Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 10 November 2008

Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7

Discussion on AN with possible actions about the 2 RFCs

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Roux_and_User:G2bambino, as you both want similar restrictions on the other, and we have two discussions in two different locations, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss in one location. —— nixeagle 18:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; that was a good idea. --G2bambino (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles's future ranks

Hiya G2. Excuse my blogging here; Can Charles be promoted to Field Marshal, Marshal of the RAF & Admiral of the Fleet during his mother's lifetime? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to guess that yes, he could possibly be. His father currently occupies those positions, and if he should die, I don't see why Charles couldn't be promoted to them. But, then, I'm not an expert in such matters. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merit

Hi G2. Are you aware that there is a Order of Merit (disambiguation) page already? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops... Crap; no, I wasn't. And I specifically moved the Order of Merit article in order to make one. Perhaps I should move it back, then. --G2bambino (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And the disambig link is right at the top of Order of Merit too. *Shakes head* Thanks for bringing that to my attention. --G2bambino (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Wasn't sure if you knew and were about to clean things up or didn't know. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Please don't use copy/paste to fix a moved article problem, it creates issues with the GFDL attribution history. (There is a template around somewhere that explains this better than I do but I try not to template the regulars. ) I've deleted your copy/paste version and moved the old article & it's history back to the proper title. --Versageek 04:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I had a sneaking suspicion I wasn't doing it right, but I thought articles could only be moved to new titles, not override existent ones. --G2bambino (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1RR restrictions

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restrictions at Canada, as seen in these reverts. Your editing restriction specified that you may make one reversion, per day, per article relating to Monarchy of Canada, broadly interpreted. It is my belief that this falls under that restriction. As always, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message. Hersfold 03:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

G2b, I realize this is your upage and open for (almost) any work you wish, and by all means revert this post at will - but aren't "principals" them wot run the schools, whereas "principles" are them wot run the conduct of society? (And principals are often major shareholder/operators in a firm too, but they don't necessarily hew to any principles in their business operations) That's just my own understanding of the spellings, as I said, remove this as you please. :) Franamax (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I disagree with you (very strongly) on a number of assertions you've recently made, but in this you are correct. --G2bambino (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the people I tend to disagree most strongly with are mostly my closest friends, precisely because I care about their viewpoints most dearly. I've tried hard to present only fact-based points, or else my subjective experience - and not mix the two. I recognize that you may not agree with the latter (obviously, since that experience is uniquely my own) but it's good that we can agree on spelling. Can we build on that? It would really work out better if everyone worked toward some kind of agreement. A statement of initial principles on viewpoint might (or might not) help, but even better would be a statement of readiness to consider other viewpoints and make compromises. Franamax (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might appear that at least one more stone can be built on the one already there: I cannot contest against a goal of considering other viewpoints and making compromises. But, we must not forgo the importance of sources and the interpretation thereof, in order to reach the finish line. As for those subjective observations of yours: addressing them will have to wait; that is, if they're even something worth investing argument in. They may simply change in time. All I want to say before I have to run to catch a train is that I dislike judgments cast before I've even done anything. Hold suspicion, sure; but allow some time for observation before deciding those suspicions have become fact. --G2bambino (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on 1RR

As you weren't able to comment on the extent of your restrictions at the recent discussion on Talk:Canada, I've asked Tiptoety to comment here. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner has broken 3RR:

1. 01:16, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
2. 01:36, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
3. 02:26, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by WilyD
4. 05:49, 1 November 2008 - edit that also removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino

--G2bambino (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eep, making reverts under several conditions does not fall under 3RR. Is it a revert of vandalism? (This applies when you continue reversions after discussion has begun on the talk page) Did the reverted edit go against talk-page consensus? Was the opposing editor making edits in violation of a ban, block, or editing restriction? Did another editor intervene in furtherance of the edit-war? (I'll state here that I thought WilyD's reinstatement of your tags was in the interest of fairness, but you should have stopped then also). Reading the rules too closely, just in order to slag someone else - not a good strategy. Rather, best to concentrate on obeying the rules, and judiciously WP:IAR'ing them and just criticize your own actions. IMO Franamax (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it appears as a tit-for-tat kind of thing or not, but if I'm to be blocked for 2 reverts replacing the tags, it only seems fair and consistent that another's possible 4 reverts removing the same tags be investigated. Otherwise, I would need someone to explain to me why revert rules should be read closely when it comes to me, but not for other experienced editors. --G2bambino (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing, you can ask for someone else to be dragged down with you, but eventually you have to stand alone to be judged. Whether life or wiki - you might expect fairness or consistency, but you won't necessarily get it. At least in real life, probably not. The problems arise when you proceed on your own assumptions of what is fair and just. SS has a defensible case (as I interpret it, enforcing a 1RR restriction, and reverting changes with direction to the talk page and consensus therein). You, on the other hand, are treading on very thin ice. No less a personage than Guy has commented that you are "following the classic path to self-destruction right now". My best advice is that you really should take that to heart - if Guy is devoting as many words as he did for your case (44, he usually does it in ten or less), read each one carefully, and abandon any ideas of self-justification. The answer is going to be inside you, not in pointing fingers at anyone else. What exactly is it that you want to contribute here? What about your approach is pushing people away? Only you can answer those questions. Franamax (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hiya G2bambino. I'd recommend that ya take a wiki-break from Canadian monarchy related articles, for at least 1-month. Rightly or wrongly, you've peeved alot of editors out there. Perhaps consider doing as Roux has. I don't wanna see ya getting longer & longer blocks (which is possible). GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GD, I've seen this suggestion in the other places you've put it forward. I don't, however, think it would accomplish much; whether it's later or not, the issue is having everyone get along. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. PS- Have ya noticed I've improved on my indenting at talk-pages? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

Hi, I've taken your statement: Nixeagle, I already offered my vote of support for the proposal above, and I have not changed my mind. I still think there should be a longer watch on Roux in terms of civility, but otherwise I am fine with the arrangements. as meaning you agree with the restrictions. As far as your sole concern, not having the WP:CIVIL restrictions on as long, I can assure you that if it becomes a problem after 2 months you can just ask me and I'll look at the situation and potentially block. You both know by now that you must be civil on this encyclopedia. Failure to be civil will result in my blocking. I hate to block, so lets work on the CIVIL thing (both of you).

As I've noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=249462142#Both_editors_accepted I've marked that both of you agree to the restrictions mentioned above. If this is not the case, you need to say so there. (I'm taking your vote of support as that you agree with the restrictions) I myself think it is fair and reasonable as none of the restrictions are anything that good editors don't already do. (neither of you are being restricted from any class of articles, etc.) The shorter period on roux only reflects that he has not been around as long as you, and the main part of the restricions is getting both of you to improve on your civility and editing behavior.

—— nixeagle 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Hi! per this post both you and Roux have accepted this solution and it is now in effect. Thank you for working through this dispute, it's appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox

Hey, I was hoping you would not mind removing this section from your sandbox. I have some concerns that it may appear as somewhat of an attack page. Thanks, Tiptoety 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Template: Ca-residence

You may have noticed the recent change there. I've not the energy to dispute his/her changes any longer; I'd rather pet a porcupine while rolling in tissles. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice it until you just drew my attention there; I've just fixed it, again. I wonder if we need higher powers to involve themselves... --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're brave soul. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well, I used up my one revert; so, if he does it again, it's up to someone else to tackle it. He certainly doesn't seem interested in discussing the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got that impression from him/her, on his/her talkpage in October. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I've replied to your 3RR report; please let me know if you have any questions or such. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. --G2bambino (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made a comment on the 3RR noticceboard discussing the problems with Soulscanner that myself and another user (User:Mathieugp) had with Soulscanner last year. I should inform you that Soulscanner's inappropriate conduct goes back to last year when he made a mission to oppose anything he saw as pro-Quebec and pro-francophone and he was extremely forceful and zealous in his hardline federalist bias. I see that he has reverted you no matter what you do on the Canada page, even if your edits are legitimate. Anyway, if you check my edit history you will discover that Soulscaner has used sockpuppets in the past and that he has a very long history of bias and revert warring. Laval (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I too am familiar with soulscanner, having already been through a very tumultuous argument he initiated at Talk:Canada some time ago. I also observed what went on at Talk:Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day). I certainly hope he will adopt a more collegial attitude. --G2bambino (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

I'm sorry to have to block you, however you cannot assume bad faith as you have done at Template talk:British Royal Family. I have written a response there at Template talk:British Royal Family#Width 2 for what you should do once this block expires. Throwing around accusations that another editor is "owning" a template/article/whatever is not productive to discussion. I do feel that the two of you are seeing consensus differently, and I explained that (your differences on what the consensus agreed) on the talk page for you. —— nixeagle 06:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Perhaps that was an assumption of bad faith; however, a restriction on my ability to assume such seems to allow Roux to get away with reverting my good faith edit followed by snide comments such as "I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye," and "You know precisely what you were told and where... no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that... are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments." Though I tend to not take much offense to these types of things, Roux is evidently assuming bad faith on my part in insinuating that I am willfully overriding a consensus I am choosing to ignore. As he is under identical civility and AGF restrictions, it only seems consistent and fair that either I be unblocked, or he face the same consequences for his display. --G2bambino (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Its well documented that using unblock requests to try and get other users blocked is rarely productive. — Spartaz 07:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I do not see any *recent* problems (re roux) on the history of that template. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=250311297&oldid=250292703 for roux's only edit after the restrictions you two agreed to. He commented to the effect that consensus is not achieved, As I said, you guys need to figure out if the consensus on that talk page was against his proposal or against changing the width at all. I explained this on the talk page of that template for you guys).

Now you post a bunch of unlinked summaries. Are any of those recent? as in after the two of you agreed to your restrictions? If so I am interested in seeing links to diffs.

Finally I need to note, that you cannot control what others do, but you can control what you do. You agreed (along with roux) not to assume bad faith, and saying someone is owning an article is an assumption of bad faith. If you have a problem with the behavior of roux, my talk page is always open to you and if that is not sufficient there is always WP:AN, but do not assume bad faith on article talk pages. —— nixeagle 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't really clear, sorry: What I quoted weren't edit summaries; they were Roux's words to me at the talk page (diffs: , , and this other less rude one ). To me each of those add up to show clearly that he didn't say there's no consensus; he said there is a consensus, and was therefore insinuating that I was willfully choosing to ignore its existence. That is a veiled accusation of bad faith. Further, the snide sarcasm of "It is against changes. Bye", and "the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing," is meant only to agitate, the same as he had been doing before he agreed to the civility and AGF restrictions.

I apologise to Spartaz if he thinks I made some error in the posting of the unblock request; it was actually more a means to attract attention to this matter rather than to "specifically get someone blocked". Roux was unblocked once before (see 14:05, 8 October 2008) because he had been blocked for the same 1RR violation that I had apparently made and wasn't blocked for. Now I've been blocked for the same AGF violation that he's made (besides his incivility); so... I'd imagine the parallel action would take place again, either in unblocking me, or a 24hr block for him for breaking his added restrictions. Frankly, I think the latter is the more prudent; I've learned the extent of my AGF boundaries by being blocked, but, without recourse for his actions, has he? --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. I believe there is a consensus. Pointing out that you were doing exactly what you had been explicitly told by Mayalld not to do is not an assumption of bad faith or an insinuation of anything; it is pointing out that you had been explicitly told not to do (twice) what you were doing. "It is against changes. Bye" and "the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing," are neither snide nor sarcastic, they are statements of my position, as is "I will not get into an argument with you." Nor are they meant to 'agitate'--so, as I have asked you dozens of times before, please stop assigning motives to me that just aren't there. Your continued insistence on doing that has gone way beyond difference of opinion into attack territory, and I won't stand for it any more. Stop. I'm no longer watching that template, it was a mistake that it was even on my watchlist anymore. I came here only because I was told by someone else what you were saying, in order to defend myself. I will not be coming back here again. Bye. 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BRF template

My monthly rotation idea, was to have the Template at a width size for this month, then the other for the next month; then see how it went. I was hoping it might end the disputing there. I had noticed the width of templates varies throughout the Royal Family Templates (Romanian, Greek, Spanish etc). GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean on a trial basis? I'm not sure how that would allay Roux. --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One never knows. If it's rejected? Wiki-life goes on. It wouldn't be the first idea I had, that was put into the round file, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tiptoety

I hope you are watching this page. I saw your post at AN3. Though my opinion might not be of much importance, I'm strongly against your notion of blocking GoodDay; he was actually the most active of all of us in trying to get Lonewolf BC to engage in discussion. It would seem counterproductive to block him. --G2bambino (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I more or less agree with your analysis as you should see on that page, and it looks like Tiptoety took the input of others into consideration :). It takes two to tango, but one can tango with more then one partner as Lonewolf did. —— nixeagle 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I might've been blocked while I was asleep. Oh well, if that would've been best for the article? so be it. The project comes first, it existed before I came along, it will survive after I'm gone. My fate is in the hands of the Administrators (as it should be). GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you were not blocked because you restrained yourself. Please read the discussion at WP:AN3. —— nixeagle 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to express my opinons there & here. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

G2B, yep. I looked into the situation a bit more, and after reading the comments of others I found it best not to block GoodDay. Cheers, Tiptoety 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Temp work space

pre-colombian/exploration/colonisation/conquest/1812 war

First Nation and Inuit traditions maintain that indiginous people have resided on their lands since the beginning of time, while archaeological studies support a human presence in the northern Yukon from 26,500 years ago, and in southern Ontario from 9,500 years ago. Europeans first arrived when the Vikings settled briefly at L'Anse aux Meadows around AD 1000; following the failure of that colony, there was no further attempt at North American exploration until 1497, when John Cabot explored Canada's Atlantic coast for England, followed by Jacques Cartier in 1534 for France.

French explorer Samuel de Champlain arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal in 1605 and Quebec City in 1608. These would become respectively the capitals of Acadia and Canada. Among French colonists of New France, Canadiens extensively settled the Saint Lawrence River valley, Acadians settled the present-day Maritimes, while French fur traders and Catholic missionaries explored the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay and the Mississippi watershed to Louisiana. The French and Iroquois Wars broke out over control of the fur trade.

The English established fishing outposts in Newfoundland around 1610 and colonized the Thirteen Colonies to the south. A series of four Intercolonial Wars erupted between 1689 and 1763. Mainland Nova Scotia came under British rule with the Treaty of Utrecht (1713); the Treaty of Paris (1763) ceded Canada and most of New France to Britain following the Seven Years' War.

The Royal Proclamation (1763) carved the Province of Quebec out of New France and annexed Cape Breton Island to Nova Scotia. It also restricted the language and religious rights of French Canadians. In 1769, St. John's Island (now Prince Edward Island) became a separate colony. To avert conflict in Quebec, the Quebec Act of 1774 expanded Quebec's territory to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley and re-established the French language, Catholic faith, and French civil law in Quebec; it angered many residents of the Thirteen Colonies, helping to fuel the American Revolution. The Treaty of Paris (1783) recognized American independence and ceded territories south of the Great Lakes to the United States. Approximately 50,000 United Empire Loyalists fled the United States to Canada. New Brunswick was split from Nova Scotia as part of a reorganization of Loyalist settlements in the Maritimes. To accommodate English-speaking Loyalists in Quebec, the Constitutional Act of 1791 divided the province into French-speaking Lower Canada and English-speaking Upper Canada, granting each their own elected Legislative Assembly.

Canada (Upper and Lower) was the main front in the War of 1812 between the United States and the British Empire. The defence of Canada contributed to a sense of unity among British North Americans. Large-scale immigration to Canada began in 1815 from Britain and Ireland. The timber industry surpassed the fur trade in importance in the early nineteenth century.

responsible government/railways/western expansion/confederation/Metis

The desire for responsible government resulted in the aborted Rebellions of 1837. The Durham Report subsequently recommended responsible government and the assimilation of French Canadians into British culture. The Act of Union 1840 merged The Canadas into a United Province of Canada. French and English Canadians worked together in the Assembly to reinstate French rights. Responsible government was established for all British North American provinces by 1849.

The signing of the Oregon Treaty by Britain and the United States in 1846 ended the Oregon boundary dispute, extending the border westward along the 49th parallel and paving the way for British colonies on Vancouver Island (1849) and in British Columbia (1858). Canada launched a series of western exploratory expeditions to claim Rupert's Land and the Arctic region. The Canadian population grew rapidly because of high birth rates; British immigration was offset by emigration to the United States, especially by French Canadians moving to New England.

Following several constitutional conferences, the Constitution Act, 1867 brought about Confederation creating "one Dominion under the name of Canada" on July 1, 1867, with four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Canada assumed control of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to form the Northwest Territories, where Métis' grievances ignited the Red River Rebellion and the creation of the province of Manitoba in July 1870. British Columbia and Vancouver Island (which had united in 1866) and the colony of Prince Edward Island joined Confederation in 1871 and 1873, respectively.

Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's Conservative government established a national policy of tariffs to protect nascent Canadian manufacturing industries. To open the West, the government sponsored construction of three trans-continental railways (most notably the Canadian Pacific Railway), opened the prairies to settlement with the Dominion Lands Act, and established the North-West Mounted Police to assert its authority over this territory. In 1898, after the Klondike Gold Rush in the Northwest Territories, the Canadian government created the Yukon territory. Under Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, continental European immigrants settled the prairies, and Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces in 1905.

world wars/economic expansion/Quiet Revolution/Afghanistan

Canada automatically entered World War I in 1914 with Britain's declaration of war, sending volunteers to the Western Front who later became part of the Canadian Corps. The Corps played a substantial role in the Battle of Vimy Ridge and other major battles of the war. The Conscription Crisis of 1917 erupted when conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden brought in compulsory military service over the objection of French-speaking Quebecers. In 1919, Canada joined the League of Nations independently of Britain; in 1931 the Statute of Westminster affirmed Canada's independence.

The Great Depression brought economic hardship to all of Canada. In response, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Alberta and Saskatchewan enacted many measures of a welfare state as pioneered by Tommy Douglas in the 1940s and 1950s. Canada declared war on Germany independently during World War II under Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, three days after Britain. The first Canadian Army units arrived in Britain in December 1939. Canadian troops played important roles in the Battle of the Atlantic, the failed 1942 Dieppe Raid in France, the Allied invasion of Italy, the D-Day landings, the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Canada is credited by the Netherlands for having provided asylum and protection for its monarchy during the war after the country was occupied and the Netherlands credits Canada for its leadership and major contribution to the liberation of Netherlands from Nazi Germany. The Canadian economy boomed as industry manufactured military materiel for Canada, Britain, China and the Soviet Union. Despite another Conscription Crisis in Quebec, Canada finished the war with one of the largest armed forces in the world. In 1945, during the war, Canada became one of the first countries to join the United Nations.

This growth, combined with the policies of successive Liberal governments, led to the emergence of a new Canadian identity, marked by the adoption of the current Maple Leaf Flag in 1965, the implementation of official bilingualism in 1969, and official multiculturalism in 1971. Socially democratic programmes were also founded, such as universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, though provincial governments, particularly Quebec and Alberta, opposed many of these as incursions into their jurisdictions. Finally, another series of constitutional conferences resulted in the patriation of Canada's constitution from the United Kingdom, concurrent with the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time, Quebec was undergoing profound social and economic changes through the Quiet Revolution, giving birth to a nationalis movement in the province. and the more radical Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), who's actions ignited the October Crisis in 1970. A decade later, an unsuccessful referendum on sovereignty-association was held in 1980, after which attempts at constitutional amendment were attempted and failed in 1989. A second referendum followed in 1995, in which sovereignty was rejected by a slimmer margin of just 50.6% to 49.4%. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled thatunilateral secession by a province would be unconstitutional, and the Clarity Act was passed by parliament, outlining the terms of a negotiated departure from Confederation.

After various peacekeeping missions between the 1950s and 1990s, Canada engaged in the NATO led Afghan War in 2001, though subsequently refusing to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At home, following various legal battles, as well as some violent confrontations at Oka, Ipperwash, and Gustafsen Lake, in 1999 Canada recognized Inuit self-government with the creation of Nunavut, settled Nisga'a claims in British Columbia, and, in 2008, the Prime Minister apologised for the creation of residential schools by previous governments

1. Cinq-Mars, J. (2001). "On the significance of modified mammoth bones from eastern Beringia" (PDF). The World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome. Retrieved 2006-05-14.
2. Wright, J.V (27 September 2001). "A History of the Native People of Canada: Early and Middle Archaic Complexes". Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. Retrieved 2006-05-14.
3. "John Cabot". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica.
4. "Cartier, Jacques". World book Encyclopedia. World Book, Inc. ISBN 071660101X. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
5. "Wars on Our Soil, earliest times to 1885". Retrieved 2006-08-21.
6. Moore, Christopher (1994). The Loyalist: Revolution Exile Settlement. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-6093-9.
7. David Mills. "Durham Report". Historica Foundation of Canada. Retrieved 2006-05-18.
8. "The Canadian Encyclopedia: Responsible Government". Historica Foundation of Canada. This key principle of responsibility, whereby a government needed the confidence of Parliament, originated in established British practice. But its transfer to British N America gave the colonists control of their domestic affairs, since a governor would simply follow the advice (ie, policies) of responsible colonial ministers.
9. "Canadian Cofederation: Responsible Government". Library and Archives Canada. The Executive Council would be governed by the leader of the political party that held an elected majority in the Legislative Assembly. That same leader would also appoint the members of the Executive Council. The governor would therefore be forced to accept these "ministers", and if the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly voted against them, they would have to resign. The governor would also be obliged to ratify laws concerning the internal affairs of the colony once these laws had been passed to the Legislative Assembly.
10. Farthing, John (1957). Freedom Wears a Crown. Toronto: Kingswood House. ASIN B0007JC4G2.
11. ^ Stacey, C.P. (1948). History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. Queen's Printer.
12. Bickerton, James & Gagnon, Alain-G & Gagnon, Alain (Eds). (2004). Canadian Politics (4th edition ed.). Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press. ISBN 1-55111-595-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
13. Bélanger, Claude (3 August 2000). "Quiet Revolution". Quebec History. Marionopolis College, Montreal. Retrieved 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
14. ^ Dickinson, John Alexander (2003). A Short History of Quebec (3rd edition ed.). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0-7735-2450-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)