text:
C5orf34

C5orf34 (chromosome 5 open reading frame 34) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the C5orf34 gene (5p12).

C5orf34 is conserved in mammals, birds and reptiles with the most distant ancestor being the Burmese python, Python bivittatus. The C5orf34 protein contains two mammalian conserved domains: DUF 4520 and DUF 4524. The protein is also predicted to have a polo-box domain (PBD) of polo-like kinase 4 (plk4), which has predicted conservation in distant orthologs from the clade Aves.

Gene
C5orf34 is located on the negative DNA strand of the short arm of chromosome 6 at locus 12. The gene is 28,744 base pairs long and spans from base pair 43,486,701 to base pair 43,515,445. The gene produces a single transcript of 2,540 base pairs long and encodes for 638 amino acids.

Gene neighborhood
The gene PAIP1 is found on the negative strand just downstream of C5orf34 and is a member of the polyadenylate-binding family. PAIP1 extends from base pairs 43,526,267 to 43,557,419. CCL28 is found downstream on the negative strand and extends from base pairs 43378052 to 43413837.

Gene expression
There indication of multiple sources that suggest, in humans, C5orf34 protein is expressed non-ubiquitously in select tissues at low/moderate levels, with the most abundant expression in the tissues of the stomach, small intestine, testis, skeletal muscle and heart muscle. A study of Rho kinase inhibitor effect on primary cell lines also showed that C5orf34 is expressed in dermal fibroblasts of normal human tissue samples.

Promoter
The promoter region for C5orf34 is predicted to be between 43515079 and 43515773 and spans 695 base pairs.

Protein
C5orf34 consists of 638 amino acids, has a weight of 72.7 kDa and an isoelectric point of 7.77 in humans.

Function
Although the precise function of C5orf34 in humans remains unknown, there is evidentiary support based on structure that it is involved in kinase-related cellular functions. In addition, C5orf34 is predicted to be nuclear, thus it has potential involvement in gene regulation and cell proliferation seeing as these are two primary signal transduction pathways involve nuclear kinase proteins.

Structure
In humans, C5orf34 contains two domains of unknown function, DUF 4520 (pfam 15016) and DUF 4524 (pfam 150125), found between residues 6-153 and 444–539, respectively. The protein is serine and threonine rich. The charge distribution of the protein is equally dispersed per there are no positive or negative charge clusters sequestered within the protein.

The predicted secondary structures of the human protein were assessed by multiple bioinformatic tools. All of the programs predicted the protein's structure to consist of alpha helices, extended strands, random coils and beta turns. The Phyre2 server provided a predicted human protein structure that indicated domains of plk polo-box of the serine/threonine-protein kinase plk4. The server predicted with 96.8% confidence of 20% coverage (130 residues) of the protein. The coverage exhibited residues of the conserved polo-box domain and the two DUF domains. The protein was predominantly soluble, with an average hydrophobicity of -0.478.

Post-translational modifications
There is extensive, predicted phosphorylation of C5orf34, with 32 phosphoserines and 7 phosphothreonines being conserved in orthologs of the human C5orf34 protein. This analysis indicates C5orf34 as a phosphoprotein and supports structural predictions of it being a kinase protein. The protein contains only one nuclear export signal residue, found at 481-L; however the NES score was found to be low at 0.515. Structural analysis of the protein indicated it was sequestered in the nucleus with an 87% probability.

Interacting proteins
Databases of protein interactions (MINT, STRING, IntAct, and BioGRID) have not identified any interactions with C5orf34.

Homology and evolution
C5orf34 is highly conserved in primates and mammals and moderately conserved in reptiles. The furthest conserved ortholog is in Python bivittatus, or the Burmese python. Below is a selected list of orthologs to demonstrate the homology of this gene with relation to the reference sequence in Homo sapiens.

Orthologous space
151 organisms have been predicted orthologs with C5orf34. The most distant ortholog is the Burmese python, which diverged from humans 296 million years ago, indicating C5orf34 developed in reptiles and birds.

Paralogous space
There are no predicted paralogs for C5orf34 in both humans and mice.

Conserved regions
Multiple sequence alignments indicated amino acid residue conservation throughout the C5orf34 protein in an array of orthologs, with the most highly conserved regions at both N-terminus and C-terminus where the DUF are located. DUF 4520 (pfam 15016) was found to be conserved in C-terminus and DUF 4524 (pfam 150125) was found to be conserved in the N-terminus. Also, the polo-box domain of plk4 was found to be conserved in the C-terminus in a multiple sequence alignment in both strict and distant orthologs.

title: C5orf34


text:
User:ApplePear97

Hi I'm ApplePear97. I'm just looking forward to more editing.

I have a new project right now. My client is a recording artist who would like to have a Wikipedia page created. I am following the rules and letting Wikipedia know this information before I begin.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:ApplePear97


text:
pamidronate

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  The, or any salt or , of . Used as a medication to inhibit bone loss in disorders of bone metabolism.

title: pamidronate


text:
Dodge Intrepid ESX

The Dodge Intrepid ESX prototype cars are the result of the 1993 response by the Chrysler Corporation to a challenge by U.S. President Bill Clinton to produce a vehicle which was capable of meeting the demands of the modern consumer, while still achieving an unprecedented 80 mpgus overall in fuel economy. The PNGV - Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles project was aimed at The Big Three American car manufacturers.

ESX I (1996)
The first attempt made by Chrysler at exceeding 80 mpg was designated the Intrepid ESX. The ESX I, although a series hybrid, used what might be considered "conventional technology". Chrysler invested an estimated US$3 million into the project, which used exotic materials in its construction. The ESX was designed by Bob Boniface, who went on the design the 1998 production Dodge Intrepid.

The engine was derived from a series hybrid-drive propulsion system meant to use 40% of gasoline's potential energy while at optimum RPM (the typical car only uses 15% of gasoline's potential energy due to wide ranges of RPMs). The car was powered by a VM Motori 1.8 L three-cylinder turbocharged diesel, whose energy was diverted to a 180 lb, 300 V TMF battery developed by Bolder Technologies in Golden, Colorado and two oil-cooled electric wheel motors. The electric motors were also part of the regenerative braking system, where energy normally lost through the disc brakes recharged the batteries.

ESX II (1998)
The second series in the ESX line completed testing in 1998, and made several improvements on its predecessor.

The ESX II was dubbed a "mybrid" (mild hybrid) because its reliance on electrical power was not highly dependent on the battery. This system contained two motors that worked in parallel: a 1.5 L 74 bhp direct-injection diesel and a 20 bhp AC-induction electric motor. Coupled with the powertrains were a 5-speed electronically shifted manual transmission, a nickel-metal hydride battery pack, and controlling equipment which included components from the Patriot hybrid race-car program. The main power came from the diesel engine. The electric motor charged the batteries, added to the acceleration, and powered the reverse gear.

To cut down on cost and weight, Chrysler fit the car with an unpainted thermoplastic body attached to an aluminum frame. The shape had low aerodynamic drag. Inside, trim was constructed of carbon fiber and the seats were constructed from tube frame. The final cost: only $15,000 more than a regular Intrepid, or about $37,000.

ESX III (2003)
The ESX III progress in fuel efficiency and costs stem from several major improvements in technology: The ESX3's mild hybrid electric (or "mybrid") powertrain combines an efficient diesel engine, an electric motor and a lithium-ion battery to achieve an average 72 miles per gallon (3.3 liters/100 km) fuel efficiency (gasoline equivalent). That is two miles per gallon better than the fuel efficiency of its predecessor, the ESX2 in 1998, and close to PNGV's goal of 80 mpgus.

An electro-mechanical automatic transmission (EMAT) developed by DaimlerChrysler engineers provides the fuel efficiency of a manual transmission with the convenience of an automatic.

The lightweight body uses injection-molded thermoplastics to achieve significant improvements in weight and cost. The ESX3 weighs in at just 2,250 pounds (1020 kg) while meeting all federal safety standards and providing the roominess and comfort of today's family sedan. The entire vehicle is more than 80 percent recyclable.

A total rethinking of the car's electronic and electrical systems cut several pounds from the weight of electronics while providing driver controls, vehicle monitoring and diagnostic indicators, audio and video systems, and a telemetrics package.

There are no plans to produce any of the ESX series of vehicles; the Intrepid nameplate has been retired, and Dodge has no immediate plans to produce a hybrid sedan.

title: Dodge Intrepid ESX


text:
Sony Ericsson W850i

The Sony Ericsson W850i is the first 3G slider mobile phone by Sony Ericsson, introduced in Q2 2006. It is a member of their Walkman line, suceeding the Sony Ericsson W600. The phone made its first public appearance in the 2006 movie The Da Vinci Code, months before its release. It is similar mechanically to the Sony Ericsson K800i, but differs in form factor, use of the Memory Stick PRO Duo instead of the Memory Stick Micro, and camera quality. (2.0 megapixels instead of 3.2 for the K800i, and with some additional features removed)

The model's features are identical to those of the W880i, apart from the form factor and the inclusion of an FM radio and Photolight on this model. There is also a non-3G version of the W850i called the W830c.

The phone is configured for operator over-the-air (OTA) music download services, and accepts popular music file formats including MP3 and e-AAC+. The box includes a 1 GB Memory Stick PRO Duo. The Golden White version has a gold Walkman logo on the back which the black version does not include.

The Walkman player contains Gracenote Mobile TrackID, which enables a user to record a few seconds of a song, either via the microphone or the built-in FM radio, and attempts to identify the track.

Hardware and Software
The W850i has a TFT 240×320 display packed in a 116 gram slider body. It was released in two colours (Precious Black and Golden White) and is capable of showing eight lines of text on its two inch display. It also has a fixed internal antenna. Connectivity-wise, the phone has 3G, Bluetooth 2.0, Infrared file sharing, and USB, but lacks support for WLAN networks, unlike future Walkman models.

The phone runs on Sony Ericsson's proprietary OS, equipped with various applications such as:

 * Organizer menu where users can access calendar, reminders, notes, alarms, calculator, and timer/stopwatch
 * Voice recorder, saving in the Adaptive Multi-Rate audio codec (.amr) format.
 * Flashlight utilising the camera's flash.
 * MusicDJ, allowing for MIDI songs to be created.
 * PhotoDJ and VideoDJ, allowing media to be edited.
 * Four built-in games:
 * QuadraPop, a Tetris-style game
 * Rafting, where the player maneuvers a boat through obstacles
 * Juiced (video game)
 * Treasure Towers, a 2D platformer.

Reviews

 * Review by Mobile-Review
 * Review by iMobile.com.au
 * CNET Reviews: Asia, Australia, U.K. and U.S.A.

title: Sony Ericsson W850i


text:
Alexander Low, Lord Low

Alexander Low, Lord Low (1845–1910) was a Scottish lawyer and judge who served as a Senator of the College of Justice.

Life
He was born on 23 October 1845 the son of Jessy Turnbull of Abbey St. Bathans and her husband, James Low of The Laws, Berwickshire. He was educated at Cheltenham College then studied Moral Science at the University of St Andrews and St John's College, Cambridge. He then began a law course at the University of Edinburgh. He passed the Scottish Bar as an advocate in 1870.

In 1875 he was working as an advocate from 1 Queensferry Street in Edinburgh's West End.

In 1889 he was made Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty. In November 1890 he was elected a Senator of the College of Justice.

In 1895 he was living at 12 Drumsheugh Gardens, a fine Victorian townhouse.

He resigned on grounds of ill-health in 1904 and died at the family home of The Laws on 14 October 1910. He was buried at Whitsome churchyard.

Cases
Lord Low's most noteworthy case was the Free Church of Scotland v. the United Free Church of Scotland in 1901 (formally known as Bannatyne v. Overtoun) relating to Union between the United Presbyterian Church (Scotland) and the Free Church of Scotland (1843–1900) to create the United Free Church of Scotland. The case centred on the issue as to whether or not the church as a body or the congregations owned church property and echoed earlier arguments of the Disruption of 1843. Lord Low judged in favour of the United Church and the Free Church lost their property. However, this was overturned by the judicial function of the House of Lords in 1904. The matter was remedied by the Churches (Scotland) Act 1905 (5 Edw. 7. c. 12) and two subsequent royal commissions.

Publications
Editor of the "Scottish Law Reporter".

Family
He married Annie Adele Mackenzie (1854-1925), daughter of Donald Mackenzie, Lord Mackenzie.

Artistic recognition
He was portrayed by Fiddes Watt.

title: Alexander Low, Lord Low


text:
Our Lady of La Vang Parish

Our Lady of La Vang Parish (Giáo Xứ Đức Mẹ La Vang, Iglesia Católica Nuestra Señora de La Vang), formerly Saint Patrick Proto-Cathedral Parish, is a Vietnamese national parish and former cathedral of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California. The proto-cathedral is located in Downtown San José, one block north of San José State University. It is named after Our Lady of La Vang. The Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul sponsor St. Patrick Elementary School which is located on the church grounds.

History

Originally called St. Patrick, the parish was established in the city of San José, following what is now the Cathedral Basilica of St. Joseph. The parish was founded in 1872, with Father Joseph Gallagher serving as the first pastor. It was named for Patrick, Archbishop of Armagh and patron saint of Ireland.

The original parish church was a Gothic building at the intersection of Ninth and Santa Clara streets, which was completed in 1888. This church was destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, but rebuilt less than a year later. The second church was replaced by the current church at the intersection of Eighth and Santa Clara streets in 1967. From 1981 until 1990, St. Patrick’s served as the cathedral of the Diocese of San José. The cathedra was then transferred to the newly renovated St. Joseph’s, at which time the parish was redesignated St. Patrick Proto-Cathedral Parish.

In 2002, the parish changed from being a “regular” territorial parish to being a national parish for the Vietnamese population. In addition to the several services offered in Vietnamese, the parish also offers English and Spanish Masses.

The church building was destroyed by a fire on the morning of August 31, 2012, and demolished in 2017. On April 28, 2013, Bishop Patrick J. McGrath signed a decree renaming the proto-cathedral in honor of Our Lady of La Vang. The attached school remained St. Patrick School. The new church officially opened May 13, 2023.

title: Our Lady of La Vang Parish


text:
Marxist Working Group

Marxist Working Group (in Swedish: Marxistisk Arbetsgrupp) was a left communist group in Sweden. The group emerged from a split in the VPK branch of Birka-Vasa in 1974. Since the late 1960s a section of the Birka-Vasa branch had developed left communist leanings. By 1974 they broke away, and the majority of them joined MA. Many had been part of the branch board of VPK Birka-Vasa 1969-1974.

MA existed parallel to Workers Power League (Förbundet Arbetarmakt), another left communist group in Sweden at the time.

MA published För Kommunismen. After three numbers the publication was discontinued, but in 1979 a fourth edition was published. That number included platforms and contact addresses of the International Communist Current, Communist Workers Organisation and Pour une Intervention Communiste. When the ICC formed a branch in Sweden in 1980, MA members joined it. Former MA members were also found in the group that published Arbetarpress.

There was also a Marxistiska Arbetsgruppen in Hägersten around 1970. That group was put under surveillance by SÄPO.

title: Marxist Working Group


text:
David Ross (lawyer)

David Patrick Ross is an American environmental and land-use lawyer who served as the Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Water) from 2018 to 2021. Prior to his EPA role, he was a Wisconsin assistant attorney general and director of the state's environmental-protection judicial unit.

Career
Ross began his career as an environmental consultant. He returned to law school, after which he was employed by a series of Washington D.C.-based law firms before moving to public service in Wyoming in 2014 and Wisconsin in 2016.

Ross represented the state of Wyoming in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in 2015. At issue was the definition of Waters of the United States, which determines whether the federal agency or the state would set rules for waters in the various states. The states won an injunction. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction, finding for the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2016. The case, now styled National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, was heard by the Supreme Court in October 2017.

Ross was nominated for the post of Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Water) on September 2, 2017. Ross' nomination was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on September 5, 2017. John Barrasso (R-WY) is chairman of the committee. His hearing before the Environment and Public Works committee took place October 4, 2017. The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was scheduled to vote on his confirmation on October 18, 2017, but that vote was postponed until October 24. The committee voted to advance his nomination 11–10, split along party lines. Ross was confirmed by a voice vote of the full U.S. Senate on December 14, 2017.

title: David Ross (lawyer)


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Isaacwshearer/sandbox

 __NOINDEX__

The result of the discussion was:  Speedy deleted already, per CSD U5. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacwshearer/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

As with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stelephand/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Benji Brasier/sandbox, this is once again a giant collection of fantasy placement charts for imaginary alternate-universe versions of television reality shows -- except this time it's interspersed with stray bits of tangential randomness, such as unverified episode lists of television shows that do exist but don't have an article about the series on Wikipedia to include episode lists in, stub BLPs of non-winning Drag Race contestants who haven't been sourced as notable, and stuff about roller coasters. I've already had to partial-block the creator from editing some Drag Race related pages due to unproductive editing, and while I haven't acted on it yet I've had somebody who edits in the roller coaster domain approach me to indicate that the creator's edits in that area were also unproductive and may need sanction as well -- which means, if nothing else, that the stuff that isn't obviously garbage here still isn't obviously of any substantive value. As always, sandbox space is not just a free playground to do whatever you want without consequences or oversight -- stuff that is either clearly not meant for mainspace, or is getting transferred to mainspace but still raising eyebrows when it does, is still not acceptable in sandbox either. I've got no convincing explanation as to why there seem to be so bloody many of these, but I'm very concerned by it nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unacceptable sandbox. Aasim 09:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Another case of webhosting for a show in an alternate universe. But why isn't it tagged?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete U5 (obvious WP:NOTWEBHOST violation) and G3 (fantasy version of an event is as good as a hoax).  Java Hurricane  10:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Gl25641

Love is a Magic (song)
" Love is a Magic" is a song recorded by the Honduran singer Nicholas Martinez for his first studio album named The First Life

. Nicholas Martinez shown trying to destroy evidence of his previous self, including his own awards from his present album, The album was first released on April 28 on 2017 with the song named "What do you Want?". It is a pop song There is no video to be recorded for these song ( Love is A Magic). The idea of these song is to show how important love is

Lyrics
Love is a pop  song that incorporates themes of the love sentimental sense with a celebrity lifestyle and also discusses how the celebrity lifestyle can make an entertainer fragile. It was released on August 28, 2017, following the announcement of the album and its accompanying artwork a day earlier.

title: User:Gl25641


text:
Australian Government/The Commonwealth Legislature

The legislature of the Commonwealth is the Commonwealth Parliament or Parliament of Australia. The Parliament of Australia is a bicameral parliament consisting of the House of Representatives (the "lower house") and the Senate (the "upper house" or "house of review"). Section 1 of the Constitution of Australia provides that: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called 'The Parliament,' or 'The Parliament of the Commonwealth'."

Queen Elizabeth II is, in her capacity as Queen of Australia, Australia's head of state, but her constitutional functions in Australia are delegated to the Governor-General of Australia.

The House of Representatives consists of 150 members elected from single-member constituencies of approximately equal population. The Senate consists of 76 members: 12 Senators are elected from each of the six states and two from each of the two territories.

The principal function of the Parliament is to pass laws, or legislation. Any Member or Senator may introduce a proposed law (a bill), except for a money bill (a bill proposing an expenditure or levying a tax), which must be introduced in the House of Representatives. In practice, the great majority of bills are introduced by ministers. Bills introduced by other Members are called private members' bills. All bills must be passed by both Houses to become law. The Senate has the same legislative powers as the House, except that it may not amend money bills, only pass or reject them.

The Parliament performs other functions besides legislation. It can discuss urgency motions or matters of public importance: these provide a forum for debates on public policy matters. Members can move motions of censure against the government or against individual ministers. On most sitting days in both Houses there is a session called Question Time at which Members and Senators address questions to the Prime Minister and other ministers. Members and Senators can also present petitions from their constituents. Both Houses have an extensive system of committees in which draft bills are debated, evidence is taken and public servants are questioned.

Members of the Australian Parliament do not have legal immunity: they can be arrested and tried for any offence. They do, however, have Parliamentary privilege: they cannot be sued for anything they say about each other or about persons outside the Parliament. This privilege extends to reporting in the media of anything a Member or Senator says.

There is a legal offence called contempt of Parliament. A person who speaks or acts in a manner contemptuous of the Parliament or its members can be tried and, if convicted, imprisoned. The Parliament used to have the power of hearing such cases itself, and did so in the Browne-Fitzpatrick case of 1955. This power has now been delegated to the courts, but no-one has been prosecuted for this offence.

The House of Representatives
The 150 members of the house are elected from single-member geographic districts (popularly known as "seats" but officially known as "Commonwealth Electoral Divisions") which are intended to represent reasonably contiguous regions, with relatively equal population in each of about 80 000 people. Voting is by the preferential system.

According to Australia's Constitution, the powers of both houses are nearly equal with the consent of both houses needed to pass legislation. In practice, however, the Lower House is far stronger in some ways, and far weaker in others.

By convention, the party or coalition in the lower house with a majority is invited by the Governor-General to form government, and thus the leader of the party in the lower house becomes the Prime Minister of Australia and his senior colleagues ministers responsible for various government departments. Bills appropriating money can also only be introduced or modified in the lower house. Thus, only parties in the lower house can govern. However, in the rigid Australian party system, this ensures that virtually all contentious votes are along party lines, and the government always has a majority in those votes. The Opposition's only real role in the House is to present arguments why the government's policies and legislation are wrong, and attempt to embarrass the government as much as possible by asking difficult questions at question time.

In a reflection of the color scheme of the United Kingdom House of Commons, the House of Representatives is decorated in green.

The Senate
The voting system for the Senate has changed twice since it was created. The original arrangement was a first past the post block voting mechanism. In 1919, it was changed to preferential block voting. Block voting tended to grant landslide majorities very easily. In 1946, the Australian Labor Party government won 30 out of the 33 Senate seats. In 1948, partially in response to this extreme situation, they introduced proportional representation in the Senate.

From a comparative governmental perspective, the Australian Senate is almost unique in that unlike the upper house in other Westminster system governments, the Senate is not a vestigial body with limited legislative power but rather plays and is intended to play an active role in legislation. Rather than being modelled after the House of Lords the Australian Senate was in part modelled after the United States Senate and was intended to give small rural states added voice in a Federal legislature, while also fulfilling the revising role of an upper house in the Westminster system.

Although the Prime Minister is answerable to, and selected from the House of Representatives (the "lower house"), other ministers are drawn from either house and the two houses have almost equal legislative power. As with most upper chambers in bicameral parliaments, it cannot introduce Appropriation Bills or impose taxation, that role being reserved for the universally elected lower chamber. That degree of equality between the Australian Senate and House of Representatives is in part due to the age of the Australian constitution; it was enacted before the confrontation in 1909 between the British House of Commons and House of Lords, over estate taxes, which ultimately resulted in the restrictions in the powers of the House of Lords in the Parliament Act. The Senate thus reflected the pre-1911 Lords-Commons relationship, namely a house with theoretically wide powers that are by convention not widely used, but which in a crisis could be.

However in one area it possesses a highly sensitive power, namely the right to withdraw or block Supply, i.e. government control of exchequer funding. In most democracies, this power does not exist within upper houses. In the Australian case, probably due to its age and its pre-dating of the British Parliament Act, 1911, that power, once possessed by the House of Lords, is still possessed by the Australian Senate. What it means is that in strict constitutional terms, the Government is also answerable to the Australian Senate, given that the loss of Supply in parliamentary democracies automatically requires the resignation of a government or ministry, or alternatively the calling of a general election, because without access to exchequer funding a government cannot function and would face bankruptcy. However, as in the United Kingdom prior to the 1909 clash over David Lloyd George's budget between the House of Commons and House of Lords, a general convention built up in which the upper house would not use its power to block exchequer funding, leaving that responsibility to the democratically representative lower house. Indeed to break convention in this area is sometimes described as a parliamentary nuclear option because of its political, financial and governmental impact. In 1975, in a dispute strikingly similar to Britain's 1909 clash (an upper House breaking convention by withdrawing Supply on the basis that it was reacting to a breach of another fundamental convention by the government - which the government denied) the Senate did refuse to pass a required financial measure, producing a 'nuclear'-style crisis which resulted in a stand off, a decision of the Prime Minister not to resign or seek a dissolution, and the eventual intervention of the Governor-General to withdraw the commission of the Australian Prime Minister (in effect dismissing him) and the appointment of a minority government from the opposition in the House of Representatives and the calling of a general election.

In practice, however, most legislation (except for "Private Member's Bills") in the Australian Parliament is initiated by the Government, which has control over the lower house. It is then passed to the Senate, which may amend the bill or refuse to pass it. In the majority of cases, voting is along party lines.


text:
2012 Men's World Junior Team Squash Championships

The 2012 Men's World Junior Team Squash Championships was held in Doha, Qatar. The event took place from 13 to 18 July 2012.

Seeds
• # 🇪🇬 Egypt (champion)

• # 🇵🇰 Pakistan (final)

• # 🏴 England (semifinals)

• # 🇮🇳 India (semifinals)

• # 🇭🇰 Kong Kong (quarterfinals)

• # 🇺🇸 United States (quarterfinals)

• # 🇫🇷 France (first round)

• # 🇨🇴 Colombia (first round)

• # 🇦🇺 Australia (first round)

• # 🇨🇦 Canada (quarterfinals)

• # 🇳🇿 New Zealand (round of 16)

• # Kuwait (round of 16)


text:
User:Bootedcat

User:Bootedcat is a kitty from Jiangsu province, People's Republic of China.

Discussion
Hello lobster, please don't modify my WikiSci pages... --Bootedcat 13:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK - I will leave that for someone else

title: User:Bootedcat


text:
Bothrops leucurus

Bothrops leucurus, commonly known as the whitetail lancehead or the Bahia lancehead, is a species of venomous snake, a pit viper in the family Viperidae. The species is endemic to Brazil. There are no subspecies which are recognized as being valid. A female owned by YouTuber Venom Central is over six feet long.

Etymology
The specific name, leucurus, meaning "whitetail", is from the Latin words leucus (white) and urus (tail).

The specific name, pradoi, of the junior synonym Trimeresurus pradoi, is in honor of Brazilian herpetologist Alcides Prado.

Description and Behavior
The color varies from tan to reddish-brown, the pattern varies, from darker and lighter spots, similar to light diagonal dorsolateral lines. It has 23 to 31 rows of dorsal scale of the medium body, the belly is yellowish or whitish in color with dark, brown or gray spots, and irregular spots on the sides. It is a snake with terrestrial behavior, growing on average in 250–1840 mm, mainly found in forests, arid, semi-arid, dry, humid and sub-humid regions.

Geographic range
Bothrops leucurus is found in eastern Brazil along the Atlantic coast from northern Espírito Santo north to Alagoas and Ceará. It occurs more inland in several parts of Bahia. The identity of disjunct populations west of the Rio São Francisco is uncertain. The type locality is listed as "provinciae Bahiae". It inhabits both urban and rural areas.

Reproduction
Bothrops leucurus is viviparous. The gestation period is four months, and a medium-sized litter is 19 young, birth occurs between winter and summer.

Diet
It feeds on rodents, lizards, amphibians, snakes and birds (Martins et al., 2002). with adults feeding on rodents, and juveniles feeding on frogs and lizards.

Venom
The whitetail lancehead is responsible for the most bites in the state of Bahia. The venom contains high fibrinolytic, proteolytic, hemorrhagic and edematogenic activity, and low coagulant activity, which can cause myonecrosis in humans. Symptoms include local pain, edema, erythema and ecchymosis (local symptoms), hemorrhagic and coagulation symptoms, digestive disorders (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea), urinary disorders (oliguria, anuria, hematuria) with headaches, dizziness, hypotension, bradycardia, visual disturbances and tremors.

title: Bothrops leucurus


text:
User:J Rollei/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

 * Name of article: Jabberwocky sentence
 * This article was chosen because of an interest in linguistics.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead of the article opens with a succinct sentence that introduces the topic of the text. It is followed by an overview of the main points of the article and also includes links to relevant topics. The lead is concise and does not include irrelevant information.

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant, but the article has not been updated in over three years, and the most recent study cited is from 2007. The article heavily uses linguistics jargon but does not include definitions of all the terms. Some of topics covered have links to other articles, but many of the terms used do not. Without having a background in linguistics, especially neurolinguistics, the text does not have much meaning to a layperson.

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article seems to be written from an unbiased standpoint. The information is sourced from scholarly journals. The article is factual, not persuasive.

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The links in the article work. Though the studies referenced are both over ten years old, the neurolinguistics articles that are linked to in the main article have been recently updated. A recent study on the Jabberwocky effect in linguistics has been published ("Jabberwocky Parsing: Dependency Parsing with Lexical Noise" DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/h12q-k754), which could be a helpful and current addition to the article.

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concisely written, well-organized, and free from typographical errors. Its clarity could be improved by either providing definitions for technical terms or including more links for the terms used.

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes one image, which is an illustration by John Tenniel done for the Lewis Carroll poem "Jabberwocky." Text from the poem is incorporated below the illustration. The illustration is sourced from the Wikipedia Commons.

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated as Start-Class. It is part of the WikiProject Linguistics. There are only two entries in the history of the article. As opposed to the articles covered in the training modules that had many contributors and long threads of discussions and edits, this article has very little going on behind-the-scenes and has very few edits done to it.

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated Start-Class and has not been updated in over three years. It is concise and uses cited scholarly articles. Its lead is succinct and contains pertinent information. Updating the article with more recent studies would improve the article. Including definitions of the linguistics terms used or linking to definitions of the terms would better develop the text. The article overall seemed well-written and carefully proofed but could be strengthened by including newer studies and expanding definitions.

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~

 * Link to feedback:

title: User:J Rollei/Evaluate an Article


text:
Canadian Property Law/Real Property

Introduction: the evolution of common law
To understand real property in Canada or any Commonwealth common law jurisdiction requires some archaic terminology that makes perfect sense only in an historical context: in the Middle Ages, the king technically owned all the land in England, which his "court" (the King with the visible support or consent of the nobles who lived at court) gave or rented out in large parcels to his most trusted barons (or "lords") in return for keeping him in power. Those with "title" (meaning both land and rank) let peasants live on his land and protected them; in return, this "land lord" (a knight or baron or higher "title") extracted heavy rents from them. This system binding the peasants to the barons was known as the "land tenure" system: The peasant was a "tenant" of the baron, who was his "land lord". This system was the basis for the proper ordering of society.

Therefore, it was in the interest of the king and the barons that everyone knew at all times who had "seisin" of the land, i.e., which peasants had to pay rent to which lord for which piece of land. Any land where this was unclear was "wasted". The Medieval rules of real property transfer were therefore very strict in ensuring that it was always very clear who was receiving the land; any lack of clarity ("abeyance of seisin") was forbidden, and the transfer was "null and void". This disadvantaged the illiterate farmers who could pay for land they did not receive, if the transfer they had paid for did not satisfy this strict criteria, so this required - then as now - legal advice from a neutral third party educated in Latin who could "plead" the case at "court".

Land rights did not expire and could be enforced at any time against anyone using any land, however innocently, who did not hold a "title" to it from the "court" (making them the "true" owner). This further disadvantaged the illiterate freeholder who might improve land and then be evicted from it, so verifying that one's predecessor owned land that was sold (a "title search") became necessary.

The medieval English system had been overlaid by Norman kings on the older (Anglo-Saxon) system of freeholds, in which persons actually using land had considerable rights to continue using it, as long as they met obligations to their lords, and in which most people were actually freeholders. These older "common law" authorities' decisions were cited by way of pleading to the king (at his "court") that he was being unfair compared to those prior magistrates/courts, even back to Romans (most persons and all lawyers having a fairly good education in the classics, Latin and Roman law). It was a point of pride among rulers to be favourably viewed as behaving like good rulers, like Augustus Caesar or Marcus Aurelius, and not like bad Roman emperors, like Caligula or Commodus. The difference was largely viewed as behaving erratically versus prudently following wise "precedents".

After the chaos of King Henry II's reign and his civil war against his own sons, many lords having direct experience with better-ordered Mediterranean kingdoms and a stricter rule of law imposed by Islam on Arabs (that relied also on precedent jurisprudence or "fiqh"), began to demand somewhat more predictable rule than simply hoping or expecting that the king would follow a wise precedent. In this they had much support from their knights and especially Saxon lords, knights & freeholders, some of whom had been forced into hiding or rebellion by John's rule, i.e. the "Robin Hood" legend.

The 1215 Magna Carta was, essentially, the feudal barons imposing on King John the same well known lists of rights - and especially real property rights - that older Roman, Saxon and Scandanavian ("Danelaw") rules (back to King Alfred) had protected for Anglo-Saxon freeholders prior to Norman feudalism. John signed it only unwillingly and after putting himself in "vassalage" to the Pope to bolster his claim that to support inherent rights of nobles or freeholders was to diminish recourse of those without land to the Crown (or "court") and Church. John tried to rescind it after signing it, also, with the Church's backing. However, the Magna Carta stood, and guaranteed a more even and fair hearing of the "common law" arguments, which had been well recorded since Aethelred and Alfred, and which established a predictable body of law documented in Latin which all lawyers knew.

The vast majority of "court" hearings were between the elite "land lords". But balance of power in English society slowly shifted. The rights the barons had guaranteed themselves, including basic rights to property, eventually were recognized for most English freeholders and farmers. These argued "in the common law" before the "court", or in "appeal" to the "Crown" which had already ruled against them. Like the Church's parallel "canon" law, laws were imposed top-down on the public by literate persons with access to money and powerful people. Access to legal assistance for a price (the legal profession) refined and improved the documentation of previous precedents and made it much simpler to argue "cases" at "court". For five centuries, power shifted slowly from nobles with "titles" to judges or "magistrates" - final rulings eventually shifted from Crown to a panel of Law Lords, who to this day sit in the House of Lords, and not in the Crown's "court".

By the mid-17th century the House of Commons (the English legislature) and the common law it upheld and modified, were the pre-eminent power in England, using which Cromwell deposed and executed the King Charles I. Cromwell was a mere member of the House of Commons at the time, not even a Lord or Minister. A long process of subordinating lords, nobles and Crown to the "commons" was completed.

After the "Restoration" of Charles II, and especially after the invitations of William of Orange and then later King George I of the Habsburgs to take the throne, Crown power was confined to the conduct of war and diplomacy. It had almost no effect on daily dealings in land and in property, which continued to be governed by the same "common law" and judicial principles for nearly 1000 years as of that time, since the Saxon invaders from Germany had reconciled theirs & Roman laws.

Quebec's civil code
In France, where the very elite top-down Norman system had come from originally in 1066, a quite different judicial history led slowly to pre-eminence of the Roman Catholic Church and to various means of dispute resolution and judicial principles of logic (that were far less governed by old authority and precedent). After the French Revolution the Napoleonic "civil code" was adopted in Quebec, as it retained control of its provincial law under the British Empire after 1769. This law was retained through Confederation in 1867 not directly modified until the 1981 Constitution that limited application of the common and civil law (very little) with modern human rights limits. To this day, the Quebec civil code invokes principles rather than authorities to make major decisions. In this respect, it echoes the ancien regime French and Norman courts acting as "nobles" with a special obligation to others in society to make fair decisions and exercise power for common good.

Quebec real estate is governed by the civil code, not the English common law. There are specific differences, most notably the role of the surveyor. On some matters, common law jurisdictions have experimented with civil-code-like rules, generally failing to make them stick across the country. The civil law principle of "interversion," as defined in article 923 of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCO), apparently developed into a non-common-law-like test called the "Inconsistent Use Test (IUT)" [MH Lubetsky, 2009]. This was briefly popular in Ontario but now largely abandoned, and never applied to private land in most common law jurisdictions.

A more important and pronounced difference is the role of the professional land surveyor. In Quebec the civil process of le bornage is a mandatory arbitration of boundaries that any landowner can impose on an abutting landowner. It is resolved by a surveyor hired in common who is responsible to mediate their boundary dispute. This is utterly unlike the common law doctrines of acquiescence, estoppel, possession, and primacy of agreements clearly visible on the ground over deeds on paper.

Civil vs. common law, and their common influences
Civil law bears slightly more resemblance to Church canon law, in arguing from basic principles of safety, fairness and closure, rather than from authorities to decisively settle cases by precedent. Both evolved after the Crusades also under the strong influence of Arab universities and learning, which employed citation indexes, publishing, and the process of arguing in detail every aspect of cases to find a correct decision and correct criteria to decide it (the "ijtihad"), all of which had been initially part of religious obligation. Oxford was based on the great Toledo university in Muslim Spain, where every library in Europe sent to, to get true copies of any classical texts. To this day, scholars wear caps and gowns to demonstrate they have studied the ways of the Arabs, as in the Middle Ages, even the Crusades, this was a sign of a learned and well-travelled person.

It would be incorrect to consider either civil or common law to derive solely from English, French or other narrow tradition. Both absorbed and copied at least some Roman, Catholic, Scandanavian ("Danelaw" and Norse "Norman"), German (or "Saxon") and Arab/Muslim principles and procedures. In many ways the common law was simply the codification of these principles into Latin and casebooks.

The highest compliment to the common law however is that no one ever gives it up by choice. When the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against the British Crown in 1776, and subsequently as the British Empire devolved, all the former colonies kept the English common law, even Hong Kong in 1997. The common law principles of contract law are generally upheld in commercial codes all over the world.

Canadian law is unique in having issues settled in both common law and civil code by the Supreme Court of Canada, of which three of nine justices are from Quebec. Justices refer in civil cases including real property law to the appropriate tradition, resolving conflicts of laws and 'human rights' related disputes arising from the Charter guarantee (which rarely apply in real estate or estate law, but not never). Treaties and human rights law are not directly pleadable in court but the courts have adopted a premise of continuing to evolve the common law in compliance with these.

Basic common law real estate principles
When dealing in real estate, the most valuable investment and highest risk most persons ever take, it is extremely important to understand the roles played by various professionals and documents, and the terminology that applies in title disputes, which derives from the English history above.

role of the surveyor
In the common law process, the surveyor applies the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis, traces boundary lines based on evidence on the ground or in source documents, but has a role explicitly restricted to presenting that evidence honestly: “The surveyor has no power to decide the location of the boundary or re-survey and can only express an opinion as to where the boundary is to be found based upon a search for and study of evidence he/she has found in the field, testimony of others and in searches within the appropriate registry offices, Crown records and other offices of record ” SLC 8.21  The surveyor is an expert witness only, not a mediator and can have no valid opinion on whether one boundary line is "as good as" another one under the law. A hierarchy of validity applies to the "boundary evidence on the ground matching the chain of title documents to a specific tolerance of accuracy"

title insurance and location certificates
"Title insurance is insurance for the title and does not necessarily provide protection in regards to the extent of title or location of boundaries encroachments or improvements made on lands of others."

"The Location Certificate is only intended to the party for whom it was originally prepared for. Depending on the age of the certificate, improvements and encroachments could have taken place without the purchaser knowing. By accepting the old Surveyor Location Certificates the purchases are taking on this risk perhaps unknowingly. These risks could have a significant cost should an improvement to the property purchased be encroaching on land of others and or others encroaching on the purchased land."

When faced with the unknown encroachment or improvement issue the problem is usually rectified by:
 * 1. Removing the improvement from the neighbours land;
 * 2. Ignoring the encroachment;
 * 3. Taking a legal position with the encroaching neighbour;
 * 4. Subdividing/consolidating solutions"

lex situs
The distinction regarding Quebec illustrates a principle. In modern and medieval times, it was always necessary that land be governed by the law, literally, of the land: lex situs is the legal principle that whatever other rules or laws or wills or contracts govern deals or property, that the law where the land is located must always govern all disposal of real property. This includes for instance whether a foreign will is respected or not, who inherits land intestate, what procedures are required to prove or transfer ownership, and how easements and leases are agreed and expire. To permit laws of many places to govern land would result in chaos and unpredictability.

Real property law is complex and there are in all Canadian provinces several ways to claim title in land or the right to use land. These are curtailed drastically after death or for absent persons out of possession, and extincted entirely for persons who have clearly neglected their land rights for a "statutory period" after which those land rights no longer exist, regardless of a paper deed.

landlords: the "right of entry and distress"
In all common law jurisdictions, a "true owner" or "land lord" with the support of a "court" in the form of a "paper title" (equivalent in the Middle Ages to a noble or lord or freeholding landowner) has a "right of entry and distress" (i.e. a right to inspect and evict) a "possessor" (tenant, serf or squatter) who is the "owner" (not "true owner") under the common law.

The common law evolved, as its name suggests, from appeals to the king (and his "court") by the so-called "common" man (who was generally illiterate and had no paper title to the land he possessed) in direct opposition and conflict with feudal lords (or "land lords") who exchanged paper titles and paid taxes to the king on land they had cheated illiterate freeholding peasants out of. Two different paths to claim title existed - and were only reconciled in the late 19th and early 20th century by modern laws. Thus the distinction between "owner" (actual physical possessor and "owner" in common law) and "true owner" (a paper title holder entitled to enforce his rights via the courts to evict the possessor and "not true" owner). And, the general weakness of payment of taxes in title claims, as this was always the first argument advanced by nobles against peasants and usually the first to be disregarded on the grounds that the king didn't agree to back a border or take a side in a dispute merely because someone had been the first in line to pay those taxes - in practice, usually the person with the weaker claim would make a point to pay them and so claim.

The Crown, then as now, was always mindful of the need to retain popular support against the nobles (or "land lords") and to therefore be perceived as acting fairly and in accord with "common law" of their ancestors back to Roman times, on principles recognized by merchants, the Church, and envoys. Wars of succession were always justified by lengthy legal arguments (as in Shakespeare's Henry V) to retain legitimacy in the eyes of the Church, and of foreign courts who would recognize a ruler - or not. Even a "right of entry and distress" to a whole kingdom was governed by specific laws no ruler wanted to be seen breaking. Pleas against such rights by current rulers became common.

limitations: "there is more injustice than justice in old claims"
In part due to high level pleadings of limits of rights to claim whole kingdoms, by late medieval times, the right to enforce land rights in perpetuity was abolished as unfair and in clear conflict with the common law and civil order: Enforcing such rights was "barred" after a certain period, initially a hundred years, then sixty (and in modern times to forty, twenty, ten!). The legal principle says: there is more injustice than justice in old claims, and it still holds today.

Modern law continues to use the old terms. In all (nine) common law provinces and the territories, the possessor "owner" (not the paper title holding "true owner") charges anyone claiming a right of entry with trespass. Any paper title held by a "true owner" is a defense against trespass charges.

This defense is not allowed ("barred") if the limitations period on claiming such a right of entry has expired. This is ten years in some provinces (Ontario, Albert), twenty in others (Nova Scotia) with special extensions for mentally incompetent landowners. If the deed is no longer good, a new certificate of title will be awarded to the possessor who has been recognized as the "true" owner. If the deed remains good or partially good to claim some of the land, other legislation (typically called a "marketable titles act" or under inheritance a "succession act" or "intestate succession act" or "wills act") will determine if the possessor retains a partial share of it. They might also retain possession of lands that were never on the deed, or not provably on the deed. If the land rights are split, other legislation (such as a "partition act") and regulations (such as the rules of intestate accounting and tenant-in-common reconciliation of cost of improvements under a partition in equity, and etc.) establish who owes who money or equity, who has the right to demand sale (if anyone) or to occupy. All of this is entirely governed by the province where the land is even if the land right passed by will in another province, based on relationships elsewhere (for instance, a marriage) that were interpreted in the local law (for instance, to invalidate a will).

The courts can in serious disputes where partition is impractical order that land be sold, forcing both parties to bid to buy it, i.e. buy each other out. This is rare and usually follows a trial in which the parties have proven totally unable to agree on facts, prevented financing, and so on.

"possession is nine-tenths of the law"
There is a very strong bias in favour of status quo situations the courts are hesitant to undo, so persons in possession have many more rights and paths to claim that the status quo is just and fair and "perfect" their rights, than do persons not in possession to evict them and claim or sell land. Thus the popular saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law. Only a person with a clear and stronger paper title than a person who has none will generally be able to evict from the land, and it typically takes more than 2/3 ownership of an indivisible parcel of land to force its sale.

Accordingly very many persons own shares of land they cannot use, sell, lease, contract or deal in, and in some cases their heirs may continue to own marginal shares for generations without such use.

All this is by intention: The common law evolved to enable persons to remain on land, using it, in preference to permitting persons who had proven they would remain absent for long periods, permit squatting, etc.. The Crown benefits when persons it can dispossess, charge taxes, and whose names it knows are in possession of land by paper title. When a law-abiding landowner dies, it wants a long list of successors in a clear order of primacy, just as a noble "title" would pass by clear rules.

Failing however any family member coming forward, the Crown would rather grant title to a possessor who acts like an owner (see adverse possession below), than risk rebellion by taking land away and granting it to a long absent owner who didn't improve it. At the same time, property rights in land must be stable enough that paper title retains value and taxes are worth paying to protect it.

"action to recover any land"
Some provinces have become extremely strict about limitations and overturned much older laws to enforce more certainty on real estate transactions. In Ontario, legislation barring all "action to recover any land" more than ten years after the right to claim that land accrues, has been very strictly interpreted to:
 * 1) . bar any claim to recover land when a separation or divorce happened more than ten years earlier
 * 2) . bar any use of Statute of Frauds / of Elizabeth to annul a land transfer more than ten years old
 * 3) . extend claims in land arising from contracts or wills to ten years instead of the more usual two

It remains unsettled if this inhibits persons living in Ontario, or claiming based on relationships in Ontario, or wills in Ontario, from claiming land in other provinces without such strict limits - to do so would likely require a separate proceeding to recognize the will and then claim land in that province through its probate process, risking challenge by anyone with ten years' possession.

Where a greater claim would be available through the Ontario law but where Ontario law would bar it on limitations, or where an Ontario relationship or contract is the basis for a claim that would be too old to enforce in Ontario, the courts may find it hard to justify allowing such a claim even in a province with a generally longer or looser limitations period - given in Ontario it would fail.

Type of estates
As English society evolved, the "incidents of tenure" (i.e., obligations to the lord) became regularized, and decreased over time. By the time Canada inherited British property law, the only incident of tenure left was "Escheat", that is, when a tenancy ends, the land reverts back to the lord. Even today, when someone dies without an heir, their land becomes property of the Crown (i.e., the government).

With the passage of the Tenures Abolition Act in 1660, although all land was still technically owned by the Crown, peasants could buy and sell their rights to the land they were living on, as well as pass it on by will or by gift. This type of property right became known as an "estate in free and common soccage" or a "free estate". This is why property rights over land are known as "real estate".

An "estate", in English medieval legal parlance, was an amount of time over which one held property rights. There are three types of estate: Fee simple, fee tail and life estate.

Fee Simple
This is the most prevalent type of common law estate. It is what most people think of when they speak of "owning" land. Although the land is technically owned by the Crown, the holder of fee simple can use the land, exclude others from it, and dispose of it.

Under fee simple, the rights to land transfer automatically from the holder of the fee simple to his heir. The holder of the rights in fee simple can grant the land to someone other than his heir. In order to do this, he must use the phrase to [the new owner] and his heirs. Any other phraseology will not legally transfer fee simple by grant. It will instead be regarded as a "life estate" (see below).

Life Estate
The other main type of estate is the life estate. Very simply, this means that someone holds the rights to the land for the duration of his life, after which it reverts back to the owner in fee simple or his heirs. For instance, an elderly landowner might remarry late in life. He may then wish to leave the estate to his new wife for the remainder of her life; when she dies, the land will revert to his heirs, rather than her heirs.

There is no particular phraseology required to grant a life estate. Something such as "to X for life" is usually sufficient. If the phrase "to X and his heirs" is not used, then the transfer is presumed to be a life estate.

Fee Tail
Fee tail is a rare estate, abolished in Canada everywhere except for Manitoba, in which only the lineal heir may inherit land. One can only transfer one's property rights in the land for as long as one lives; afterwards, the property rights revert to one's lineal descendents. This limits how land can be bought and sold, therefore reducing the value of the land. It is relevant to note that section 30(4) of The Law of Property Act in Manitoba while not abolishing the fee tail entirely, does prohibit the conversion of an estate in fee simple into any limited fee or fee tail.

Grants and Wills
Grants of land were regarded with suspicion by common law courts (why would anyone give away their land, which was their main source of income?). That is why it became difficult to grant land in fee simple. The words "to X and his heirs" became absolutely necessary to make such a grant possible. Even the words "to X in fee simple" was not good enough.

will interpretation
Wills were interpreted much more flexibly. Legislation ensured this. A provable intention of the testator is usually the decisive factor - as in most wills challenges - for a judge in deciding whether the land was given in fee simple or as a life estate, or in trust for some other purpose.

However, the evidence admissible to prove intention is quite narrow and usually restricted to the "indirect" evidence, that is, not notes made specifically about the will, but about relationships and beliefs and concerns the testator had that guided their choices regarding their heirs & lands.

Canadian law has generally followed Lubberts Estate 2012 - an Alberta case - in setting aside any will where the testator's intent was not to disinherit but the narrowly interpreted wording of the will suggests it is - or has created an "equivocation" open to arguing the matter either way, in which case the evidence admissible is much broader. The Canadian courts generally prefer to find partial intestacy rather than discard entire wills, with exceptions being those provinces that generally apply stricter standards to foreign (including other provinces') wills, and where overtly admitted racist or noxious ideological goals admitted in writing had guided the choice of heirs, and thus it would be against the public interest to permit the testator's intention to stand.

imperfect title
When property owners die, often title issues come to light that were hidden, concealed, confused or in error. In most Canadian provinces, certain important rights of landowners die with them, such as the right to make any new claim in land to perfect an imperfect border (allowing such claims is generally deemed to violate the rules of reliability - since the testator cannot make a specific claim on their own behalf about their intent or purpose and cannot be cross-examined about these - and of necessity - since the testator being dead cannot have any vital interest left to protect).

Like deeded, surveyed, perfected claims in land, mere possession of land can be passed on to heirs, explicitly in wills or grants. However, the land must be possessed continuously for such claims to be good, so if the landowner is absent and merely had a claim in the past, the right would not be continued by their paper heirs, but by any actual possessor they had left in control of the land. Only if they had a mature right in land prior to death that could have been claimed without that possessor, and had claimed the intent to possess it by affidavit and been subject to examination by hostile parties, and had agreement with that possessor under no mistake to possess on behalf of the estate so as to ensure continuity to the date of claim, could an absent testator's estate be in a good position to claim lands to which it had a weak title. This right is particularly weak against common or public land, which have longer limitations and more difficult tests to pass to possess.

Adverse possession
As in medieval times, any distinction between who holds land on paper and who actually controls it is undesirable: Property taxes, capital gains taxes, insurance liability, and other modern rules cannot be properly enforced if someone is a "bare trustee" holding title for others or a "squatter" inhabiting it without the obligations of title holders.

Conditions for Adverse Possession
Actual and exclusive possession: is a question of fact. Things to consider are: surveyed boundaries, construction of a fence, construction of permanent improvements; Payment of taxes or fees is not generally considered an act of possession unless no one has occupied the lands at all, or they are remote and not amenable to occupation, and owners would not occupy them to use them.

Open and notorious possession: is possession which is not secretive. If the true owner were to visit the area he/she should have knowledge of the possessory facts. If any improvements are going on, the owner is also obligated to make third parties aware of his or her ownership, and not act in such a way as to deceive or acquiesce silently to occupation, lest a proprietary estoppel apply to prevent evicting persons who improved lands under deceit, and may be entitled to remain using them.

Continuous possession: Refers to the statutory time period. An interruption in adverse possession will restart the count. What is deemed an interruption varies, but generally anything more than a "mere visit" by a true owner will restart it, and that owner is also deemed to be in possession if there is any period of non-occupation by other possessors. This however does not apply in most Canadian provinces to seasonally used property, which if visited every year are deemed possessed. However if even one year is missed, such an absence of 18-23 months will interrupt the possession.

Even if no one party has sufficient tenure to claim possessory title in their own right, the paper (or "true") owner may still be barred from entry, if several squatters, even those with no privity with respect to each other and no agreement to pass on possession, occupied the land continuously. Provinces vary with respect to the privity they require, but those that grant title immediately on success of a real estate limitations action, generally also have looser requirements as to privity, and would require a subsequent quieting action or permit only civil claims to recover money, not land, by any person who had contributed to the possession but not been present at the end to claim. The general rule is that only the last person in a sequence of squatters "tacking" has any rights.

Exclusivity is an important attribute of possession: persons generally cannot occupy on behalf of each other except by explicit agreement, persons may occupy against their co-tenants-in-common (but not against joint tenants), and squatters must claim in sequence, not in parallel. Only if one of the squatters has pretended to be the owner or mistaken himself or herself for the owner, would the other squatters be freed of the necessity to gain peaceable agreement to continue their possession, and of the necessity to prove they had adversely excluded the prior squatters and the title holder.

Persons within families generally have each other's permission to occupy, and only if there is some serious and consistent and persistent mistake or deception of title, or some open and overt serious dispute, would it be likely that a claim of possession by one person against their family succeeds.

'Hostile' possession: Does not imply violence. It is merely possession which is against the true owner’s will; Threats or use of violence will generally prevent a claim of adverse possession.

Any type of agreement between the possessor and the true owner will also prevent a claim of adverse possession - however, both parties must actually know who the true (paper title) owner is, as it is not possible for both parties to have agreed when there is a mutual or unilateral mistake re who is the owner; Even an unknowing agreement with a true owner, made unknowingly, would not bar a claim, but could (if the owner deceived the possessor) constitute a proprietary estoppel to prevent the owner re-claiming land after encouraging the possessor to improve it. Generally, the onus of proving possession is adverse does not apply under mutual mistake, nor do some other rules such as the inconsistent use test (in jurisdictions where it applies); An agreement also can only be binding with respect to what the owner owns, not any additional or adjacent possessed lands - a possessor may not be obligated to claim & remit to an owner simply because he had an agreement that respected other lands, even if the deeded and possessory lands had changed hands in past together.

Limitations on private authority
Certain types of contracts cannot be agreed by private parties. For instance, contracts to break the criminal code, e.g. a lease requiring the use of a building for illegal purposes would not be binding and might be set aside entirely, leaving the owner vulnerable to a claim of ownership by possession.

Remainder rules
A "remainder" is a right in land after a life tenure or other guaranteed tenancy has expired.

1) No remainders after a grant in fee simple

2) A remainder must always be supported by a precedent freehold estate

3) The benefit of a condition subsequent cannot be enjoyed by a stranger

Rule against perpetuities
The rule against perpetuities is a rule in property law which prohibits a contingent grant or will from vesting outside a certain period of time. If there is a possibility of the estate vesting outside of the period, regardless how remote, the whole interest is void, and is stricken from a grant. The rule is concerned with the utility of unused property and tries to prevent people from tying up assets for too long a period of time—a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand".

Some provinces, notably Nova Scotia, have relaxed the rule but require refreshing the ownership rights every 21 years as if all lands were disposed of, taxes paid, and recovered by the trust. Under those conditions, a trust can be perpetual. However, Nova Scotia simultaneously made it far easier to challenge the terms of a trust even if one beneficiary is entirely against such changes.

Tenants in Common
The normal and default form of concurrent estate is tenants-in-common. When persons inherit land, they normally inherit it under this form of concurrency unless it is left to them as joint tenants. Even so it is difficult to retain joint tenancy.

Tenants in common each own a divisible and saleable share of land, and may deal in it regardless of the rights of others, though the ability to make use of the land may be limited. It typically takes between 60% and 75% of the equity in land to sell it, and that only if the land is not divisible or partitionable. When a tenant in common dies, his or her heirs inherit the land intestate or by will.

Joint Tenancy
Joint tenancy is a "last man standing" relationship. When a joint tenant dies, the land reverts to the other joint tenants, without reference to their will or intestate succession. Joint tenancy is usually applied between spouses, and it must be explicit in a deed. Even so, it is easily broken: Joint tenancy becomes a tenant in common relationship automatically if either party has any private dealings to sell or even expresses any intent to call for valuation of "their share" without prior joint agreement. Joint tenancy must come into effect at once and simultaneously with a common instrument like a new deed, it must remain a consultative and not rules-bound relationship where no division of the use of the land is in effect and it remains wholly available to both parties at all times. Joint tenancy comes to an end for both parties at once, when either deals independently.

Adverse possession follows a rule similar to joint tenancy, insofar as a series of "squatters" that are each in possession in sequence for the "statutory period" required to exclude a "true" or paper owner, may (even without "privity" passed in deed from one to the next) enable the last one in the sequence (when the rights finally "ripen" or "mature") to claim the entire value of the property "by tacking" those "credits" onto his own. However, adverse possession must be exclusive, so is most similar to joint tenancy under mutual mistake: a final possessor had accepted permission from someone with no right to give any or a right inferior to their own - which permission is thus invalid. Realizing the mistake, this final possessor need only 1. exclude the party they mistook for the true owner, or exclude them or their estate from taking possessory actions that compete 2. not acknowledge the true owner they have recently discovered, 3. possess with intent in their own right, to retain a right of non-will non-intestate inheritance similar to a joint tenant. However, this right must be proven and unlike joint tenancy the onus is against such a possessor, especially to prove the mistake regarding title, and that they never acknowledged the true owner in any way, or were entirely ignorant of their rights and therefore could never have agreed to respect those.

That said, a true joint tenancy cannot come into effect by possession or other circumstance, but must be an explicit agreement. Joint tenants cannot co-possess due to the exclusivity requirement.

Condominiums
Condominiums are a form of real estate that is physically structured like a townhome block or an apartment building, but governed in law as if it were a set of separate dwellings with a common infrastructure. Essentially they are governed by corporations with share structures to deal with common needs (common areas, yards, parking, hallways, elevators, waste disposal, utilities) and issues (noise, safety, odours, aesthetics, property security, rules regarding pets or children). These corporations have the right to compel sale of condo units by those who won't follow rules.

Most upscale rental units in Canadian cities are condominium units, owned by speculators or persons intending to use them later in life, rented to tenants and managed by a condominium corporation in conjunction with a building management company that ensure tenancies that do not devalue the units or disrupt tenant quiet enjoyment. Accordingly condominium and tenancy law are very inter-related.

Easements
An easement is the right of use over the real property of another. Historically it was limited to the right of way and rights over flowing waters. Traditionally it was a right that could only attach to an adjacent land and was for the benefit of all, not a specific person. The right is often described as the right to use the land of another for a special purpose. It is distinguished from a license that only gives one a personal privilege to do something on the land of another usually the permission to pass over the property without creating a trespass.

Typically, an easement is composed of two tenements (types of land). There is the dominant tenement which is the plot of land to which the benefit an appurtenant easement is attached. Second, there is the subservient tenement which is the plot of land which bears the burden of the easement.

Easements may be considered public or private. A private easement is limited to specific owners or even just one individual such as the sole owner of an adjoining land. A public easement grants the right to a large group of individuals or to the public in general, such as the easement on public streets and highways or of the right to navigate a river, or launch boats from a beach. An "appurtenant" easement belongs to the owner of the land that benefits from the easement, as compared to other easements (easements in gross) that do not require ownership to obtain the use.

An easement may be implied or express. An express easement is typically included in a document such as a deed or other officially recorded grant, or incorporated by reference to a subdivision plan, or restrictive covenants in an association agreement. An implied easement may be of necessity or agreed to by permitting use for a statutory period. If the easement is highly visible such as an old right of way shown on widely distributed maps, it may be hard to extinguish even if never used. Another name for implied easements is "prescriptive rights". The "doctrine of lost modern grant" holds that if all interested parties behave as if a grant of right exist long enough, then it does. This only applies to the non-exclusive prescriptive rights, not rights to sell or evict from land, though there are parallel doctrines ("proprietary estoppel", "boundary estoppel") with that effect.

Application of these doctrines varies widely, but in general a fence or path or a building creates a status quo that is difficult to undo, particularly if investment in improvements and use proceeds visibly for years without objection or interference, and especially if it is based on a survey or marker placed by one party that the other abides by, relies on, and trusts. A "right of way of necessity" may apply regardless of other easements for safety reasons, and be implied by a deed. It is not however implied by mere possession or occupation of land without a deed, i.e. squatting.

In Torrens jurisdictions easements must be registered to bind successive purchasers. However, the Canadian jurisdictions vary widely in terms of how much time is allowed to advance easement claims after registration - usually at least ten years, in most provinces equal to the limitations period.

Covenants
Covenants are obligations to use land only in certain ways or for certain purposes, e.g. as a family dwelling or a wildlife refuge. Or, to dispose of it only a certain way, say by sale within family.

Mortgages
Mortgages are loans secured by land. In some jurisdictions, when the majority equity holder is the lender, that lender is formally the paper title holder or "true" owner, and no mortgage is binding without such an agreement. If the mortgage defaults then the lender has a clear "right of entry and distress" to evict the possessor and sell the property, which ensures orderly conduct of real estate.

It is more common however to require a firmer verification of land titles, including formal land registration, before borrowing against land. In most Canadian provinces no loan is binding as a mortgage without registration. The paper title may be seized as security and the possession is thus with permission of the mortgage holder until such time as the mortgage is discharged completely and the title reverts to the possessor. This is to ensure no one "squats out from under" a mortgage by claiming that the lender did not perform the acts of possession normally required of title holders.

Land Registration
Land Registration Acts have, in most provinces, moved Canada more to a Torrens-style system with less reliance on title search, more on surveys. This has generally been accompanied by a shortening of limitations to a ten- or fifteen-year period, refinements to title quieting measures, and otherwise making land transactions (after registration) more certain and less subject to common law challenge.

The Acts and court interpretations vary widely in terms of what rights registration guarantees or insures, limits placed on adverse possession, disputes over extent, estates and the capacity of deceased persons to make new claims, who is permitted to dispute or alter records after registration, and so on. None of the Acts in Canada actually establishes a true Torrens system with both extent & title guaranteed and not subject to any common law challenge whatsoever - not even from possessory claims.

Back to Canadian Property Law

title: Canadian Property Law/Real Property


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Nicole

The result was   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexa Nicole

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. I saw some user generated websites mentioning that she got a nomination for the 2012 AVN Awards (and again it's just one nomination). But according to the official list I couldn't find her name. I'll be happy to revoke the AfD if some other information is found on the issue. — westeros91 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG. Lacks notable awards or nominations to pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gene93k. Fails GNG and PORNBIO (even in its old form). Cavarrone (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Hexagone

Etymology
From the shape of France; which roughly corresponds to a hexagon ( in French).

Proper noun

 * 1) mainland of France

title: Hexagone


text:
Octopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street's Wildest Con

Octopus: Sam Israel, the Secret Market, and Wall Street's Wildest Con is a 2012 non-fiction book by the Canadian author and journalist Guy Lawson. The book was published by Crown Publishing on July 10, 2012.

Synopsis
Octopus focuses on Wall Street trader Samuel Israel III, who attempted to commit hedge fund fraud by taking part in a "secret market" reported to have been run by the Federal Reserve. Lawson interviewed Israel for the book, commenting in an interview with CBS News that he was surprised at "how much truth there was to Israel's stories". The book covers Israel's attempt to save his company Bayou as well as his attempt to fake a suicide.

Reception
Critical reception for Octopus was mostly positive. Fortune magazine praised Lawson for going "out of his way not to pass judgment on his subject, simply letting him spin an outrageous but definitely movie-worthy tale". Rob Copeland of hedge fund magazine Absolute Return had a different take, calling the book "exhausting." "Unlike the best in the narrative finance genre, this is a beach read with too few UV rays—leaving the reader cold," he wrote.


text:
Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names

These are lists of minor planets showing the derivation of names where known.

See list of minor planets for an overview and numbering and naming conventions.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoffman L. Fuller

The result was   no consensus. No consensus to delete, leaning towards keep. Nakon 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoffman L. Fuller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only claim to fame is being the mayor of a town of less than 100k people; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill six Bossier City mayor articles in a period of eight minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against George Nattin at .52, against Lo Walker at .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:52 a.m. for Mr. Nattin but am not sure, maybe 12:52 p.m. How could he read and analyze six revised articles in eight minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete per nom. Even his Shreveport Times obituary (secondhand through Findagrave) says nothing about any achievements; it only talks about the funeral arrangements. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:
 * Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
 * Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
 * Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
 * Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
 * New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
 * Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
 * Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
 * Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
 * Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
 * Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
 * Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
 * Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
 * East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
 * Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
 * Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
 * Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
 * Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
 * Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
 * Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
 * Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
 * Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

Mr. Hoffman left office in 1953. All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable, even if more material on them would be desirable though not yet located. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
 * Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities. The citing of a 60,000 population is not there at all. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note. Mr. Hoffman is an historical figure in Bossier City. He left office forty years before Internet was even beginning; there are no other sources I can find for his article.
 * comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Bossier City is neither populous enough nor regionally significant enough for the mayor to be notable for such. Other stuff exists is a bad and non-workable argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets the GNG based on the sources. It doesn't matter that he does not have inherent notability based on the number of people that live in his city. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is).  We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. He also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage; the listed sources are mostly a name-check saying that he was mayor. Ironically, his son Hoffman L. Fuller Jr., a law professor, might be notable - but he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, which leaves me wondering - if the mayors are so all-fired important, how come nobody ever bothered to add them to the city article?). --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bossier City mayors are in a template at the bottom of the Bossier City Wikipedia article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Then a redirect to the city page, in place of a deletion, could be appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cynthia Shalom

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ig-Cynthia Shalom.ogg

title: Talk:Cynthia Shalom