Misplaced Pages

Talk:Conflict of property laws: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:58, 29 September 2013 editTechnopat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,970 edits →Removing prop: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:10, 29 September 2013 edit undo212.50.182.151 (talk) →Removing prop: Retouching.Next edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{Old prod full}}


==Move discussion in progress== ==Move discussion in progress==
Line 6: Line 7:
== Removing prop == == Removing prop ==


This is clearly an encyclopedic article. However, as per the existing tags, it needs referencing and an expert editor to go through it. --] (]) 10:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC) This is clearly an encyclopedic article. However, as per the existing tags, it needs referencing and an expert editor to go through it. --] (]) 10:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
: ] is ultimately allowed on Misplaced Pages, least of all for legal articles—not least for the sake of the reputation and integrity of Misplaced Pages—encyclopaedic or otherwise. There is no "overkill", only that the articles created by ] (now retired, then back in the year 2005 a 14-year-old something being allowed to pass off as a 91-year-old retired "lawyer" from Singapore) have been allowed to stay for so long as if they were legitimate articles that he have most of us fooled, hook, line and sinker. We need to stop this retentionist/deletionist ideological nonsense! We need a <i>real</i> attorney, counsel, barrister, solicitor, advocate, jurat or notary public, practising or retired, to re-write the whole article afresh, not some <i>more</i> original legal research by <i>more</i> laymen! We have been <i>trolled</i>! Geddit? Do you not understand that? His work is largely his own "crackpot" original legal research, by a person from one of the former new British Colonies (probably Singapore or Malaysia), who utterly failed to understand, amongst other things, that most of the Commonwealth and the Americans have two different and disparate legal traditions, and never mind the Continent of Europe; and the rest are probably—given his then young age—copyright violations! He was basically creating articles primarily to make a name for himself (showing off)! He had himself admitted as much! ] (]) 13:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:10, 29 September 2013

WikiProject iconLaw Redirect‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Proposed deletionThis page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contract (conflict) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing prop

This is clearly an encyclopedic article. However, as per the existing tags, it needs referencing and an expert editor to go through it. --Technopat (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research is ultimately allowed on Misplaced Pages, least of all for legal articles—not least for the sake of the reputation and integrity of Misplaced Pages—encyclopaedic or otherwise. There is no "overkill", only that the articles created by User:David91 (now retired, then back in the year 2005 a 14-year-old something being allowed to pass off as a 91-year-old retired "lawyer" from Singapore) have been allowed to stay for so long as if they were legitimate articles that he have most of us fooled, hook, line and sinker. We need to stop this retentionist/deletionist ideological nonsense! We need a real attorney, counsel, barrister, solicitor, advocate, jurat or notary public, practising or retired, to re-write the whole article afresh, not some more original legal research by more laymen! We have been trolled! Geddit? Do you not understand that? His work is largely his own "crackpot" original legal research, by a person from one of the former new British Colonies (probably Singapore or Malaysia), who utterly failed to understand, amongst other things, that most of the Commonwealth and the Americans have two different and disparate legal traditions, and never mind the Continent of Europe; and the rest are probably—given his then young age—copyright violations! He was basically creating articles primarily to make a name for himself (showing off)! He had himself admitted as much! 212.50.182.151 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories: