# Talk:My Story (Couillard book)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on My Story (Julie Couillard book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080912041646/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2008/09/09/6712366-cp.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2008/09/09/6712366-cp.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion here before this descends into an edit war. NotSeenHere you obviously have some issues with the article at the moment. Please explain what they are and how you think they should be fixed. I have no agenda in this topic and have not read the book, but I am interested in the article being readable in English. You have made numerous edits that make no sense grammatically and therefore not only do not improve the article but actually make it problematic. It would seem to be far better if you can explain why you think the current wording is incorrect here and then hopefully we can find a way to address that without introducing grammatical errors and nonsense sentences into the article. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If you can prove where my grammer mistakes are. I can prove where some of your edits are vague and come of biased.

I explained them in my edit summaries. There were also mismatched tenses, words that didn't fit the context, nouns instead of adjectives etc. You've just made another edit which is missing an apostrophe and uses a word that does not exist ("backlashed"). I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but your repeated editing and failure until now to engage suggested a competence issue with English, and this comment doesn't help your case much (not wanting to be TOO nitpicking but it is grammar not grammer and off not of, for example). Maybe assuming good faith and trying to explain what you are wanting to achieve would be a better strategy but whatever. Oh, and in future, please sign your posts on talk pages. Melcous (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)