Talk:Immovable property

MMM
...Immovable property?

I've heard about many castles moved piece by piece from their original locations to new grounds, much like the fictional castle of the Disney gargoyles... What can be said about that? I think it could deserve it's own article with dates and costs et al.


 * Well, if you're going to nitpick to the point of absurdity (mountains have moved due to earthquakes and volcanos, but as a rule they're considered pretty permanent), then let me raise this point. " ... it could deserve its (not it's) own article ... "  140.147.160.78 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Any legally or actually immovable property can be moved (destroyed) by an irresistible force, such as an object falling from the sky or another planet or a large meteorite colliding with Earth, or it can be taken apart into pieces by humans and carried over to another place, but that's philosophy. Also, that would be considered a "destructible property" rather than an "immovable property". Legally and actually a house with land under it can not be moved, without destroying it or taking it into pieces, since immovable property includes also the geo location of the property, which is unique and therefore can not be moved by any earthly force. "Im movable" term mans "moving in one piece, intact, without doing any damage to the object, nor taking it apart". This article is all about real life, here on Earth. And although Earth is constantly moving by turning around on it's axis and flying around Sun in space (also our Galaxy is on the move as well), yet "immovable property" is considered attached ("sticky") to the soil, to the ground that it stands on and not attached only by construction materials and by Earth's gravitational force, but also legally by ownership law and the abovementioned geographical coordinate. I will agree if you say that my English is far from perfect, you are welcome to correct it.

Audriust (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my significant edits to this article by anonymous editor
Editor "69.128.60.106", maybe the original author of this article (?), has chosen to revert my total re-writing of the piece.

In doing so, I removed a lot of vague and wandering repetitious sections and wrote a properly-flowing narrative.

The original article was not an article AT ALL: starting with the name of the article - then a definition - then how it is used - then where it is used - etc. etc.

If this editor now wishes to change the article as written (short of adding back in some external links), he/she MUST first justify this action on the TALK PAGE RIGHT HERE and get consensus from other editors that this is the correct thing to do.

THIS ANONYMOUS EDITOR IS WARNED THAT IF HE/SHE CONTINUES WITH EDIT WARS (i.e. constant reversion), HE/SHE MAY BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA.Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Viva-Verdi, what right do you have to delete parts of my article and external links? What justifies the removal? You delete parts of my contents and threaten to block my IP? You are the one, who should be blocked for vandalising my article and links. I expect explanation in very detail.


 *  I assume that you are anonymous 69.128 etc?? I'm not blocking anyone. I simply stated that if you choose to enter into edit wars, you may be blocked.Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excerpt from the talk rules: "Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you."


 * Our points disagree. My article is not against the rules neither it has commercial data or misspellings. Yet to threaten to block me. You are acting against the rules. Restore my article and all the external links. Otherwise provide reasons why some of the links were removed.


 * ''I reverted the originally-written article in toto and noted that the links you added can be restored. Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as per the rules, writing in uppercase (the way you do) is considered rude and shouting and is against the rules. Please explain your position at Wikipedia and what rights you have to delete my text and links. And restore my text and links. You can add your own if you want to or edit the spelling or grammar, but not vandalise my article.


 * ''I use caps for emphasis. If you don't like it, too bad. Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Audriust (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The original "article" is a rambling, repetative series of sentences or statements. It is poorly written to boot; one thing does not logically flow from another.
 * It uses the 3rd person - "you". This is not a "how to" article; even if it were, third person is not acceptable.
 * It repeats itself by saying basically the same thing starting with "in other words"
 * Your "reference" to Greco-Germanic law makes no attempt to create a wiki link to an article describing this very thing.
 * My addition of the link also notes this form of law to be predominent.
 * Re-writing and vastly improving an article is not vandalism.
 * Links: I've restored your links, no problem (though one providing an application form for sometihng in the state of Louisiana doesn't seem to be valuable without further explanation).
 * In looking at the original set of links, you reference a whole series of aspects of foreign laws, but they do not (as with the Treaty of Versailles) relate to the text at all. While it is laudable to include a "world view", the article itself should reference different countries' experiences and relate them to the links in a "Notes" or "Reference" section.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viva-Verdi:


 * 1. I have removed the duplicate link that you added at the end. It's ok, must be a mistake.
 * 2. The Russian etc. spelling of "immovable property" that I added in latin letters - why did you remove it? I want people to know how to pronounce it.
 * 3. Your almost completely new article is utrue and I have to place the earlier article there. It is comprised from sentences other sources such as deleted (vandalised) contents from the earlier wiki article, encyclopedia and some legal sources. Therefore I am restoring that article with some minor improvements.
 * 4. Comment on your statements:
 * 4a. "Real estate" is not USA-wide term. It's used mostly for commercial purpose. In Louisiana a term "immovable property" is used and in civil USA law "immovable property" is used.
 * 4b. In Britain (and the rest of Europe and Asia and beyond) "real estate" is called "property" or a full terms is "immovable property". There is a need for in-depth article explaining exactrly what "immovable property" is since we receive thousands of inquiries about this term.


 * Therefore I am restoring the article with some minor improvements.

Audriust (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I did try to add referring links using wiki link addition tool, but it was not working at all. It timed-out with a blank page. I'm going to try it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audriust (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have made the article something in between, between my earlier posted version and your version, deleting some duplicated sentences, regrouping the rest, using most of your sentences. I'm still going to attempt to add referring links where applicable.

Audriust (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Immovable Object - Irresistible force paradox
The first internal link in the lead, 'immovable object', links to irresistible force paradox. The sense in which this page uses the term 'immovable object' (an object that can't be moved without destroying it/taking it apart) is not the same as the way it is used in the irresistible force paradox, where it is absolutely and totally immovable. So I suggest removing it and will do so myself (in a few days; if I don't forget) unless there is a reason not to.

71.202.36.15 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I decided to create an account. The above signature/edit is mine. Milo 42 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References"
I wonder why Wikipedia has Double Standards? When I posted a link to www.immovableproperty.com/ it was immediately deleted. It contained important and educational Q&A (FAQ). Now the www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References" from South Africa does not have any useful nor educational contents in it, just a "For Sale" or "Coming Soon" page; apparently the author is either selling the domain or advertising and taking subscriptions. There is a section "External Links" yet the South African page is listed separately "References". What kind of "reference" that website is, with no contents? How come it is not deleted from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia run by kids? I demand answers. Audriust (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)