This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 1 October 2013 (→Removing prop: redirected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:01, 1 October 2013 by NE Ent (talk | contribs) (→Removing prop: redirected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Law Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This 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)
- The "overkill" I referred to is that once the OR template is up, there is no need to have the same tag on each and every paragraph. So far, so good. We are merely dealing with editing issues. However, your note above is far more serious as you are maligning a user who no longer seems to be editing, and therefore unable to participate in this discussion. What is worse, neither of the two links you provide bear out any of your accusations. I shall raise this issue over at AN/I and link it to your talk page when I have done so. --Technopat (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This article isn't encyclopedic at all. It's just puff designed to sound good without really saying anything. It uses lots of Latin phrases without really explaining what they mean. It's just a poorly written essay on the conflict of laws. There's nothing much worth keeping. It should just be redirected to Conflict of laws. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify my comment: An article could potentially be written about the conflict of property laws but this isn't it. I'd normally propose rewriting the article form scratch, but here I think it would be better to concentrate on improving the conflict of laws article itself, of which this article is really a sub-article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Done