LL 5700

Elephant Nature Park

Hi - your account is what we call a single purpose account - all your edits are on the subject article and are rather promotional for the park. This is very similar to many, many prior accounts that have worked on the article.

I am not sure you are aware that we have a policy against editing using more than one account. The policy is here: WP:SOCK. We actually have computer tools that can identify if someone is doing that. I am considering starting that process, but I would rather not go through the drama. Would you please let me know if you have edited under another account here? If you have it is no big deal as long as you admit it and stop.

There are other things to discuss, but that is the first. Please reply here, just below this. I will see it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but no, I have never edited under another account. I just registered for my first account a few days ago, and am new to all of this. I am kind of stunned that people would think I was doing that. Do feel free to check. And, I really do not work for the park or represent it. They don't even know I've been trying to update this page. I visited the park last year and learned a lot, so when I ran across this page I wanted to provide more factual information. As for being a single use account, yes, I just started on Wikipedia. I might have contributed to other pages in the future.

Just so you know, here has been my thinking through this process:

The first comment I made on the Talk page was deemed inappropriate, so I didn't do that again.

Next, I added an update about the other animals at ENP with a reference. I didn't think that was controversial or promotional? But the reference was deemed unreliable. So I looked up the guidelines for reliable sources, and looked for other information that would meet the guidelines. I found articles about the vet program that I thought were from reliable sources -- an official site from Murray State news, written by one of their staff members, and another one from TC Palm, which says it is part of the USA Today network, also written by one of their staff members. So I updated the page with factual information about veterinary care and included these references. I tried to write it in as straightforward a manner as possible.

I honestly don't know what I did that was so wrong? Am I being judged by experiences with past contributors? Is any information that can be considered positive, even if it is factual, considered promotional?

Thanks for your time with this! LL 5700 (talk)LL 5700

Your first comment here in Wikipedia says you came here loaded for bear, not all innocent like you claim. What you are saying here and what you have done, do not add up. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I saw the user's very negative comments about ENP and it unnerved me. I looked at his blog, which is linked right there on the page, and saw that people at ENP were threatening to sue for defamation, so thought it could be a conflict of interest, and said so. But I understand why the comment was removed -- would not be a good thing to have a back and forth argument on the page with only people's opinions to go by. I must say that I don't understand why his negative comments about the park are allowed on the Talk page, but mostly I think it is sad that no one can add any other information to the ENP page, even if it is factual and backed up by reliable sources. And I am seriously stunned that you don't believe what I am saying here. I have to say this has been a horrible experience for a new Wiki user -- I'm sorry I ever started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LL 5700 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't some random website, it is a community. Since you said you looked at the talk page and even spent time digging into some website external to Wikipedia related to a commenter, you presumably saw this section: Talk:Elephant_Nature_Park#SPA_editors_listing. It is plain from that section what the background here is, and your acting as though that does not exist, makes what you are writing here even less credible. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions here. It seems your mind is made up about me, and I don't know what else to say. I wish my updates could have been judged on their merit, not on the fact that you think I'm lying. I cannot engage in this conversation anymore because I am tired of being accused, and it is just too negative to take up my time. Please refrain from including me in any more discussion. Thank you.

My mind is not made up, not by far. I am just looking for a coherent story. What you are saying doesn't match what you have done. You chose a difficult article on which to get started. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)