", 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me; I did not claim your arguments were ""illegitimate"" as a whole, merely that they were less legitimate than the others. ""Legitimate"" was probably the wrong word. You made some good points, but the request's supporters made better ones. Your opposing vote contained the following text:
Furthermore, the reason given for moving is in itself offensive. The title is objective, and the objection to it seems to be only that it doesn't adequately conform to Laval's own beliefs about what is motivating the contributors to this article. In the absence of any evidence that we're bigots, I suggest the correct move is for Laval either to demonstrate we're bigots or to apologize for slandering us.
This violates WP:AGF in the first sentence, and continues to be something akin to a personal attack. I am sure that your comments were sincere, but I think both sides allowed themselves to get riled and to speak too rashly. Your point about original research was more significant, but the term ""Anti-Quebec sentiment"" does seem to be in fairly widespread use (I did check).
A person doesn't have to vote to voice an opinion. The instructions at the top of every poll state ""Please remember that this survey is not a vote"", so the fact that I've inferred opinions from other parts of the debate is not a problem. It seems that 205.157.110.11 (an IP, but one with a very strong history of contructive edits) would have made an explicit vote were it not for the hot-headed wording of the proposal, and GTBacchus (an editor who I have yet to see make a mistake) also supported a very similar title. Laval, the move's proponent supported his move, of course; tjstrf proposed an alternative title, which garnered little support, and ""Marc Gévry"" commented more on the debate than the title. This makes 3 ""votes"" in favour of ""Anti-Quebec sentiment[s]"", and one (yourself) directly opposed. Characterising votes for alternative titles as either support or opposition for the quoted proposal cannot be accurately done, so I omitted those from the count (but took them into consideration for the decision, of course).
I don't approve of returning to debates once they've been closed, and I really think you should move on. There is plenty of work to be done to the article, at whatever title it may be, and I'm sure you can contribute a great deal to it. Therefore, I don't wish to discuss this matter any further. I reviewed the case in good faith, and I made a decision, which I stick to. I know that this sounds harsh, but I cannot dedicate this amount of time to business which has already been settled.  14:08"