User talk:108.56.217.110

Funland

In response to my declining your request to unprotect Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware), you wrote:

“ Thank you for your consideration on this matter. While I respoect your decision, can you please elaborate a bit on why the page can't be unprotected? I'm a bit confused based on the fact that in the above, you stated that this article currently lacks "some good content". I'd also like to point out that if you look at the article's talk page between editor 108.48.147.41 and users with accounts, it seems fairly evident me that most of, if not all of the users involved in the edit war that cause the page to be protected in the first place, admitted they knew very little to nothing about the park prior to reading the article. My point is, and I mean this with no disrespect intended, how do you expect people that no very minimal to nothing about a given subject, to be able to edit the page to include up to date information on the subject? I don't see any logical rationale to that. Hence why I think it should've been unprotected. I'm not trying to argue or cause problems here, I'm just trying to understand the situation better, so I applogize if this came off the wrong way. Thanks again for your consideration. 108.56.217.110 (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC) ”

My response is: Because we have had significant disruption from other people at your internet service provider, and attempts to disrupt have been detected even after the page was protected, and the disruptive editor swore to continue disrupting the article the moment protection is lifted, it is best for the protection to remain. The only way that an anonymous IP address can get a change made to the article is to request it on Talk:Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware). Do that, and your proposal will be considered.

Furthermore, Wikipedia should report only what is stated about a topic in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Therefore, knowledge about the topic is not required. Wikipedia does not include anyone's personal knowledge, and prefers not to include information that a business says about itself. All that is needed are published reliable independent sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. So you're saying it's best for the page to remain protected, when it appears the only people interested in making edits to it are IP editors? If you look at the article revison history, it look like since it was protected, there's been very minimal edits at all. The only edit I see is a bot edit which was a long time ago. The ride list has rides that aren't there anymore, as well as missing a ride that was new for this past season.

I feel at a bare miniumum people should be able to see correct information when looking at articles. I've always been told, better to provide too much information, than not enough. While I agree disruption to a page is a nuisance to everybody, and edit warring is not normally productive, it doesn't appear to me that this page is popular enough to need protection for that. It's not like the page is of a place like DinseyWorld for example that super well known. It's a small amusement park in a nice beach resort town.

Going back through IP 108.48.147.41 edits, it looks like they were just trying to provide valuable information about the park. I'd agree that the Haunted Mansion section looked like maybe they had been on the ride, and were giving a detailed ride through of the ride, the rest of the article seemed to be informative on a lot of the history of the park, and it seems to me that most of those edits were well sourced. I'm not biased, but I think they had valid edits there, and the main reason that it got protected was because nobody was paying attention to the content in the article, they were just set off by the Haunted Mansion section, and just wanted to get that part away. It's unfortuneate that they had to be blocked for that, as it doesn't appear to me that they did anything wrong. They appear to be the victim, not the suspect. Can you see where I'm coming from? From my perspective, it looks like they were just trying to make sure they weren't being abused. I'm not triyng to get in the middle of the dispute between them and you, but I think you're doing a real diservice to the page and the IP editor by restricting what can and can't be on the page.108.56.217.110 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

---