User talk:108.48.147.41

April 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop restoring "your version" of this article. There are many problems with it and you need to engage in a discussion on the article talk page. MB 03:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What type of problems? It's providing valuable information about the park, and the current version is missing important information. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

For starters, the tone is extremely unencyclopedic. It's written like a personal narrative. An article should be a formal summary of a subject, not a rambling conversation.

You have restored "your version" again. You do not have WP:CONSENSUS for this version. Multiple editors have removed it. You are now WP:EDITWARRING and this will lead to being blocked if you continue. Furthermore, since you have not edited any other article, it gives the appearance that you have a Conflict of Interest. What is your connection with this park? MB 04:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a fan that enjoys the park and has done a lot of research on it. I recently noticed the Wikipedia page, and decided I should put in important facts about the park, as well as the history of it. Not to mention, the older version that was there before I edited it was missing a bunch info and history of the park, had outdated information, and was missing a few rides from the ride list. I organized the chart to make it easier to understand while also making sure it was providing informative info about the park. Isn't that the whole purpose of Wikipedia? 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If the main problem is that it's unencyclopedic, can you just edit the current version to make it sound better, while keeping all the important information there? If possible, I think we should add a picture of how it looks now. I wasn't able to do that as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I currently don't have an account. The only reason I removed the old picture is because it was how it looked in 1985, not how it looks now. It looks way different now than it did in 1985. My intent was to provide helpful information, and also to hopefully gather the interests of people that didn't know about the park, so they could check it out for themselves. It's not a conflict of interests as I never worked for them per say, but I like to promote the place as I think it's a great place and more people deserve to learn about it. Especially in these times with inflation being so high and everything being so expensive. Why not go to a park where people don't have to break the bank in order to have a good time? I would've commented in the page's talk page, but I couldn't figure out how to comment on it, so sorry bout that. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit again, because you have not addressed the issues brought up by me and multiple editors. Here are some of the issues:

• The ticket section is entirely unnecessary. If readers are interested in the ticket prices of the amusement park, they can just visit the website. The article does not have to contain every single detail about the park.
• The haunted mansion section.
  • One of the sources you cited is a user review board. The guideline is that user-generated sources, such as user reviews, are unreliable sources.
  • There is an unnecessary level of detail in this section. Not everyone is interested in every single detail of the ride's operation. In addition, it looks to be original research
  • The use of the pronoun you is discouraged as it's unencyclopedic

Please obtain consensus by discussing your planned changes with other editors in the talk page. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any way to chat on the talk page for it. I've looked multiple times. The ticket page on the website only shows current pricing not past pricing, so that's why I included the book as the source for that section. I'll go through and remove some stuff that isn't necessary from the Haunted Mansion section and remove the source of the review board. I had included that to show it's appeal to the general public, but I think the other sources are good enough. Thanks for the list. I'll make the corrections. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

On the top of the talk page, there should be a tab called "new section". You can make a new discussion by using that tab. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see it. What should I call it? 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I tried to make it, don't see any way to respond though, hopefully I did it correctly. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your comment, a reply link won't appear unless you sign. A bot has signed your comment, so you don't have to do it. In the talk page you should address the changes you want to make, give information about what you want to add. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, doing that now. Let me know if I did it satisfactory after I post it. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I posted it. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Your recent editing history at Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm currently looking into other parks to see what they say as far as schedules. I will follow that formula for Funland after I finish conducting my research. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Back from your edit warring block, and 10 minutes after the article protection ends you restore the content yet again... Meters (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You were told on the article's talk page not to restore the contested version even if you intended to later change it. You ignored that. You have already been blocked for edit warring over this material. I'm not going to let you restore it again with a vague promise to deal with the problems later. Copy to a sandbox and work on it there. Meters (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, restoring is needed in order to incorporate important information on the the park. Talking on talk page doesn’t do any good when no other editor knows what’s important and what’s not. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I was RECOMMENDED, NOT TOLD NOT TO!! There’s a BIG difference. Anyways, anybody can edit this page, as long as it’s unblocked. Blocking does nothing as there are plenty of ways around it. Keeping page protected forever is not a smart option either. Keep in mind, we can see whenever protected expires so each time it ends, it WILL be restored if needed. Focus on editing something you’re knowledgeable on and stop trolling on other peoples expertise and what they are passionate bout. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

After you restored the content yet again, the article is now protected again, for two months this time. Stating tht you will continue to edit war, and that you will sock if necessary is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that none of you seem to know anything bout the park, and people that don't know anything bout a subject, can't judge what's important bout the

subject in question. It's nothing personal, it's just technical. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:108.48.147.41 reported by User:Fehufanga (Result: ). Thank you. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 108.48.147.41. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I know the owner as I’ve met them before, no conflict of interest though. Never worked there, just a fan of the park. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Edit warring at Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Don’t think block is warranted due to I’m just making sure important information bout the park is kept in article. The Haunted Mansion is the ride they’re most well known for. Other editors have never heard of or been to the park and only know stuff based on the article. I know the park very well and know what info is important to the park. This ride is ranked in the top 10 in the world. That’s why the walkthrough is important. More than happy to omit it, if Funland says they’d like it not to be there, otherwise, it needs to stay. I’m more than happy to ask Funland, if you’d like. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(a) We don't source our articles based on personal knowledge, yours or anyone else's.

(b) It is not up to Funland what goes in the Wikipedia article about them. We use whatever coverage Funland has received in reliable sources.

These matters need the consensus of editors to decide. You have been making a steady stream of reverts which suggests that few people agree with you about the importance of your material. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. All the sources I've included in my article updates have been real sources, from the internet, the book written about the park. as well as a ride through of the Haunted Mansion which I filmed myself last year. What they keep removing is The Haunted Mansion section claiming it's not important. The reason it's important is because it's ranked in the top 10 in the world. This is also the ride that Funland is known for. The other editors don't know this info as they've likely never heard of the park till reading this article. They've most certainly haven't done any research on The Haunted Mansion to confirm what I'm saying is true either, even though I've put multiple sources in providing evidence of it. I even removed a source that they requested I remove. I figured since they think it's useless and I think it's important for the article. That's why I figured I could ask Funland if they even want that in the article, as they might very well not. If they said they'd prefer not to have it in there as they think it could ruin their business, then I'd respect that and remove the ride through section all together. The Tickets section has also been being removed. I think this is important due to no other park (that I'm aware of) has tickets anywhere near how much tickets costed here when they opened and especially now. I'm not trying to cause problems, but in this case, I feel like it's people that know nothing about the park, trying to remove stuff from an article that was edited by a fan of the park that knows what they're talking bout. You at least see where I'm coming from? It's almost impossible to get consensus from a group of people that know LITTERALLY nothing about Funland or its history. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Hello IP. I have followed the ongoing discussions on Talk:Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) and am concerned with the language that is being used with editors from this series of edits. I want to urge you to please read WP:CIVILITY, as the discussion is no longer progressing towards a consensus. A lot of what was mentioned in the diff is repeated from previous comments made, and shows not assuming good faith. I am reaching out to you as a final line to please consider other editors more kindly, build consensus based on what they are suggesting, and understand Wikipedia's policies about encyclopedic article writing from the talk page discussion. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I agree with you that little to know progress is being in the talk thread. With that being, I've been trying to provide them with the sources they've requested to confirm everything that I've said is true. I also agree that it has gotten pretty hostile over there. I don't feel like I'm alone though, as I feel it it's coming from other editors as well. Honestly though, I'm not concerned about making potential enemies with other editors, my goal is to make the Funland gets the respect and credit its earned and deserves. So, if in order to accomplish that goal, I have to make enemies with other editors, and be the last man standing, I'm cool with that. I'm aware this could go on indefinitely, but i'm in this for the long haul. I know it's not gonna be anytime soon, but eventually I'm confident that the correct version of the article will stand. Even if that means no other editor is even paying attention to the page.

As for the good faith part, I have good faith that my knowledge of the park is correct, but don't have much if any for most of my current competition as none of them seem to believe any of the stuff I've been saying or providing evidence of. It seems they just don't care bout facts. They just want it to look as short and undetailed as possible, and that's wrong. Aren't articles supposed to be informative, not bland? I admit I've seen a few articles that are bland on here, but they are very far and few between, so if I'm mistaken here, please correct me. Thanks again for reaching out, and I'm sorry this isn't reaching the goal both of us wanted it to. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Making enemies is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. Wikipedia is not about making enemies. It is not a battleground. It is not about winning an edit war. Continuing to see this dispute as a battleground will do nobody any good. Please, stop treating this as a battleground. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I WANT to make potential enemies, cause if I have choice, I'd RATHER NOT, as it doesn't do anybody any good. I'm just saying you gotta pick and choose what's more important, making sure the article is accurate, or making sure you get along or have a good relationship with other editors. Ideally, both would be the preferred answer to this situation, however that isn't always possible, as it appears apparent in this particular case. Therefore, it seems I'm gonna have no choice and am gonna have to pick which is more important unfortunately. Hopefully I'm wrong on this though. I'd be happier if I am.

With all of these being said, if I was just trying to make enemies, you think I would've taken the time to cite all the sources in the original article I edited? No, I would've just put in the information and likely not sourced much if any of it. Citing sources isn't exactly quick and will the sources I had to MANUALLY put in all the information takes a lot of time, and it took me forever to get all of them in there. Not even kidding with that. On top of that, you really think if I wanted to make enemies, I would've taken the time to put even more sources in the talk page when everybody is questioning everything I'm saying bout the park? I've been trying to take the time prove myself that I'm not putting in nonsense into the article, and nobody seems to be taking it seriously. I do appreciate you at least asking for more sources to backup my statements, and Adog as well. Both you and Adog have been for the most part pretty polite bout this whole thing. Please know that this hasn't gone unnoticed. Seems like you at least are trying to understand why I'm putting all this in. It just feels like nobody cares about the truth and facts being in this article and that we're not getting anywhere hence why I'm at where I'm at. I don't wanna be like this, but it's kinda like I feel like I don't really have a choice. It's sad, but it's how I feel truthfully.

On top of this, due to this fight that we're all in the middle of, the article here is the main victim as since the last big edit, it's now heavily outta date. The parks has now opened for a big anniversary, ticket pricing has changed yet again, and some ride information is also out of date as a few rides aren't back, plus a new ride is coming shortly. I was planning on fixing all of this myself when I overhauled the page, but now that's not even possible. Part of the reason I was waiting for a bit to do so was due to the fact that I was waiting for a source about the new ride to be published so I could use it to confirm what I would be saying. I figured that without the source, it would just be hearsay which I'm assuming wouldn't be acceptable as such I was waiting till it was up so I could backup my statement. So this big dispute between all of us, doesn't just hurt and or annoy us, it also hurts the article and people who might hear bout the park online or stumble across the page, and wanna learn more about the park. Without the up to date information though, they don't get that. It really seems counterproductive if I'm being honest to say the least. It's also why I don't even know why we're all arguing on it on the first place. We should all be focused on the same goal, not focused on fighting each other. This is what is so bewildering about this. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Hope you’ll are happy as now Funland won’t get the credit it deserves. At least for now. We’ll see if it ever becomes unblocked again. Just cause I can’t edit doesn’t mean I can’t keep an eye on when or if protection ever ends. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You will not be allowed to disrupt the encyclopedia. Period. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the information, however I"m not trying to do any malice or ill will. Just wanting to make sure impportant info bout the park remains in the article. Also, not sure why my IP has changed. I did't do anything to change my IP, so that's sorta weird. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

You have been blocked from editing for three months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition, because of your behavior, Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) has been semi-protected indefinitely. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. It’s a shame Funland won’t get the credit it deserves at least for now. I’ll keep an eye on the page to see when or if it ever gets unblocked. Rest assured it’ll be updated if it ever is. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And that's why you're blocked and the page is protected. Meters (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And continuing to sock to say that you will continue to sock and edit war is not a good idea [1] Meters (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Never said it was. Just putting the facts out there that you can delay, but you can’t prevent the inevitable. Also FYI, VPNs are used for solely for this purpose hence why blocks without having a user account are practically impossible to enforce. So they’re basically useless. Funny enough though, I’ve not even had to use VPNs for this up to this point, goes to show how easy a block is to overcome. See how silly this war is? Of course protected pages are a different story. Not sure if those are possible to overcome. I doubt it, but with the page being protected indefinitely, I guess I’ll have to do my research and see if it’s possible. I personally don’t think I’ll be able to bypass that, but time will tell. For now though, I got bigger things to worry bout than this page, so I’m likely not gonna put in much effort into the research. We’ll see though. Maybe I’ll change my mind. As of now though, I doubt it. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just did some minor research for the heck of it, and as expected I don’t see anything on how to bypas that, so as expected I don’t think that is possible. So I guess I just gotta wait for the page to potentially unlock eventually. Till then, I’ll be lurking and ready to pounce when the time comes. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Because you continue to threaten to disrupt the encyclopedia, I have revoked your talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever, it's not like I can do anything now anyways with the page being protected for the time being. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You are evading your block. You are not allowed to edit using any IP or named account until your block ends. See WP:BLOCKEVASION Meters (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to then, and not trying to now either. IP addresses keep changing, that's why blocking IP addresses doesn't really do much good. I'm not even trying to evade and get around it. Imagine if I was. Just goes to show how stupid this whole thing is. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---