User talk:JacobJHWard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Visitor attraction[edit]

Partly my fault for not mentioning the reason in the summary. The visitor attraction category was removed because Lewes Castle is also in the Ruins category which is a child category of visitor attraction. See Category:Visitor attractions in East Sussex. MortimerCat (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Sussex Downs College[edit]

Sorry might have phrased it wrong there is the wealden skills centre in uckfield they run in it in corporation with Uckfield Community Technology College.

The article is at my colleges address below.

http://www.sussexdowns.ac.uk/adults/dbpage.asp?pid=374

R.A.S.A.P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens (talkcontribs) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Oxford[edit]

It seems as if the situation over the article assertion that the University is the 'oldest in the English-speaking world' touched a nerve based on your last edit summary; that certainly wasn't my intent. I've worked on this article for some time, nominated it for - and helped improve it to reach - GA status, and merely have the interests of a well-sourced article which meets all the content guidelines at heart (as every good editor on Wikipedia does). Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with others. But, to answer your question, yes - the source is just fine. ColdmachineTalk 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend that to sound arsey. I realise it looks that way in hindsight, but the tone was not meant to be malevolent. It was intended as a genuine inquiry not an insult. I'm glad you agree and sorry if I caused any offence. JacobJHWard (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Difficult to tell sometimes when it's written down; I'm just glad that we worked it out and the article benefited as a result! ColdmachineTalk 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward[edit]

I don't think Elton meant Edward was not Prince of Wales, just that he was not formally invested as such. When Henry made Edward Earl of Chester at his baptism, he made him effective Prince of Wales, because the one assumed the other. In this portrait, the inscriber assumes that Edward was Prince of Wales, though the inscription postdates Edward's reign, and there are other problems with the drawing, as I've noted on the image description. Both Strong and Hearn have no hesitation in stating that the Windsor portrait in the article depicts Edward as Prince of Wales. Of course, one could argue that it just depicts him as heir to the throne, but the caption now has solid references. qp10qp (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Henry VIII and previously his brother Arthur were both formally invested with the title. The duchy of Cornwall is also always held by the heir to the crown, but Prince Charles was created Duke of Cornwall four years before Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The title is not simply assumed, it must be bestowed. Elton's argument is that as part of the reorganisation of Wales Cromwell intended to abolish the distinction and therefore the position. The assumptions of inscribers hardly equate to him actually holding the position. It's curious I know, but I don't think it can confidently be asserted that he was Prince of Wales. JacobJHWard (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the particular question of the portrait, it only matters that he was depicted as Prince of Wales, which the art historians say that he was. qp10qp (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Art historians do, however, tend to be rather more concerned with the history of art than the intricacies of constitutional history and as such are perhaps not the most appropriate authorities to defer to. JacobJHWard (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Black tie[edit]

Dear Jacob,

I generally follow a one-revert rule, but I still disagree over the description of the U shape as more traditional. This is a very minor detail, but the underlying principle is really whether the Black Tie Guide is reliable. It is a tertiary source, and in fact cites Wikipedia (besides which, the waistcoats page does not actually seem to mention the matter anyway). If you agree with this, it is up to you to change your sentence.

Kan8eDie (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)