Talk:Sylvain Charlebois/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sylvain Charlebois in conversation.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Other paragraph

here we go again, someone making publicity for itself on wikipediaGenesisPRO (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This statement Also, an additional reference was added which clearly desmontrates that the university did not follow its own rules, recruited complainants and leaked to story to media. It is explained in the reference added to the story. The investivation was never completed as the subject resigned because the investigation went public. It is clearly cited in references used for this story inbtroduced by JANVEZ has no background, no sources linked

Still have to delete it GenesisPRO (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/high-profile-dal-dean-sylvain-charlebois-stepping-down-1.4796909

there Brian Leadbetter, a spokesperson for the university, said the investigation into Charlebois has now concluded and no further action will be taken. It has action taken, They accepted resignation GenesisPRO (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

JANVEZ keep introducing personnal view on article, with any evidence, sources, citations. It has to stop.

souces are clear

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/high-profile-dal-business-dean-stepping-down-1.4796909

The announcement comes following an investigation the university began in May into complaints of bullying and harassment against Charlebois. GenesisPRO (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

019282abc keep adding an interview of Charlebois speaking... No journalistic proof, only personnal view--GenesisPRO (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

Change

Charlebois holds degrees from the Royal Military College of Canada, the Université de Montréal and the Université de Sherbrooke.[2]

In 2011, he co-founded the University of Guelph's Food Institute, now known as the Arrell Food Institute.[3]

To

Charlebois holds degrees from the Royal Military College of Canada, the Université de Montréal and the Université de Sherbrooke.[2]

Charlebois was at the University of Regina and University of Saskatchewan as its Director of the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy (https://www.perennia.ca/portfolio-items/dr-sylvain-charlebois/?portfolioCats=616%2C617)

In 2011, he co-founded the University of Guelph's Food Institute, now known as the Arrell Food Institute.[3] Mona merry Blue (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I am unwilling to do this while there is an open question as to your connexion to User:CFPR2021 and by extension User:Janvez. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no connection, but do whatever you want to do. Wikipedia is unbelievably bizarre. Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And please, don't use the F-word while responding. Makes you look like an amateur. Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any F-word in Jeské Couriano's message. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

They're referring to #With respect to the recent edits above, is my best guess. That's the only time I've dropped a swear on this page, and it was in reference to an edit made by a proven Janvez sockpuppet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, right. I just saw that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was used yesterday. It was written: "Editorialising in edits should be avoided, full fucking stop.", by Jeské Couriano Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with CFPR2021 on one thing. This page should have been taken down a long time ago. Wikipedia is being weaponized and editors could not care less. Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The weaponising cuts both ways. You don't get to enforce a pro-Charlebois page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be deleted, taken down, destroyed. How is that "pro-Charlebois"? He's not that famous, he's just an academic. Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Where have I heard this argument before? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors are accusing some to be "sockpuppets", whatever those are, when they are asking to take down the page. Makes total sense...not. Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So you agree with yourself? I agree with myself that you should stop socking. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Now moot with Mona merry Blue off the board as a Janvez sock. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

We might have to be alert about the possibility that the page is vandalized by pro-Charlebois editors, to make the counterpart look bad. In fact, that was the reason I ended up getting involved in this page with such conviction.

While I don’t have resolute proof, I have strong suspicion that the “ anti-Charlebois vandalism” was a clever strategy from the pro-Charlebois sock puppets to increase the page protection level—immediately after the scandal story had been removed—and make it harder to reinstate the bullying scandal excerpt . In fact, I don’t believe there has ever been anti-Charlebois vandalism at all.

I apologize if I went off boundaries by sharing this theory. But I do want to alert that—given the late failures to enforce a pro-Charlebois page—the next strategy from the sock puppets will be to vandalize the page and make the opposite side look bad.

I will be alert to spot any vandalism against Charlebois, just as I’ll be watching for any pro-Charlebois agenda. It’s likely that the sock puppets won’t accept the status quo Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say: The next strategy from the sock puppets *might* be Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

His greatest contribution was likely the Buttergate scandal. He instigated it and the story went viral, around the world. That was a real scandal affecting dairy farmers. They did not like it at all. They have been after Charlebois ever since. Yet, any reference to Buttergate is now all gone on the page. All of it. And Wikipedia thinks both Nosfer ariel65 and Jéské Couriano are neutral. So who are the puppets now? Not a dairy farmer (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Buttergate was mostly attributed to Julie Van Rosendaal; most of the hate social media messages target her—not Charlebois. Charlebois’ tweet related to Buttergate had only 12 replies.

Yet, I don’t see any vandalism against Julie Van Rosendaal Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/buttergate-goes-viral-putting-palm-oil-fat-supplements-in-spotlight-1.5927194?cmp=rss

Most read article about buttergate ^. The focus is on Van Roosendal’s investigation, only one mention of Charlebois, giving his opinion. Virtually every news Ericka focuses on Van Roosendal. Unless, of course, the media also has an agenda against Charlebois Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

News press* Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)