Talk:Robert Thibault

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article has been repeatedly edited to contain information presented in a biased and politically charged way. This violates the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) subsection of Wikipedia's Content Policies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.185.224 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: I have noticed a series of recent edits in which editors have simply been reverting each others edits. I have been following the subject of these edits (Thibault's comments) in the paper and online. I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on comments such as these. Whether these should be in here or not, in a shorter version or a "controversies" section as I have seen in other articles. But what is happening right now is edit warring. I will offer to help try to find a solution but as mentioned before I do not know the policy for sure, so you may wish to seek other help. Either way could we have some discussion here before we keep this edit warring up, please. Sethpt (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: This is getting tiresome. The edits that have been persistently added are a clear violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View content policy. They are negatively biased, unsourced, and indeed longer than the entire biographical history of the subject of the page. If anyone digs a bit deeper, one would find that a few times editors have tried to "clean up" the edits by shortening them, neutralizing the tone and adding some links - for example, note the edit dated 19:08, 30 August. Nonetheless, the offensive edits keep appearing. The person who adds them clearly has an axe to grind against the subject of this page and has no hesitation in flagrantly abusing Wikipedia for political spin doctoring. (Having traced all of the editor's multiple IP addresses to the Ottawa region, I would not be at all surprised if the edits are politically motivated and performed by a staffer of a certain political party.) This sort of thing best belongs on a blog or a forum - but not on Wikipedia. If the editor cannot abide by the content policies, then the edits should not be allowed. This has nothing to do with "free speech" or "censorship" (again, Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a forum) but everything to do with maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource. Having thoroughly read the relevant Wikipedia policy pages, this conclusion is quite clear. The edits, as submitted, should not be allowed. In support, I would refer to the edits of 1 September and specifically that performed by editor Jackol. If the author chooses to abide by the content policies and keep his edits neutral, concise, and cited, then we should re-examine the issue. However, based on history, I'm not at all optimistic that the editor will agree to anything of the sort.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Ruthven Murgatroyd (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding a compromise?