Philip J Kim
Welcome!
edit
|
South Korean elections
editHi Philip. Thanks for your contributions to South Korean elections. With regards to South Korean presidential election, 1981, are you able to provide the number of registered voters and the number of invalid votes in the public vote for the electoral college? There are gaps in the national results table I created based on the regional figures you added.
Also, a couple of other tips for editing:
- Please ensure dates are formatted the same way in articles – so if an article already uses the format "5 May 1988", please don't use the format "May 6" when adding additional detail.
- References should be added using the <ref> </ref> tags rather than as bare urls
You might also be interested in joining WP:E&R, a WikiProject for editors who work on election and referendum articles. Cheers, Number 57 13:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I added the information that you mentioned from the source that is already cited. Thanks for the tips!!
- Another tip – don't put references in headings – they should be in the text! Also, if a Wikipedia biography is at a certain title (e.g. Yun Posun), then you should also use that spelling when referring to them elsewhere. If you think that the spelling is wrong, you should suggest the article be moved using the WP:RM process. Cheers, Number 57 03:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks!!
High School Rapper (season 2) moved to draftspace
editAn article you recently created, High School Rapper (season 2), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay!
Results
editHi Philip. Just an FYI, when calculating election result percentages, you don't include invalid votes or abstentions. Only votes cast for candidates count towards the percentage, and so if there is only one candidate, they should be shown as having 100% of the vote (see, for example, 1965 Upper Voltan presidential election or 1979 Gabonese presidential election). The only exception is when there is specifically an "against" option on the ballot paper (e.g. 1979 Algerian presidential election). Cheers, Number 57 11:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Philip J Kim (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Hello, this is Philip. Like you said, invalid/blank votes and abstentions do not count in most election percentages. However, under the Yushin (Restoration) Constitution of 1972, which states that a presidential candidate must receive votes from absolute majority of the deputies in office (please note it says deputies in office, not just the ones who voted), invalid/blank ballots and abstentions did indeed count in the percentages. Unless every single deputy in office participated in the election and voted correctly for the candidate, 100% cannot be the percent of votes the candidate has received. This is because indirect elections are a little different from popular elections we are familiar with.
- Hi Philip and thanks for your response. I think this issue can be addressed by a line of text above the results table, such as "In order to win, a candidate had to receive at least XXXX votes, equivalent to 50% of the total number of electors." Having quora like this is not entirely unusual – for example it's a requirement of the Macedonian constitution that in order to win in the first round of voting, a candidate must receive a number of votes at least 50%+1 of the registered voters, as opposed to the turnout. Cheers, Number 57 17:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- As an example, I've added this to the March 1960 election article and this to the August 1960 ones. I will endeavour to do similar for all of the ones you mention. Number 57 17:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- All done now I think. And thanks again for the detailed explanation. Cheers, Number 57 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- As an example, I've added this to the March 1960 election article and this to the August 1960 ones. I will endeavour to do similar for all of the ones you mention. Number 57 17:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Philip J Kim (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Gotcha! I will add such explanations in other indirect elections. Thanks!
- I think I have done it for all of them. And the note means you don't have to keep changing the tablespercentages. Cheers, Number 57 21:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Philip J Kim (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks! I'm just changing the tables because I don't want Wikipedia to have tables with wrong % numbers. Thank you for your help.
- The percentages aren't wrong. Please stop this. As well as messing with the percentages, you're also messing up the table formatting. Number 57 21:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. The tables, currently, say that the candidate has won 100% of the votes, which is incorrect information. What concerns you so?Philip J Kim (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- They have won 100% of the vote, because when candidate percentages are calculated, only valid votes are taken into account – this is standard psephology. These elections have a quorum based on the number of potential partcipants, which is not unusual – and it does not mean invalid votes and abstentions are recorded in the percentages. The whole reason for adding the notes to the articles was to resolve your concern about this information being missing. Number 57 21:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I see.Philip J Kim (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- To give you a similar example, I mentioned that in Macedonia, a candidate has to win over 50% of the available votes in the first round to win. However, when the results are given, only the valid votes are counted towards the percentage. So you can see at 2014 Macedonian general election#Results that the first round percentages are based on valid votes only (Ivanov only received 25.52% of the available votes, but 51.69% of the valid votes). Number 57 21:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry it took me long to respond to your message. If you have time, please take a look at a photo I put in this link. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CNExKYZFVdHRXCMbKhO5hlPS5CySPDkSsRTL9c_yOyY/edit?usp=sharing and this link https://news.joins.com/article/1337262
- The first link has a picture of a Korean newspaper from the date of 1979 South Korean presidential election which shows the newspaper saying President Choi Kyu-hah won 96.7% of the votes, not 100%. The second link is for a electronically published version of a news article from the date of 1972 South Korean presidential election, and it shows this newspaper also wrote President Park Chung-hee had won 99.92% of the votes, not 100%. They're all in Korean and therefore you probably cannot read anything, but still, you can see the numbers.
My point is that despite that calculating percentages out of valid votes and declaring the results as such is indeed a norm, the South Korean government at that time made a decision to do their own way of calculations. I believe that, in order to prevent confusion, we should state on Wikipedia the same way, by counting the invalid votes and abstentions.Philip J Kim (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- No problem about the delay. With regards to your last point, Wikipedia has to be internally consistent with how it presents election results, and use the same method across all elections.
- If your concern is that the percentages stated in the tables are different to some sources, the solution is probably to state these these percentages in the notes that have been added. This has been done on articles like 2017 Mongolian presidential election, where the result is sometimes reported including blank votes in the percentages. Number 57 23:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- An example of adding this to the notes would be this. Number 57 23:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Philip J Kim (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Is there no exception to that internal consistency rule? In the 2016 Democratic National Convention article, the delegate vote results are recorded as following. Clinton (NY): 2,842 (59.67%) Sanders (VT): 1,865 (39.16%) Abstention: 56 (1.18%) As you know, abstention in presidential nominating roll call means the delegate has not made it to the convention venue for the voting or purposely abstained from voting. This article recognized the abstentions as part of the results because the number of delegates Hillary Clinton needs does not change. Could not we also do the same with the Korean elections?
- I don't think we should, and don't think we need to (I have no idea why that article is like that, but it's not a national election article anyway). I've added notes to all the articles in question, so the "all potential votes" percentages now appear alongside the results tables. Number 57 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Philip J Kim (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Hey, I want to make a suggestion if that's okay with you.
I cannot live with letting incorrect information be, and you want to keep things consistent. In my opinion, we both have very good points.
In order to both keep things consistent and accurate, I want to propose something and hope you will agree it's a good idea. For direct popular elections, listing what the % of the votes is important.
However, for indirect elections, held by a select body of people, it is not necessary and actually at times discouraged. For example, if you look at all articles regarding US presidential elections, such as 2016 United States presidential election, where electoral college votes for president not people, you will notice no where are % of electoral votes written. It says Trump won 304 of 538 electoral votes. 304 is 56.51% of 538, but this article does not say that. They simply state 270 votes is needed, and show you how many electoral votes each candidate has won and whether or not they reached 270.
The same is with US House of Representatives speakership elections, such as 2019 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, where the congressmen elect the speaker, not the people. It states how many votes are needed and how many each candidate has received, but not %.
It is because % is not necessary when the number is so small. It is hard to tell immediately what the proportions are when dealing with big numbers, but not in these types of elections. So, technically, none of the South Korean indirect presidential election articles we have been wrestling about should not have % numbers, to keep consistent with American presidential election articles. The very fact that we have % of votes listed in them are violating the internal consistency rule as we speak.
I propose that in all of South Korea's indirect elections - the 1948, August 1960, 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981 ones - we remove all information about percent of votes. For example, right now 1979 presidential election article has this table:
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choi Kyu-hah | Independent | 2,465 | 100 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 84 | – | |
| Total | 2,549 | 100 | |
| Registered voters/turnout | 2,560 | 99.57 | |
I think we should change it to this.
| Candidate | Party | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| Choi Kyu-hah | Independent | 2,465 |
| Invalid/blank votes | 84 | |
| Abstentions | 11 | |
| Total | 2,560 | |
Just to make sure I am being consistent with other indirect elections, I checked another US presidential election where there was only one candidate, 1792 United States Presidential Election.
| Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Popular vote(a) | Electoral vote(b) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | ||||
| George Washington (incumbent) | Nonpartisan | Virginia | 28,579 | 100.0% | 132 |
| John Adams | Federalist | Massachusetts | — | — | 77 |
| George Clinton | Democratic-Republican | New York | — | — | 50 |
| Thomas Jefferson | Democratic-Republican | Virginia | — | — | 4 |
| Aaron Burr | Democratic-Republican | New York | — | — | 1 |
| Total | 28,579 | 100.0% | 264 | ||
| Needed to win | 68 | ||||
So here, they put % for popular vote but not for electoral votes. (Of course, you can disregard the electoral votes people other than Washington got as we all know those votes are not presidential votes but vice presidential votes.)
I think if we do this, we would be actually making Wikipedia better because we would be making it even more consistent and not at all misleading with information. Please tell me if you are okay with this idea, so I can make those edits right away. Thank you!
- OK, I think this compromise is ok. I guess we should also remove the percentage from the infobox. Number 57 00:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh thank you so so much! I am so grateful for your gracious acceptance.
I want to apologize if at any point in our exchanges you felt uncomfortable by my words, by the way. I am so very thankful that you agreed to this. Should I make the changes or do you wish to do the honors?
- I've done a few, but am about to go to bed, so you're welcome to do the rest. Number 57 00:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you again for meeting me halfway, and have a good night!
You're awesome!! :) Philip J Kim (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just one more issue – could you stop changing the introductory sentence to the articles. Starting it with the article title doesn't work very well as it involves repeating some information (country name and year) twice in the same sentence, which makes it quite awkward. I appreciate that several articles do start that way, but the majority do not and the current introduction style is the most common. Cheers, Number 57 16:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi 57! I know I probably could find better things to start the articles with, but until I can think of a better sentence, I thought I should fix articles that begin with words "presidential elections" because it's only one election, not elections. Is there a particular reason it should be written as "elections"? Philip J Kim (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just common usage - "elections" is used to refer to a single event too (see e.g. here). Also, from a style point of view, I'd say it's preferable to the singular as you can start the first sentence with the bold term "Presidential elections", whereas if you use the singular you have to start with "a". Number 57 21:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well, I guess that could work then. I just never though before that word elections could be used to call a single election, although I knew they sometimes did that in legislative or regional elections. Philip J Kim (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
License tagging for File:통일주체국민회의 심볼.png
edit
Thanks for uploading File:통일주체국민회의 심볼.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 16
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 2015 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Grimm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
edit| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)