Talk:Lord of Mann/Archive 1

message: The Isle is spelled "Man", with one "n". The official royal website also lists with only one "n"". 
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5658.asp
:There isn't a reference to back up the claim that the title "Lord of Mann" is officially spelt in that way. There's the Isle of Man, a Bishop of Sodor and Man, a Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, and other examples were it is spelt Man. There should be a "citation needed" to be placed after the title "Lord of Mann" until it can be clearly proved otherwise. Cwb61 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mann or Man? 

message: Both spellings appear acceptable: According to Google, there are 32 'Lord of Mann' references on .gov.im and 31 as 'Lord of Man'. There are 14 and 23 respectively on .gov.uk.
Heir Apparent
I have deleted reference to Prince Charles as "Charles III" as it is not known what style he will adopt when he ascends the Throne. He may chose "George VII" out of respect to his maternal grandfather.
I have deleted the reference to "Price Charles" and replaced it with "Charles, The Prince of Wales", as he is officially styled, unless in Scotland. 76.187.9.84 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: All, user Theisles and I have been engaged in an edit war over content of the article as it relates to David Drew Howe's claims.  As one can see from both our talk pages and the edit history, Theisles claims that my point of view is not neutral and includes information that is not relevant. I disagree with Theisles on several points that are at the heart of the dispute. Firstly, Theisles points out his/her assertion that Mr. Howe's claim "was published in the London Gazette of January of this year, vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown."  The plain fact is that the claim Mr. Howe published was not vetted by Her Majesty's Stationary Office and the British Crown; only his submission of the claim was. There is a distinct legal difference here that one must be careful to comprehend.  
Secondly, I have stated that Mr. Howe has not provided any evidence admissable in any relevant court as to the veracity of his claim. Simply, there is no legally binding writing in the public record, and therefore, there is no legal claim.  Theisles has stated that the on-line petition I referenced "is not material to his claim and violate NPOV."  I believe that 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. Given that there has been no opinion from a court of legal competancy, the counter-claim (in the form of the petition) is merely another claim, equal to all others (in the eyes of the law).  
So, it goes to you, the court of my peers, to help us resolve this battle.  I have made numerous attempts to discuss this with Theisles on our respective talk pages to no avail.  We have both been warned about violating Wikipedia's 3RR, and Theisles was temporarily blocked for failing to heed the warning.
Collective thoughts?  216.143.251.162 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does Theisles object to edits to this page?