1463:
the lack of some reasonable indication that the editor's consent has been gained, the edit lacks consensus, and may not legitimately be made. What was happening with this template was exactly that: a small group of disagreeing editors were repeatedly making the same disagreed-with edit, ignoring my objections as if those had vanished just because I did not come back to repeat them often enough. The edit was thus made without consensus for it. It still lacks consensus, because I still hold that the oddity of the queen's "officially residing" at Rideau Hall while she is in Ottawa, so that it is her "residence" (officially) during her stay, but otherwise is not, is too slight a fact in relation to official residences in Canada to deserve mention in a template such as this. Templates should not be cluttered up with such trivialities, but stick to the essential facts about their subject-matter.
303:
1353:"filibustering" is nonsense. Filibustering which is essentially running on and on as a stalling tactic. In truth, I took just about the opposite approach to that: I stated my position, and opposition, and then let the matter be. In fact, I have been attacked for "not taking part in the discussion" precisely because I have not said enough to satisfy some parties to it (a charge which I deny, as said elsewhere; I said as much as I ought need to say and more often, really, than I ought to have needed to say it).
283:
263:
115:
223:
22:
203:
243:
183:
323:
105:
53:
1389:
if you must make such attacks, at least be upfront about it; personal attack by insinuation is, to my mind, even worse than the straight-out kind. As for what you say that you recall, there might well have been an occasion in which I agreed with the view of a majority of editors, and was pleased to see it followed, but I'm sure that I did not hold that it ought be followed
1548:) seems to (still) be under the impression that there is no consensus for inclusion of mention of Rideau Hall's function as the monarch's residence in Canada. Just to make the impression more clear, I'm going to attempt to tally the "for"s and "against"s; I hope I interperet people's earlier commentary correctly. --
1348:
require that all editors agree to abide by an edit, even though they may disagree with it. Moreover, such agreement-to-abide ought not be unreasonably withheld against a substantial majority among a substantial number of editors. What we had here, though, was something quite different: a majority among a
1342:
Laval, to begin with, your comments are overly personal, foremostly in that they wrongly imply that "wasting peoples time and energy" is my intent. On the contrary, I have legitimate editorial objections to the edit, and my sole concern is the quality of WP, to which I think the edit is detrimental.
1388:
GD, if you mean to imply (as you seem to) that I believe in following the majority view when it agrees with me, but not when it disagrees, then I must ask you not to make accusations of hypocrisy (nor other personal attacks), especially not on so thin a basis as your vague recollections. Moreover,
1488:
the same, insisting that an editor's input may rightly be over-ridden simply by disagreeing with it faster or more times than it is given. If you admit, then it follows that you see that it was wrong to ignore my input in the instance at hand, making the edit despite it. It that case, you should
1462:
Yes, GD, editors need to repeat themselves, up to a point. However, when any editor has made plain his opposition to an edit, it should not be necessary for him to come back daily and repeat that opposition, else have a small group of disagreeing editors make the edit despite that opposition. In
1226:
It appears you are unaware of the fact that it is you alone who is reverting against the wishes of three other users. If that doesn't demonstrate to you that you are contravening a consensus, I'm not sure what will convince you. If you will not respect the actions and comments of others here, will
538:
I've gone and made some changes to make the overall box smaller. In about five minutes there will be another, even smaller, alternate version. I have also removed the repetition of
Lieutenant Governor in favour of piped links and a note; I have also placed 'also of the monarch' in a ref, as that
1347:
to devote to the issue, nor should I be. Secondly, yes, precisely, WP is not a democracy, which means that opponents to the edit cannot be simply out-voted by its proponents. Thirdly, no, consensus oughtn't require that all editors agree with an edit, nor have I suggested that it does. It does
1210:
to an article that must gain consensus, in the failure of which the article stays as it was. There is no consensus while there is disagreement about an edit, and disagreement about an edit does not disappear just because some parties favouring the edit repeatedly come back and make it while its
1081:
I did not mean for my comments to seem condescending, nor do I think that they sound so, on a fair reading of them. However, even though you found them condescending, and even if you still do, and even if that perception would be shared by an average reasonable person, that is really beside the
1352:
number of editors, insisting upon making an edit over the plainly stated and never-withdrawn objections of a minority among that very small number of editors. It was not legitimate to keep making the edit, over the objections, in those circumstances. Thirdly, your accusation against me of
1283:
Earlier Roux tried asking you for your proposal for what should be done here; in response, you picked on the form his question took rather than address the actual matter you must have known he was talking about. That seems to me like a dismissal of an invitation to form a compromise.
1045:
consensus for inclusion. You really must rid yourself of the notions (which you seem to hold) that WP should be a minute-by-minute, or even day-by-day excercise, and that by putting in an edit faster than its opponents take it out again, you establish a consensus in favour of
1183:
has made. However, I've no more energy to argue with him/her (I'm also dissappointed, that he/she has avoided this talk-page again). My refusal to change Loner's recent edit, has nothing to do with my being a republican (even though I like the change he/she has made, ha ha).
1023:
Of course it's reasonable. A change was made ages ago, and you come along once a month to revert it. Other than you, there have been no objections. As to my question, it's fairly straightforward: how do you propose we link to Rideau Hall, unambiguously, in the template?
621:
template. And since, as you said, there is currently no consistency, that discussion is irrelevant unless/until a consensus develops there to push for consistency, at which point cosmetic changes may be made to be in line with that consistency. So, your thoughts on
1211:
opponents are not looking. I'm also disappointed that GD continues to claim that I have "avoided the talk-page". I've already voiced my opposition. I should not need to repeat myself. So cease acting and writing as though that were not the case. --
1227:
not take this through proper dispute resolution channels, and continue to simply revert what others insert, it starts to appear very much as though you are edit warring. It would then seem to be in your best interests to adopt a better approach. --
1084:
What we have before us is this: (a) there is not and has never been a consensus in favour of the edit that you and G2 want and (b) I do not understand your question about "how ... we link to Rideau Hall", so I am unable to answer
468:
GD is not entirely understanding the nature of the dispute, and the matter was never really settled at RH (even if G2 really thought it was). Further, we could so without G2's truth-twisting personal invective. --
864:
No, it was never settled at Rideau Hall. It any case, whether it is worth including for the purposes of this template is a separate editorial question. Inclusion needs consensus, and has never gained that. --
1269:
That's an interesting opinion you have about the nature of consensus, but we needn't delve into its worth and its degree of truth or falsehood, because there has been no such refusal in this case. --
1489:
say that you are sorry for your error, and try to make amends. If you deny, then I disagree (obviously), and perhaps we should have the matter judged in some manner, it being of some importance. --
1298:
Roux asked me a question that I did not understand, and I said I could not answer it because I did not understand it. He never explained it, so that was that. Your interpretation of that happening
1241:
My reversions of the edit (among other things) show that the edit lacks consensus. The repeated re-makings of the edit, regardless of that lack, show a disrespect for the need to gain consensus. --
449:
That's not actually an opinion, it is fact. The statements "The monarch has a residence in Canada" and "The monarch resides in Canada" are not equal; the former is true while the latter is false.
1772:
1048:
As for your question, it seems nonsensical. We link to Rideau Hall by linking to Rideau Hall in the ordinary way -- thusly, in the edit-window: ]. In the reader-seen template that yields
1777:
1782:
1787:
1762:
1767:
393:
some time ago, despite Loner's maximum contribution being the odd personal opinion and hitting the revert button. Nothing new from him, so I wouldn't expect anything more. --
1052:. But that's already done, so there is no problem, and I'm sure you already knew how that works. So you must be asking something else, but I don't see what that could be.
667:
600:
1752:
1757:
1697:
1041:
reasonable. Inclusion was opposed almost right away (back in May), and has been opposed repeatedly over a course of months -- and not just by me, either. That is
312:
87:
407:
And apparently his personal opinion is that the those at the
Department of Canadian Heritage are "eccentic" and hold "fringe opinions." The Lonewolf has spoken! --
1727:
1702:
1653:
Feel free to add Lawe if I missed it. I think GD's reverting of your reverts is sign enough that he's for inclusion; he may correct me if I'm wrong, of course. --
1732:
1328:
like another editor who has wasted my time and other peoples time with his vanity articles. If you keep this up you will end up getting suspended from editing.
1717:
943:-- that must achieve consensus, else they are not supposed to be implemented. In this case, instead the edit has been re-made repeatedly, despite opposition.
1737:
1722:
332:
91:
292:
83:
1742:
489:
Giving each house it's own line in this template makes it needlessly long. It will break it into section soon unless I hear a good reason why not. --
1302:
be right as regards Roux's part, but is both wrong and damnably uncharitable as regards mine. I still don't know what Roux was trying to ask me. --
1747:
1707:
1712:
272:
79:
1792:
1484:
that it should not be necessary for an editor to repeat himself endlessly, else have his input ignored by the more vociferous; or you might
653:
consistency, discussions on consistency have no bearing unless and until a consistency consensus is conveyed. So what are your thoughts on
635:
Well, nobody seems to object to consistency, just to the over-use of red. Some suggestions have been raised there that would apply here. --
1593:
232:
71:
666:
Indeed, it was you who began a project of implementing consistency across
Canadian navboxes, and there's been no objection to that at
994:
number of eyes watchlisting this template have any objection. I'll ask again: How would you propose that we unambiguously link this?
1671:
article. It makes no sense to me, to include her there & not here. Either she's RH's official resident (or one of them) or not.
1545:
728:
Hello
Lonewolf. I don't like it either, but we've already agreed to keep it this way. If you still disagree? take it here (please).
212:
137:
67:
580:
Anyone? I like the second better; it's more compact. I think perhaps the bolding should be edited, as it seems overwhelming.
435:
Well, that's nice of you to let us all know what your opinion is. Unfortunately, it has zero to do with the discussion here. --
1632:
and presents GD's acquiescence as if it were actual support. Even were those things otherwise, though, it plainly shows that
1255:
When you refuse to participate in the exercise of consensus building, you forfeit your ability to claim one doesn't exist. --
499:
252:
75:
192:
128:
63:
58:
33:
359:
I see there's a dispute over whether the
Canadian monarch is a resident of Rideau Hall. PS- didn't we settle this at
1448:
have to repeat yourself on talk-pages, we all do. It's required of all of us, as this is a collaborative project.
1369:
the Queen from the
Template. I do recall, you (Loner) & myself were a part of the majority. I also recall you
1480:
Under the circumstances, either of two responses (as against "telling me" something) would be fitting: You might
1597:
302:
1643:
1539:
1494:
1398:
1307:
1274:
1246:
1216:
1161:
PS: Remember Loner, you're always welcomed here to discuss how the article can be improved (if it can).
1092:
1059:
1014:
950:
870:
474:
39:
684:
Other than 'red title bar only', I see no suggestions from you. Again: what would you suggest for how
767:
737:
601:
Knowledge talk:Canadian
Wikipedians' notice board#Consistency of appearence to Canada-related navboxes
1603:
1206:, needs "consensus". Once again, that is not how WP works: it is conservative insofar as that it is
758:
So it was; I'm getting senile lately. Feel free to 'merge' this discussion to the above discussion.
282:
1658:
1553:
1321:
1317:
1289:
1260:
1232:
748:
715:
689:
675:
658:
649:
I am not objecting, nor have I ever objected, to consistency. I was pointing out that since there
640:
627:
608:
591:
581:
564:
554:
540:
526:
450:
440:
422:
412:
398:
136:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
495:
426:
959:(restoring my question)Â ::Okay. So... how would you propose that we unambiguously link it here?
262:
1676:
1512:
1503:
I don't understand what you're asking. All I know is that there's a 5-1 majority in favour of
1471:
1453:
1431:
1378:
1198:
GD (and perhaps others) is still seems to be under the false impression that reversion to the
1189:
1166:
1152:
1123:
987:
922:
900:
854:
818:
790:
763:
733:
368:
1007:
Your interpretation that there was "silence" is not reasonable. Not everyone is on WP daily.
670:. As for the layout of this box, what I said at the aforementioned talk page applies here. --
1639:
1621:
1535:
1490:
1394:
1303:
1270:
1242:
1212:
1180:
1088:
1055:
1010:
946:
866:
813:
It had, that's just the point. I'd be very careful making edits against consensus...Best, --
778:
470:
222:
1333:
202:
1654:
1568:
1549:
1285:
1256:
1228:
744:
711:
671:
636:
604:
550:
522:
436:
408:
394:
1691:
1325:
490:
120:
242:
1672:
1583:
1578:
1508:
1467:
1449:
1427:
1374:
1185:
1162:
1148:
1119:
918:
896:
850:
815:
786:
759:
729:
512:
380:
364:
1343:
I'm not concerned, one way or the other, about the time and energy other editors
322:
182:
1133:
LoneWolf is the only one. And he seems to be done now... see you next month, GD?
1680:
1668:
1662:
1647:
1607:
1557:
1516:
1498:
1475:
1457:
1435:
1402:
1382:
1337:
1311:
1293:
1278:
1264:
1250:
1236:
1220:
1193:
1170:
1156:
1141:
1127:
1096:
1076:
1063:
1049:
1032:
1018:
1002:
967:
954:
926:
904:
888:
874:
858:
835:
822:
808:
794:
752:
718:
692:
679:
661:
644:
630:
612:
594:
584:
567:
558:
543:
530:
516:
504:
478:
453:
444:
430:
416:
402:
390:
384:
372:
360:
743:
The discussion was already started above; Lonewolf chose not to participate. --
1588:
1329:
110:
104:
52:
1629:
1573:
1324:
does not require the approval of every single editor. What you are doing is
895:::Bring this down to the bottom of the page. I'm confused enough, as it is.
1667:
I support
Elizabeth II's inclusion on the basis that she's included at the
1068:
Condescension will get you precisely nowhere with me. Please try again.
1009:
I do not at all understand your question. Please explain yourself. --
800:
Roux, dammit! No 'i'! :P I thought this whole thing had been settled?
845:
Obviously, there's no consensus for
Lonewolf's views. Otherwise, his
133:
1316:
My advice is to stop wasting peoples time and energy. Knowledge is
880:
Alright. How would you propose that we unambiguously link it here?
378:
I like the current version, with the monarch noted in brackets. --
1373:
a problem with it, then (a majority of editors getting the say).
935:
it to the template. WP is "conservative" in the sense that it is
1628:
This poll is silly. It conveniently ignores the opposition of
1118:
Where are all these editors who protest G2 & Roux's edits?
710:
Okay, since nobody has offered any input on the issue, I have
15:
599:
There is a discussion about Canadian templates in general at
421:
The monarch resides in the United Kingdom, not in Canada. --
321:
301:
281:
261:
241:
221:
201:
181:
781:
here. I know he's eager to discuss his objections to R
1082:
point. Instead, please address the editorial issues.
132:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
164:
1773:Template-Class Newfoundland and Labrador articles
990:. You are the only person objecting--none of the
668:Knowledge talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
1778:NA-importance Newfoundland and Labrador articles
931:The point is that there was never consensus to
1783:Template-Class Governments of Canada articles
8:
1788:NA-importance Governments of Canada articles
1763:Template-Class Prince Edward Island articles
1768:NA-importance Prince Edward Island articles
549:How does a footnote work in a template? --
161:
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1753:Template-Class British Columbia articles
1758:NA-importance British Columbia articles
1147:Yeah, seems that way. 'Til then, Roux.
49:
1698:Template-Class Canada-related articles
1634:there is no consensus to make the edit
1202:in a case such as this, where an edit
777:I've opened the sub-section to direct
1728:Template-Class New Brunswick articles
1703:NA-importance Canada-related articles
1361:; but, about a year ago, there was a
313:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador
126:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
1733:NA-importance New Brunswick articles
1718:Template-Class Nova Scotia articles
723:
38:It is of interest to the following
1738:WikiProject New Brunswick articles
1723:NA-importance Nova Scotia articles
1393:it was a mere majority's view. --
986:And: the consensus was implied by
14:
657:template and how it should look?
333:WikiProject Governments of Canada
1743:Template-Class Manitoba articles
1466:What more can I tell ya, Loner?
293:WikiProject Prince Edward Island
113:
103:
51:
20:
1748:NA-importance Manitoba articles
1708:Template-Class Quebec articles
768:20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
753:20:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
738:13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
693:03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
680:03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
662:03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
645:03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
631:03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
617:Okay, but we're talking about
613:02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
595:18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
585:22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
568:00:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
559:00:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
544:00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
454:00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
445:23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
431:16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
330:This template is supported by
310:This template is supported by
290:This template is supported by
270:This template is supported by
250:This template is supported by
230:This template is supported by
210:This template is supported by
190:This template is supported by
1:
1713:NA-importance Quebec articles
1681:15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1663:04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1648:04:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1608:19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1558:04:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1517:00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
1499:23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
1458:15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1436:23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
1403:23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
1338:06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1312:06:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1294:05:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1279:05:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1265:05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1251:05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1237:04:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1221:04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
849:reverts? wouldn't be undone.
785:oux & G2bambino's edits.
531:01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
517:01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
505:21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
140:and see a list of open tasks.
1793:All WikiProject Canada pages
1476:23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1383:00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1194:23:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
1171:22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1157:14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1142:04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
1128:22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1097:21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1077:20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1064:20:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1033:19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1019:19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
1003:19:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
968:19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
955:19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
927:18:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
917:to exclude at the Template?
905:18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
889:18:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
875:18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
859:18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
836:18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
823:18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
809:18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
795:18:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
714:and selected a new version.
479:19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
273:WikiProject British Columbia
146:Knowledge:WikiProject Canada
1426:(Outdent) I apologies, LW.
913:(Res to Loner) Was there a
724:Queen's official residences
719:23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
417:23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
403:00:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
389:This indeed was settled at
149:Template:WikiProject Canada
88:Newfoundland & Labrador
1809:
563:Not, apparently. Removed.
1365:of editors who preferred
385:11:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
329:
309:
289:
269:
249:
233:WikiProject New Brunswick
229:
209:
189:
160:
98:
46:
1204:never achieved consensus
939:-- new changes, not the
576:Thoughts on new versions
373:17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
1357:I'm not sure if it was
213:WikiProject Nova Scotia
165:Associated task forces:
152:Canada-related articles
688:template should look?
326:
306:
286:
266:
246:
226:
206:
186:
1606:comment was added at
325:
305:
285:
265:
245:
225:
205:
185:
1139:was prince of canada
1074:was prince of canada
1030:was prince of canada
1000:was prince of canada
965:was prince of canada
886:was prince of canada
833:was prince of canada
806:was prince of canada
539:seems tidier to me.
253:WikiProject Manitoba
84:Prince Edward Island
590:Bueller? Bueller?
327:
307:
287:
267:
247:
227:
207:
193:WikiProject Quebec
187:
129:WikiProject Canada
34:content assessment
1616:Against inclusion
1140:
1075:
1031:
1001:
966:
887:
834:
807:
503:
352:
351:
348:
347:
344:
343:
340:
339:
1800:
1622:User:Lonewolf BC
1611:
1179:for the changes
1138:
1137:
1073:
1072:
1037:Of course it is
1029:
1028:
999:
998:
964:
963:
885:
884:
832:
831:
805:
804:
716:Prince of Canada
690:Prince of Canada
659:Prince of Canada
628:Prince of Canada
592:Prince of Canada
582:Prince of Canada
565:Prince of Canada
541:Prince of Canada
521:I agree, too. --
493:
451:Prince of Canada
172:
162:
154:
153:
150:
147:
144:
123:
118:
117:
116:
107:
100:
99:
94:
80:British Columbia
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1688:
1687:
1601:
1533:
1318:not a democracy
1200:status quo ante
1134:
1069:
1025:
995:
960:
941:status quo ante
881:
828:
827:Er.. I didn't.
801:
775:
726:
578:
510:Sounds good. --
487:
357:
170:
151:
148:
145:
142:
141:
119:
114:
112:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1806:
1804:
1796:
1795:
1790:
1785:
1780:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1760:
1755:
1750:
1745:
1740:
1735:
1730:
1725:
1720:
1715:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1637:
1627:
1625:
1624:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1569:User:G2bambino
1565:
1564:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1440:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1145:
1144:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1086:
1083:
1053:
1047:
1008:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
944:
892:
891:
863:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
774:
771:
756:
755:
725:
722:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
577:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
536:
535:
534:
533:
486:
483:
482:
481:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
405:
363:, months ago?
356:
353:
350:
349:
346:
345:
342:
341:
338:
337:
328:
318:
317:
308:
298:
297:
288:
278:
277:
268:
258:
257:
248:
238:
237:
228:
218:
217:
208:
198:
197:
188:
178:
177:
175:
173:
167:
166:
158:
157:
155:
138:the discussion
125:
124:
108:
96:
95:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1805:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1781:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1766:
1764:
1761:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1716:
1714:
1711:
1709:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1696:
1695:
1693:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1635:
1631:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1599:
1595:
1594:89.243.56.221
1592:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1563:For inclusion
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1530:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1507:the monarch.
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1326:filibustering
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1143:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1051:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1005:
1004:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
969:
962:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
942:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
890:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
861:
860:
856:
852:
848:
837:
830:
826:
825:
824:
821:
820:
817:
812:
811:
810:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
772:
770:
769:
765:
761:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
721:
720:
717:
713:
694:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
620:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
575:
569:
566:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
542:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
515:
514:
509:
508:
507:
506:
501:
497:
492:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
466:
455:
452:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
383:
382:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
354:
335:
334:
324:
320:
319:
315:
314:
304:
300:
299:
295:
294:
284:
280:
279:
275:
274:
264:
260:
259:
255:
254:
244:
240:
239:
235:
234:
224:
220:
219:
215:
214:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
184:
180:
179:
176:
174:
169:
168:
163:
159:
156:
139:
135:
131:
130:
122:
121:Canada portal
111:
109:
106:
102:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:New Brunswick
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1633:
1626:
1584:User:Padraic
1579:User:GoodDay
1542:
1534:
1504:
1485:
1481:
1445:
1439:
1425:
1390:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1356:
1349:
1344:
1299:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1197:
1177:no consensus
1176:
1174:
1160:
1146:
1135:
1117:
1070:
1042:
1038:
1026:
996:
991:
961:
940:
936:
932:
914:
894:
893:
882:
862:
847:once a month
846:
844:
829:
814:
802:
782:
776:
757:
727:
709:
685:
654:
650:
623:
618:
579:
537:
511:
488:
379:
358:
331:
311:
291:
271:
251:
231:
211:
191:
127:
40:WikiProjects
29:
1669:Rideau Hall
1640:Lonewolf BC
1602:—Preceding
1536:Lonewolf BC
1491:Lonewolf BC
1444:Loner, you
1395:Lonewolf BC
1304:Lonewolf BC
1271:Lonewolf BC
1243:Lonewolf BC
1213:Lonewolf BC
1181:Lonewolf BC
1089:Lonewolf BC
1056:Lonewolf BC
1050:Rideau Hall
1011:Lonewolf BC
947:Lonewolf BC
867:Lonewolf BC
779:Lonewolf BC
471:Lonewolf BC
391:Rideau Hall
361:Rideau Hall
355:Rideau Hall
92:Governments
68:Nova Scotia
1692:Categories
1589:User:Laval
1371:not having
1350:very small
773:Objections
626:template?
1655:G2bambino
1574:User:Roux
1550:G2bambino
1505:including
1367:excluding
1322:consensus
1286:G2bambino
1257:G2bambino
1229:G2bambino
915:consensus
745:G2bambino
712:been bold
672:G2bambino
637:G2bambino
605:G2bambino
551:G2bambino
523:G2bambino
437:G2bambino
409:G2bambino
395:G2bambino
1546:contribs
1363:majority
1175:There's
500:contribs
485:Too long
423:Dlatimer
76:Manitoba
30:template
1673:GoodDay
1604:undated
1509:GoodDay
1468:GoodDay
1450:GoodDay
1428:GoodDay
1391:because
1375:GoodDay
1208:changes
1186:GoodDay
1163:GoodDay
1149:GoodDay
1120:GoodDay
988:silence
919:GoodDay
897:GoodDay
851:GoodDay
816:Cameron
787:GoodDay
760:GoodDay
730:GoodDay
513:Padraic
381:Padraic
365:GoodDay
1345:choose
491:Kevlar
143:Canada
134:Canada
64:Quebec
59:Canada
36:scale.
1482:admit
1330:Laval
1300:might
937:edits
651:is no
28:This
1677:talk
1659:talk
1644:talk
1630:Lawe
1598:talk
1554:talk
1540:talk
1531:Poll
1513:talk
1495:talk
1486:deny
1472:talk
1454:talk
1432:talk
1399:talk
1379:talk
1359:here
1334:talk
1320:and
1308:talk
1290:talk
1275:talk
1261:talk
1247:talk
1233:talk
1217:talk
1190:talk
1167:talk
1153:talk
1124:talk
1093:talk
1060:talk
1015:talk
951:talk
923:talk
901:talk
871:talk
855:talk
791:talk
764:talk
749:talk
734:talk
686:this
676:talk
655:this
641:talk
624:this
619:this
609:talk
603:. --
555:talk
527:talk
496:talk
475:talk
441:talk
427:talk
413:talk
399:talk
369:talk
1638:--
1600:)
1087:--
1085:it.
1054:--
1046:it.
1043:not
1039:not
945:--
933:add
1694::
1679:)
1661:)
1646:)
1556:)
1515:)
1497:)
1474:)
1456:)
1446:do
1434:)
1401:)
1381:)
1336:)
1310:)
1292:)
1284:--
1277:)
1263:)
1249:)
1235:)
1219:)
1192:)
1169:)
1155:)
1126:)
1095:)
1062:)
1017:)
953:)
925:)
903:)
873:)
857:)
793:)
766:)
751:)
736:)
678:)
643:)
611:)
557:)
529:)
498:•
477:)
443:)
429:)
415:)
401:)
371:)
171:/
90:/
86:/
82:/
78:/
74:/
70:/
66:/
62::
1675:(
1657:(
1642:(
1636:.
1610:.
1596:(
1552:(
1543:·
1538:(
1511:(
1493:(
1470:(
1452:(
1430:(
1397:(
1377:(
1332:(
1306:(
1288:(
1273:(
1259:(
1245:(
1231:(
1215:(
1188:(
1165:(
1151:(
1122:(
1091:(
1058:(
1013:(
992:X
949:(
921:(
899:(
869:(
853:(
819:*
789:(
783:i
762:(
747:(
732:(
674:(
639:(
607:(
553:(
525:(
502:)
494:(
473:(
439:(
425:(
411:(
397:(
367:(
336:.
316:.
296:.
276:.
256:.
236:.
216:.
196:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
