User talk:Julian Watson

Hello, Julian Watson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oka Crisis

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Oka Crisis, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - TheMightyQuill 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be blocked for good faith edits (see Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule). But please also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles --Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuu T'ina Nation 145, Alberta

Your additions to Tsuu T'ina Nation 145, Alberta, being controversial, must be thoroughly referenced, see WP:CITE. Please add appropriate references. --Qyd 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Annett

Plese see my comments in the section Talk:Genocides in history#Canadian Residential Schools as Genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls and bears

I'm glad I could be of some help. When I joined the project the insistence that sources were added was almost non existent unless someone added something that was very controversial. But in the last two years the demand for sources has gone up. Although this leads to some degradation of the information in articles it does by and large make them better. It also helps to protect articles (and the efforts of other editors) from the more extreme point of view pushers (you will see POV for "point of view" and NPOV neutral point of view mentioned a lot on talk pages). I think the change that has occurred with the demand for citations is very well demonstrated by comparing the Battle of Waterloo as it is now, with the same article at the start of the year. It is, if you do know , a battle over which national views and myths are set in concrete! The content of the article has not changed much, but the citations make it a far more trustworthy and useful article for those who do not know much about the battle (or only know their nations POV on the battle). If you can put up with others mercilessly editing you contributions you will find that on many articles you meet people who will work collaboratively with you. If at any time you find the POV pushing on controversial topics too much, try editing and expanding a few stubs. This is an area where an extra paragraph or two is far more effective than a paragraph in a large article and such edits are unlikely to attract POV warriors. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]