Henan Dinis today when researching the company on Alibaba before deciding whether to do business with it?
At the time documented below, Henan Dinis Entertainment Equipment Co., Ltd. is presented on Alibaba with an overall rating of 5.0/5, “Very satisfied”, based on just one visible review.
How can a supplier with such a long operating history — including its earlier presence as J.S. Carnival — now have only one visible review? How can this be reconciled with earlier Alibaba records in our possession, which showed substantially more reviews, including a significant number rated three stars or below, as well as our own documented one-star review?
Were they removed, archived or reset?
Are they associated with a different supplier profile?
How can a new buyer discover this earlier rating and complaint history if it is not apparent when evaluating the supplier today?
And, particularly for a European business thousands of kilometres from the supplier, what does Alibaba’s buyer protection mean in practice when a documented dispute occurs?
If the supplier profile, public-facing name or Alibaba subdomain changed over time, what happens to the earlier review history? Does it remain visible and traceable to a prospective buyer?
Which Alibaba history should a prospective buyer rely on: 4 years or 10 years — and 1, 3, 8, or 13 documented ratings/reviews? How many reviews should a buyer actually be looking for — and where can the complete review history be found?
If these pages represent different supplier profiles, how are those profiles connected, and where can a buyer see the complete review history across them?
At this point, how is an Alibaba buyer supposed to reconstruct the supplier’s actual history?
The documented Alibaba pages no longer present a single, readily understandable picture. A buyer can encounter different subdomains and supplier presentations, different stated years on the platform, different numbers of reviews and a historical rating record that is not visible in the current displays shown here. Without a clear link between these records, the supplier’s status on Alibaba becomes practically impossible for an outside buyer to reconstruct from the platform itself.
We do not claim to know why Alibaba currently displays these different records, nor do we claim that a name, profile or subdomain change caused earlier reviews to disappear from view. What we can document is that the platform currently presents multiple, materially different snapshots of the supplier’s history. We therefore ask Alibaba to explain how these profiles, platform-age indicators and review histories are connected, and where a prospective buyer can see the complete record.
Alibaba currently displays reviews of this supplier dating back to September 2023. The screenshot below shows reviews dated 17 September 2023.
Our documented one-star review was created on 1 December 2023. Why is that review no longer visible among the supplier’s current reviews?
Current profile: js-rides.en.alibaba.com
The current Alibaba supplier profile is hosted under the address js-rides.en.alibaba.com, while the company name shown on the page is Henan Dinis Entertainment Equipment Co., Ltd. The profile also displays “Verified Multispecialty Supplier”, “10yrs” and “Verified by Intertek”.
This raises an additional question: does the current js-rides profile represent the same supplier history that Alibaba itself presents as having 10 years on the platform? If so, why does a supplier with that history currently show only one visible review?
Alibaba supplier search: 4 years, 4.8/5 and 3 reviews
In another current Alibaba view, a Henan Dinis supplier result is shown with “4 yrs” on the platform and a rating of 4.8/5 based on 3 reviews.
At first sight, this appears difficult to reconcile with the current js-rides company profile that displays “10yrs”, and with the separate rating page that shows 5.0/5 based on only one visible review.
dinis.en.alibaba.com: 4.8/5 from 3 reviews
A further current Alibaba page adds another layer to an already difficult-to-follow supplier history. On the dinis.en.alibaba.com feedback page, Henan Dinisi Entertainment is displayed with an overall rating of 4.8/5 based on 3 reviews.
The visible breakdown shows two 5-star supplier-service ratings and one 4-star rating, with no 3-, 2- or 1-star supplier-service ratings displayed on this page.
Viewed together with the other documented Alibaba pages, the status of this supplier has become extremely difficult for a prospective buyer to follow: different Alibaba pages display different platform ages, different review totals and different rating histories.
Current Alibaba rating shown for Henan Dinis
The current screenshot shows 5.0/5, “Very satisfied”, one review and 100% five-star feedback.
These figures are displayed by Alibaba in connection with the same supplier, yet they present materially different histories of the company’s age and customer feedback.
Earlier rating summary preserved from 2023
This earlier screenshot shows a 4.0/5 overall rating and 13 ratings in total: 8 five-star, 2 three-star, 2 two-star and 1 one-star rating.
It was published on Alibaba and is reproduced above in Section 8 together with the Alibaba Trade Dispute Mediation communication and Alice Zhao’s public response.
If a prospective customer cannot readily determine from Alibaba itself which profile contains the complete supplier history, which review total is comprehensive, or how the older ratings relate to the current profiles, what can that customer realistically rely on? And what protection and transparency can an Alibaba buyer — particularly a European business purchasing from a supplier thousands of kilometres away — expect when a documented dispute later arises?
12. Nearly three years later
We did not create this page to campaign against Chinese businesses in general. We are publishing the documents: photographs, videos, correspondence, Henan Dinis’s own responses, Alibaba’s own communications, and independent European press coverage.
And the fact that the case remains unresolved nearly three years later.
The matter can still be resolved
If Henan Dinis or Alibaba offers a substantive solution to resolve the matter, we will document it on this page with the same objectivity with which we have presented the events to date.