Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please note that disambiguation pages like Robin are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
• Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, People-watching, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Letters to newspapers aren't considered to be reliable sources. Also the letter does not mention the defined concept of "people-watching". Belbury (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I don't have an actual newspaper article on the incident on me but will see if I dig one up (or a similar source). Also, I'll keep that mind that letters to newspapers aren't accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks. CanofCan (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General articles shouldn't be covering single incidents in that manner anyway - it is placing undue weight on single incidents. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I understand that giving undue weight to a specific viewpoint is wrong, two of the articles removed had to do with legal rulings handed out by courts. If I de-emphasize the incident itself and place more emphasis on the court ruling, will you allow those two articles to be used? Thanks for your consideration. CanofCan (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't binding precedents set by the highest courts of the land, they're local news stories about local courts. It's not encyclopedic material l. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so highest courts (aka the U.S. Supreme Court for the United States). I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the clarification. CanofCan (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]