User talk:15zulu/Archive 1

Welcome

 * Now if only I hadn't been here for two months already ... 08:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bottega Veneta
Hey 15zulu, I saw you'd (relatively) recently made an edit to BV and some other fashion pages, and I was hoping you could review some of my proposed edits to the page. I posted on the talk page, but no one has responded thus far. If you could lend a hand I'd really appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for editing the Stripes (book) page! I really appreciate it! Dixon H. (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

kimdan014
I'm sorry, but it was wasn't me. I found out that someone was hacking into my account. If you see that again, please let me know. Sincerely, kimdan014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.155.215 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You realize it's an IP? Someone else from your household could be using the Internet, no hacking involved. The unconstructive editing has been going on for 11 months, primarily sticking to articles on figure skating, Olympics, and American football. If you're not the person who's making all those edits, then I suggest getting an account, since the IP is heading for a block. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm you're the IP above? Looking through your contributions, it's highly likely to be true. You edit the same topics and have similar editing styles. And all the things I said about the IP's unconstructive edits also apply to Kimdan014's edits. The majority of your edits were reverted. Some for being unsourced/speculation/false. Others for intentionally adding false results, e.g. on 19 June 2015 adding to Brian Boitano won the bronze medal in the 1984 Olympics. Many edits were just non-constructive, like adding bid cities that aren't in any sources to multiple articles. If you're trying to claim that all of that was some hacker, then you don't have any edits and this account & IP belong to the hacker. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know. I was drunk and yeah. Right now, I'm at work and I'm about to have diarrhea in my pants. I'm sorry, I have a qusetion. Do you ever have diarrhea? Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.155.215 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason, your response doesn't convince me of your sincerity to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time with your non-constructive editing. — 15zulu (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To 15zulu, should we delete that person's account? I think he is lying. Danielkim0726 (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given all three of you are the same user, sure block all three accounts. 15zulu (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

On my now account, I am just reading and I will delete my other accounts. Sorry. Please forgive me. Danielkim0726 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Retirement of the Earl of Snowdon
Hello! I saw that you have added a citation needed template to Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon infobox after I changed 30 March as his last day as a member of the House of Lords. I don't have a citation that refers directly to the Earl, but he retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. You can see the text of the Act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/24/enacted/data.htm

House of Lords Reform Act 2014 states (1 Resignation, subsection 3): 'At the beginning of that date [retirement date] the peer ceases to be a member of the House of Lords.' Because a retirement under the Act takes effect immediately at the beginning of the retirement date on midnight, the last day when a retired peer was a member of the House was the day preceding his or her retirement day. In this case, the Earl of Snowdon retired on 31 March and his last day as a member was therefore 30 March. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Typically date of retirement is considered the end of term, even if retirement is at the beginning of the day. Has there been a discussion on this topic, on the project level or Wikipedia level? I looked through the Wikipedia articles of all the former House of Lord members who retired in the last year (going by the list on parliament.uk). Not a single Wikipedia article bothered to have term of House of Lords in the infobox, so I failed to get insight there. If there has been no discussion, are there other examples on Wikipedia where we treat end of term to be the day before retirement? Otherwise, for consistency and simple logic, we should just use the retirement day since that's the one officially released and noted in the few news articles. — 15zulu (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried to look, but I couldn't find any other discussion on the topic. I don't know examples of this kind of situations on Wikipedia, but do you know examples, where a retirement or other resignation has taken effect at the beginning of the date and the retirement date is given as the end of term? If you don't know examples from Wikipedia, can you give them elsewhere? I agree partly with you on consistency, but I think that giving the retirement date as the end of term could lead to an impression that the retirement date would have been the last day when the peer had been a member of the House (at least a part of the day) and maybe had even been eligible to sit, which is not correct. In the case of the Earl of Snowdon, 31 March is his official retirement date, but in my understanding the term end date given in the infobox should rather be his last day in the position mentioned above than the first day when he wasn't in that position anymore. --Editor FIN (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't have anything to prove since it's standard practice, it's logical, and news articles only give the 31 March date. I think the burden rests with you. Regardless, I put it for the project to decide. I copied some of your text above. Feel free to clarify your opinion there. — 15zulu (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see on what is the argument that it is standard practice based on. I'll join on the project discussion. --Editor FIN (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's standard practice that retirement date is the same date someone leaves a position. You're arguing that the House of Lords is an exception to this. Thus, you need to prove that it should be an exception. — 15zulu (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not argued that the House of Lords would be an exception. I think that in a case, which a resignation from the House of Lords or anywhere else is clearly stated to take effect at the beginning of the date, the preceding day could be given as the end date of a term of service. If there is a standard practice for this kind of cases, as you have said, do you have some source(s) for that? --Editor FIN (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The standard practice is that retirement date is the same date someone leaves a position. You're arguing that this is an exception. I'm not convinced. You haven't shown any examples on or off wiki for your exception. The burden is on you to convince others of this exception. Otherwise, standard practice would apply. Regardless, it's pointless for you to argue here, when any decision will be made on the project page. — 15zulu (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite convinced that there is any standard practice. It is just obvious that the resignation date is used, if resignation takes place during that day and the person in question has actually held the position on resignation day. In a case like this, the retirement date is merely a technicality, because the beginning of a date is the same moment as the end of the preceding date. I see our discussion mostly as opinion vs. opinion situation. (This will be my last comment here.) --Editor FIN (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, because I'm tired of debating with you when you have no precedents or discussions to back you up and when all sources use one date. — 15zulu (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request
I have now sent a dispute resolution request on Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For my future reference: The discussion on dispute resolution noticeboard was closed with conclusion to use 31 March 2016, since current argument for 30 March relies on WP:SYNTHESIS which is against Wikipedia policy.  — 15zulu (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — Archive at page 136. ~ 15zulu (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Tom Ford page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=715996300 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F715996300%7CTom Ford%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * . — 15zulu (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Notifying
I have mentioned you at ANI in a matter that may be related to your recent posts on Chuck's talkpage. Notifying you as a courtesy - no response is necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * — Archived on page 923. ~ 15zulu (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)