Talk:Conflict of property laws: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:46, 29 September 2013 edit212.50.182.151 (talk) →Removing prop: Commentary.← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:50, 29 September 2013 edit undo212.50.182.151 (talk) →Removing prop: Retouching.Next edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	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 of Misplaced Pages—encyclopaedic or otherwise. There is no "overkill", only that the articles created by ] (now a retired editor, 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 more original legal research by laymen! We have been <i>trolled</i>! Geddit? Do you not understand that? </br></br></br>His work is largely his own "crackpot" original legal research, by a person from one of the former new Colonies (Singapore) 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)		: ] is ultimately allowed on Misplaced Pages, least of all for legal articles—not least for the sake of the reputation of Misplaced Pages—encyclopaedic or otherwise. There is no "overkill", only that the articles created by ] (now a retired editor, 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? </br></br></br> His work is largely his own "crackpot" original legal research, by a person from one of the former new British Colonies (Singapore) 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 13:50, 29 September 2013

Law Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 of Misplaced Pages—encyclopaedic or otherwise. There is no "overkill", only that the articles created by User:David91 (now a retired editor, 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 (Singapore) 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: