Talk:Gatineau Park

message: Stumbled across this. Good start, but a stub in need of structuring and expanding, so I marked it as such.
Added a sentence on administration by the NCC, since it was not clear what sort of park Gatineau is. But someone could expand on this as well. Martinp 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

message: User 192.197.82.203 has added the following statement to the article which I have moved to here:
:Gatineau Park has been described as the essential feature of a great monument dedicated to all Canadian soldiers who died defending Canada's democratic values in World War II. Unfortunately, it remains, ironically enough, the least democratic federal park in the country, since much of its administration is carried out behind closed doors, and without the full knowledge and approval of Parliament In his preface to the Gréber Report, William Lyon Mackenzie King dedicates the National Capital Plan to all Canadian soldiers who died during World War II. Two years later, in his September 25, 1952 report to the Federal Disstrict Commission, Mr. Gréber says that "Gatineau Park is the essential feature of any plan for developing the national capital." Therefore, Gatineau Park is the essential feature of a monument (plan) dedicated to our soldiers who died in World War II..
I have a couple of problems with this paragraph. First that isn't a reference. A reference complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources in that it isn't a narrative about a publication but either cites a website where it can be found or an actual paper publication by title, author, date, publisher and ISBN or catalog number. The key thing here is verifiability. A reader has to be able to find the reference and check it. As Jimbo Wales says at Wikipedia:VER#Burden_of_evidence:
Secondly the source (sort of) cited, if it can be taken at face value, would only support the first part of the claim that the park was intended as a monument to those who died in WWII. It wouldn't support the controversial claims about the NCC and closed door management. That claim definitely requires a source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second ref is cited as "See Senate of Canada, debates on Bill S-210, May 2, June 6, June 13, June 15, October 5, November 6, 2008" I couldn't find any of these debates on www.parl.gc.ca. How can those dates be right? On Oct 5 2008 the Senate had been dissolved and Nov 6, 2008 is in the future??? - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial section

message: ::::Wikipedia's rules stipulate that references must be verifiable. The references I have included are all verifiable. That you may find them difficult to find in no way makes them unverifiable. They are all on the public record. All of them... (Do you challenge the Encyclopedia Britannica because their references aren't available online???).
::::As for privately held lands in Gatineau Park, look up all the NCC's master plans on the issue. They all agree with Hartzog's views on inholdings (if you wish, I will send you a brief I have written on the issue detailing what NCC master plans have said on this -- gppc-cppg@live.com). 
::::As for adding the NCC's position: they have a web site and a communications budget running in the millions. Their views are well known. 
::::Moreover, Hartzog's position is consistent with that held today by the US National Parks Conservation Association (See America's Heritage for Sale: a Lack of Federal Funds threatens Loss of Significant Parklands, April 2008); that held by CPAWS (see their newsletter, Wilderness Advocate, spring 2009, p.2); and let's not forget section 5(1)a of the Canada National Parks Act which forbids all private inholdings in parks. Ergo: it's no stretch at all to say that Hartzog's comments apply to Gatineau Park inholdings (moreover, see all the press over the last 2 years about the problems caused by Gatineau Park inholdings).
That you may disagree with these facts, and the references backing them up, in no way invalidates them.
Your comments seem either ideologically motivated, or self-interested. You should perhaps declare whether your beliefs motivate your challenges, whether you, your family or friends have private inholdings in the park. 
As for me, I am defending the public interest and the environment by telling the truth about Gatineau Park. A truth long concealed by the NCC and the self-interested few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether the NCC's "views are well known", they have to be incorporated into this article to provide balance, otherwise the article will remain tagged as User:99.149.84.135 tagged it. Because your refs are paper and hard to locate there is the danger that another editor will remove the material you have added to restore the balance, rather than try to find them all. One of the key pillars of Wikipedia is that articles are required to represent a Neutral Point of View, which this one currently does not. The other side of the story needs to be incorporated. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: from your e-mail address and your mention of a paper, it would appear that you may be in a Conflict of Interest over this article. As that guideline requires can you please explain your connection to this issue? "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: All quotes are verifiable

message: Well, I'm always one for working together.
I have made several additions, in an attempt to place the NCC's views, claims, positions in the text, with footnotes. I have not expanded, but included statements that accurately reflect their position(s). 
The NCC's position is now present with respect to what it says on private lands (references to pages of 3 master plans); it position(s) on ownership of lac La Pêche parklands has been included (with references); as well as its support for Bill S-210. I believe this may address some of your concerns (trouble is with the NCC: what it says and does are different--it says everywhere that acquiring inholdings and preventing development are management priorities. Yet, as we speak, a new house is going up in the park, illegal lakebed constructions are going ahead, etc.).
I am open to your further suggestions.
As for the truth: I don't claim to possess it, only to pursue it. I don't claim to hold the truth about the park, only strongly held opinions based on hard facts. And I don't work for the GPPC (it's a convenient label--all volunteer, no funding, no web site, no employees, no ties to any organizations, etc.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am reading your changes as you are adding them, but to be honest I don't see any balance being added there at all, in fact it is getting to be very one-sided and a lot of very POV language. But let's just let you finish what you want to do there and then see what can be done with it at that point. I am just concerned that the way it is going that someone will just revert your whole effort from the start as unsalvageable. Perhaps you can drop a note here when you are finished and I can see what can be done. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NCC views included and working together

message: I have removed some POVs from titles, cleaned up punctuation and streamlined language and references. 
In my view, the NCC positions are presented, even when they are obviously contradictory, and I have tried to remove any tendentious language.
What I have placed in this entry represents a very accurate picture of the situation. I don't for a minute believe anyone will find it unsalvageable, since it presents truthful, referenced information which is found nowhere else in one location.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoiding the issue about whether the refs actually support the contentions made for the moment, since I can't check them, the article is now severely unbalanced and fails WP:NPOV. There are numerous cases of weasel words where things are quoted, but not attributed to who said them, etc. These changes introduce severe problems in the article. I will attempt later on to today to at least tag where the problem are, although I don't have access to the material needed to provide the balance required to the article. I am afraid it will have to remain tagged as unbalanced until it can be properly fixed to comply with WP:NPOV. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I have tagged it to show where improvements are needed. Please do not remove the tags without the improvements being incorporated or else gaining consensus here on the talk page that the tags are not justified. I have to admit I am not happy with this tagging solution, but I do not have the information to fix these problems. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes complete

message: I think that sources may be available through the use of OPL library resources on the NCC. Canada Newstand for one. I have to agree that there is a large amount of controversy surrounding the NCC's activities and the Park. It would be inappropriate to remove it so I think that tagging is the appropriate measure I think. I would have to agree that the article has content that is negative to the NCC. But, the NCC is notoriously difficult to get direct information on any project or plan and it may be difficult to present their side here. I recall that from when they wanted to build a highway interchange at the north end of Island Park. This is also made more difficult under the current Harper government which wants to control information. I think that you could almost argue that the NCC is an agency hostile to the local public and that is a long-standing complaint of Ottawans. Anyway, I will start looking for newspaper sources through Canada Newstand, which does have the Ottawa Citizen going back before 1980. I am sure it will not be hard to find people critical of the NCC for the record. To the IP user, I would suggest creating a Wikipedia account when you are working on an article extensively. I welcome coverage of controversy, and energy on an article is good too. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User talk:Alaney2k: Thanks for diving in here - your help is greatly appreciated! I agree that the subject is controversial and that it should be covered in this article. - it just needs some balance, which can be a challenge with the NCC, as you note. I think with a group of editors who know how to find the information for refs we can balance the article out and remove the tags as the work progresses. I would much prefer to see that, than the extensive good faith work done by User:70.51.188.11 removed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invited discussion 

message: I have added several new references, some of them electronic where available, and removed weasel words, replacing them with what I feel to be more balanced terminology. I have also removed the tags, but left the top notices in place pending your approval, or suggested changes. 
Much of the information is available on the parliamentary web site. Other documents at the national library. Will provide any information required, if I have it. 
I hope this meets with your approval.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are slowly getting there. The lack of balance still remains in some sections where the NCC is criticized without response. It is possible that they have not responded in which case this could be stated, but let's see if other editors can find that first. Otherwise I have made some edits, including replacing all the weasel-worded 'critics have said' etc, with whom I presume the critics are. The key thing with weasel words is to avoid making unattributed or vaguely attributed statements. Let me know if I got that wrong in attributing those statements. I have also removed the weasel tag since I removed all the weasel-wording. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words removed, additional references provided

message: Good changes. Yes you have attributed statements correctly. I have also added many electronic references to facilitate verifiability. 
Well done. The entry is much stronger as a result of your efforts and advice. Will continue adding any electronic references I can find.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding those weblinks is a great help! Wikipedia's 'anyone-can-edit' collaborative process of building articles can be a bit frustrating at times, but it does actually work and with a group of editors we get better quality articles than if any one person wrote them alone. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting there

message: You are very rigorous and a tough taskmaster. Thanks to your advice, the story of Gatineau Park is much more accessible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all part of the collaboration process - makes for better articles! - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You folks have been very busy. It's much better. I was not yet even started on looking for sources. The article still needs a lot of work, though to be considered good. The sections are somewhat disjointed. You need to work chronologically through the history, at least in summary, with the issues, or split out the issues. Alaney2k (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has evolved well! I do agree that more work needs to be done, particularly to make the sections read better and relate more coherently to each other. Any refs you can find to expand the story would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well done--major improvement since I tagged it a few days ago. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks to you

message: I undid Ahunt's revision, because the article mentions the GPPC's activities, and more importantly, because the page of the web site http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html provites a referenced article illustrating the point made in the Wiki sentence. --Stoneacres (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this specifically should be used as a reference, since the gatineauparc.ca presents its own viewpoints using external links as sources. Gatineauparc.ca isn't itself a reliable source, but the links it uses as references may be (similarly, Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source, but its references are). If we were trying to add references to this statement, it would be okay to use those that are references at gatineauparc.ca, but since the statement is already well-referenced, we don't really need any more. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with User:M.nelson on this, the website completely fails WP:RS and does not qualify as a reliable source. While some of the sources it cites may be useful, the website itself is a collection of personal opinions and cannot be considered "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is very strongly pushing a particular agenda. That is fine that it does that, it is your website so you can print whatever you want, but that mitigates against it being used as a source for articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:REDFLAG and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The fact that you are trying to insert it into the article to support already well-supported text after having tried and failed to insert it as an external link runs the risk that some editors will conclude that you are just trying to use this Wikipedia article to advertise your website and bring you more traffic. Please see WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Finding that your WP:SPS website does not meet WP:RS, WP:SPAM or WP:EL is not "suppressing reliable and verifiable information", it is maintaining this article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is not obliigated to link to your personal opinions, no matter how many times you ask. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: That is where you are incorrect. You want to add this content, so as per WP:BURDEN the burden of proof is on you to show that this is a reliable source not on others to disprove it. I should point out that adding your own website to Wikipedia is a WP:COI issue - you need consensus here to include it. I would also advise you that, as you have been advised in the past, if you want to convince other editors to include your own website then personal attacks are not the way to proceed. So far you have a consensus here not to include your website as an external link or as a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gatineauparc.ca ref 

message: Ahunt, you are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt you are showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You Ahunt interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.
In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you  Ahunt.
And there you go again playing the victimology card: my comment wasn't a personal attack: it is a description of a fact: you interpret the rules to suit your ideological agenda, you are suppressing reliable and verifiable sources, and are displaying bad faith as a result. 
Your shame is held up for the entire world to see. --Stoneacres (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to File: User:Stoneacres was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Racepacket: Thanks for your input. My only thought is that the existence of the GPPC is already referenced in the article to a number of reliable third party refs and so that doesn't really justify adding a first party ref as a source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see your point.  However, during the deletion debate, I tried to convince User:Stoneacres that his efforts would be better devoted to a separate website instead of just repeatedly expanding Wikipedia's coverage of these subjects. Perhaps a fair end point to this matter would be to find a way to allow him to have a link to his website in exchange to his focusing his primary attention to developing that website.  I understand that an external link may be elevating his site over what is appropriate, but I could live with a link as a footnote to the sentence describing the role of the GPPC.  I think that the world would be a better place if Wikipedia somehow acknowledges the GPPC's role and then leaves Stoneacres free to tell his story outside the constrants of Wikipedia's rules. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also one of the editors here who encouraged User:Stoneacres and the GPPC to start their own website to present their own point of view and I am very pleased to see that they have done so. I have read through the whole thing and while it has some references to some documents to support some of the content there, it also contains a lot of very strong personal opinions and, unsurprisingly given the proliferation of personal attacks here, it also contains unsubstantiated personal attacks against people they perceive as their opponents. That is fine, it is their website and they can write what they want, subject of course to the limits of Canadian libel laws. However the character of their website renders it as unsuitable under WP:RS to be used as a reference on Wikipedia, except to support statements of opinion of the GPPC itself. Since we haven't quoted any here I don't see any justification to include it as a reference and I am concerned that the website may be used as a ref to add more GPPC theories and opinions of the type that were deleted by a large consensus in the AfD of Politics of Gatineau Park. So while I am pleased that the GPPC now have their own website, I don't see any justification for linking it from here as an external link or as a reference. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors watching this page on this subject, to see what the consensus on this subject is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahunt's bad faith

message: I think the references you placed are in the right place. Below, is the text with "controversy" replacing "criticism". As well I have added references as suggested. 
:Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership  as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.
:To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005.“MP seeks to protect Gatineau Park: National park status a possible result of Broadbent initiative,” The Ottawa Citizen, October 26, 2005, p. C8 ”Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property,” Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2.”Senator’s bill would take Gatineau Park away from NCC: Plan is to stop selloff of public property,” The Ottawa Citizen, April 16, 2006, p. C1.“MP Hopes Parliament lands role,” Ottawa Sun, May 19, 2006, p. 16.“Le parc de la Gatineau serait menacé,” Le Droit, April 22, 2008, p. 6. “NDP MP challenges Tories to use his bill to protect Gatineau Park: Proposed legislation protects area from developers,” The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 2009. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009.“New law would let NCC designate Gatineau Park lands,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2009. “Bill protects Gatineau Park, but not as a national park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2009. “Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009.“Gatineau Park gets more federal protection,” by Nick Gamache, CBC Radio Ottawa, June 9 and 10, 2009.«Lawrence Cannon dépose son projet de loi sur la CCN et le parc de la Gatineau : un parc mieux protégé, mais pas national», par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009.
:Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it.See the Gatineau Park Protection Committee’s Web site: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/.
--Stoneacres (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note. In its present form, as amended, it looks okay to me, although the refs will need some standard formatting. I can accept that the GPPC website can be used a a sole single ref for tis statement given the growing consensus to do that here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Well there is no rush, let's see what User:M.nelson has to say at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Text with references

message: On rereading the sections and proposals above, I believe the latest proposed text takes into account MNelson's edits, and Ahunts approval. Therefore, I will edit the main page with the text as follows:
Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership,  as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.
To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005.“MP seeks to protect Gatineau Park: National park status a possible result of Broadbent initiative,” The Ottawa Citizen, October 26, 2005, p. C8 ”Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property,” Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2.”Senator’s bill would take Gatineau Park away from NCC: Plan is to stop selloff of public property,” The Ottawa Citizen, April 16, 2006, p. C1.“MP Hopes Parliament lands role,” Ottawa Sun, May 19, 2006, p. 16.“Le parc de la Gatineau serait menacé,” Le Droit, April 22, 2008, p. 6. “NDP MP challenges Tories to use his bill to protect Gatineau Park: Proposed legislation protects area from developers,” The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 2009. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009.“New law would let NCC designate Gatineau Park lands,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2009. “Bill protects Gatineau Park, but not as a national park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2009. “Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009.“Gatineau Park gets more federal protection,” by Nick Gamache, CBC Radio Ottawa, June 9 and 10, 2009.«Lawrence Cannon dépose son projet de loi sur la CCN et le parc de la Gatineau : un parc mieux protégé, mais pas national», par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009. None of the bills tabled so far has been enacted into law.
Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it.See the Gatineau Park Protection Committee’s Web site: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/.
--Stoneacres (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look over it and it seems okay to me - just formatted a couple of refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Changes look good to me too. My only concern is that there may be too many references-- but that isn't actually an issue; it's just my personal opinion. Do we still intend on moving these paragraphs to a ===Controversy=== subsection? I don't really mind either way. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The NCC's Gatineau Park website gives 361 sq km (which in fact is not one of the values in the article), this Prov of Quebec report gives 361.31, and your best information says 363. I have no idea which of these is more correct; as you are most familiar with the park's details, I'll trust your judgement on which should be used (it must be sourced, of course!). -M.Nelson (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to all for getting this matter resolved. Racepacket (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Will Make Change

message: I just noticed that footnote 29 is wrong. It talks about beaches, whereas it is supposed to illustrate NCC policy on motorboats. Any help/advice would be appreciated.
--Stoneacres (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need Help with Reference

message: I have written a text presenting a balanced view of the Gatineau Park trail trash issue. Are you okay with reinstating the deleted photo?  Stoneacres (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially I removed the picture because there was no explanation about what this was about, but I see you have added some explanatory text in. In reviewing the text and I am inclined to think this probably doesn't belong in the article as per WP:NOTNEWS as it seems to be a short-lived news item more than encyclopedic content, but I am interested to hear what other editors think, so we can come up with a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request your views on reinstating photo of glass/garbage

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1768_Master_Plan_e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725124028/http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/telechargements/bulletin-ensemble-d-imperatif-francais/2009.html to http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/telechargements/bulletin-ensemble-d-imperatif-francais/2009.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623124455/http://www.xtra.ca:80/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx to http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011093729/http://canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=a78f8c04-48f2-49f6-873f-8a17580583bd to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=a78f8c04-48f2-49f6-873f-8a17580583bd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213020822/http://campfortune.com/en/summer/aerial/home.php to http://www.campfortune.com/en/summer/aerial/home.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified