User talk:Dragonfly329

Welcome!

Hello, Dragonfly329, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
It is recommended that you do not add anything relating to yourself to article space, and it is expressly forbidden to use Wikipedia to promote anything about yourself.
Wikipedia is not censored. If material is reliably sourced, it is given due weight.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for removing content sourced to reliable publications, edit-warring, and refusing to engage in discussion, as you did at Jimmy John's. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your focus on Jimmy John's

Given the singular focus (apparently sole purpose) of your account, you should probably study our guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, particularly the section on paid editing. If you are not editing solely the Jimmy John's page out of any sort of corporate or financial affiliation, you still should take a look at our policy forbidding censorship. When your block is over, the only possible valid argument you could make at Talk:Jimmy John's for the removal of the material would be to cite at least as many sources unrelated and not connected to Jimmy John's in any way that specifically counter the Huffington Post and NY Post articles. You will have to find at least as many (preferably at least double if you want the material removed and not merely included but countered), and they will have to meet or exceed our standards for reliability, or else you'll come across as tendentious. Trying to argue that the sources currently cited are not reliable will only come across as tendentious (making it hard for people to not assume you're a hired shill). Trying to argue that the material is undue weight would be a (misguided) possibility, but I guarantee no one would fall for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]