User talk:216.143.251.162

This message is regarding the page University of Oklahoma. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Alexlockhart 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Lord of Mann

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 216.143.251.162! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please refer to Neutral Point of View NPOV guidelines.--Theisles 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Howe's claim, your point of view is not neutral and includes information that is not relevant. His claim was published in the London Gazette of January of this year, vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown. Unless you can cite a legal opinion that agrees with yours, comments regarding the legality violate NPOV. The online petition addition is not material to his claim and violate NPOV. Work and other activities are also not material as they have nothing to do with his claim.--Theisles 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Theisles, thanks for your thoughts. Reverting my edits because you believe they are not germane or are not written from a NPOV violate Wikipedia's policies. But, as to the issue at hand, I must disagree with you on several points. The claim Mr. Howe published was not vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown; his submission of the claim was. There is a distinct legal difference here that one must be careful to comprehend. Also, the burden is not on me to provide a legal opinion to support the fact that Mr. Howe has not provided any evidence admissable in any relevant court as to the veracity of his claim. There is no legally binding writing in the public record. The on-line petition is highly germane as it contradicts Mr. Howe's claim. The contradictory information (in the form of a petition) is not superior to Mr. Howe's claim nor inferior. It is merely another claim. The other information related to his work is merely background information and I don't understand why it offends you. Your thoughts? 216.143.251.162 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

You write that, "Mr. Howe's claim, however, provides no legal evidence of the sort admissable in either U.S. courts, U.K. courts, or Manx courts, as to his lineage." This statement requires a legal opinion from all three courts you cite. Assuming you do not have these court opinions, the statement is not verifiable. Furthermore, Mr. Howe's lineage is posted on his official website under the news link. His own representation of his lineage would be admissible in all three courts provided he is allowed to submit his own evidence. If he isn't allowed to submit his own evidence, please cite the verifiable source stating otherwise. The online petition is not a verifiable source. Again, you would have to cite a verifiable source. Such as, XYZ newspaper's online poll reports that half of all Brits do not support the monarchy. The online petition is considered to be anonymous and not verifiable. Mr. Howe's work and military experience and any extra curricular activities are not also not relevant to his claim and inclusion on the Lord of Mann page. This is not a page about Mr. Howe. It is a page about the heads of state, Lords of Mann, of which Mr. Howe is included because he has made a verifiable, published claim, promoting himself as the alternative head of state as the King.--Theisles 20:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. The statement that there is "no legal evidence" provided by Mr. Howe to support his claim, is a statement of fact. Legally, it requires no court opinion because it is not subject to legal interpretation. There either has been or there has not been legally admissable evidence provided by Mr. Howe in a court of competent authority in support of his claim. So, unless you can produce this evidence admitted in court or point me to its existence in the public domain (in either the U.S., the U.K. or the Isle of Mann), your assertion is not valid (and IMO demonstrates an ignorance of the law). One can not simply assert that evidence is legally admissable unless one knows that it has been or will be. There has been no legal proceeding on this matter (of which I am aware), so there can be no legal evidence.

In support of the verifiability of Mr. Howe's claim, you state that "[F]urthermore, Mr. Howe's lineage is posted on his official website under the news link," yet you refute the verifyibility of the other claimants on their petition website. Logically, this doesn't make sense to me. Either both datum are verifiable or neither are. 216.143.251.162 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---