Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Candidate Order

Technically, there is no such thing as an "incumbent party" as an editor as claimed. The word "incumbent" defines an individual, not a party. See Incumbent. But if an editor still feels this imaginary standard should be listed first, rather than either the actual alphabetical order by candidate OR by the alphabetical order of the political parties; then kindly provide a source or policy here that backs your supposition. Otherwise, I will expect you to self-revert.

In fact, barring a superior source, I would think we would at least conform to the order used by both the Virginia State Board of Elections and the official Fairfax County Sample Ballot. In both cases, the order that was reverted to - with Obenshain being listed before Herring - is proved wrong. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is not "imaginary", nor is it "wrong". In fact, unlike Wikipedia, the VSBE is inconsistent, listing McAuliffe, Northam and Herring first in that link you provided but Cuccinelli, Jackson and Obenshain first in this one. Anyway, listing the incumbent party first is the norm across all elections pages on Wikipedia. And for very good reason too. Listing by alphabetical order of candidate would in many cases see the incumbent listed after their challenger. Listing by alphabetical order of parties would (and in fact, has) seen complaints of bias because the Democrats would always be listed first. So, the party that holds the seat is listed first, both in the infobox and in the body of the article. If you'll note, on this page, the Republicans hold the seat so the Republican convention is listed first, then the Democratic primary. If the Democrats hold the seat, their primary is listed first and they are listed first in the infobox. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Likewise, if the Republicans hold the seat, their primary is listed first and they are listed first in the infobox. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And finally, here's one where the Independent incumbent was listed first before the election. Oh and here are some other pre-2014 election ones where the party that held the seat was listed first: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your links prove my point! All those links show nothing more than where the "incumbent individual," was running for re-election. Exactly! Again, there is no such thing as the "incumbent party." You failed to provided a single, reliable source, much less a single link, supporting your claim that the phrase even formally exists - much less the entity it supposedly defines. You again ignored the dictionary definition I supplied, showing you that the word "incumbent" references an individual, hence advising that you have misused the word. It may be a common misuse, but it is a clear misuse, nonetheless. So once you acknowledge that misuse, we can proceed to addressing why you continue to claim, as a precedent, this non-existent thing. The Oxford Dictionary could not provide a more easy-to-understand and simpler definition for the noun "incumbent": "the holder of an office or post". Surely you get that now, right? Finally, regarding the link you provided from the Virginia Board of Elections, apparently it's not as definitive as you think - see here. However, the County Sample Ballot, which you also ignored - as the actual printed ballot - seems pretty definitive.107.214.30.15 (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they really don't just show where an incumbent individual was running for re-election. You missed the ones here, here, here, here, here, here and here where the incumbent is term-limited or retiring and the party that held the seat was still listed first. If you'd like more examples, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Why did I say "incumbent party"? Because it takes less time to write than "the party that currently holds the seat, regardless of whether or not the individual officeholder is running or eligible to seek re-election". Regardless, the precedent is not "non-existent". As I've shown, it's standard across the entire encyclopedia. And as for the VSBE not being definitive, that was my point - that unlike Wikipedia, they don't list the candidates in a specific order. We do. Tiller54 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're still not getting it. The links simply showed a format where the incumbent person was still in office. You interpreted it to mean the incumbent party. Rather than going to all the trouble of trying to explain what you meant or what took "less time", you could have taken even less time and simply acknowledged that you were wrong. Then we could have moved on. You've effectively said the same thing, but I guess you just couldn't bring yourself to type the words. Also, to spare you from jumping through even more hoops to explain yourself, in future, just remember that the correct phrase you were looking for is "ruling party." Not "incumbent party." You'll find that phrase in dictionaries, textbooks, history books, etc.
Now about your other question regarding order: each state and sometimes each jurisdiction within a state, will determine the method of candidate order on the ballot. In Wisconsin, state law requires that it be done by "drawing of lots, or by any method that is by chance." In California and many other places, it's done by "randomized alphabet." But in Virginia, which applies in this case, it's done by the State Board of Elections by a drawing, which is then binding upon each county. As I've already shown you several times - in Virginia Herring's name came first on the ballot. Also, despite my repeated requests that you provide a WP policy or rule in the style guide, you have failed to do so. No doubt because one does not exist. So in the absence of any rule, you had no legitimate basis for reverting my edit.
But I'll give you a more compelling reason to revert yourself: Herring won. Even with the likely possibility of a recount, he is the presumptive winner and barring some bizarre twist, will become the eventual incumbent. At that point, following your own interpretation of precedent, you will have no choice but to revert. So you can either follow form and revert now - or later. It doesn't matter which. But sooner or later, one way or the other, the edit needs to be reverted. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The links simply showed a format where the incumbent person was still in office." No. They don't. Look at the ones I just sent you, where the incumbent was term-limited or retiring. The party that held the seat is still listed first. That's how it's done.
"You interpreted it to mean the incumbent party." No, I didn't. There's nothing to "interpret", the party that holds the seat is listed first, whether or not the individual is running for re-election. It's that simple. How do you not understand this?
"you could have taken even less time and simply acknowledged that you were wrong." I'm not. You're either not looking at the links I've sent you or just ignoring them.
"the correct phrase you were looking for is "ruling party." No, "ruling party" is not correct because the definition of that phrase is "in a democratic parliamentary system, the incumbent political party or coalition of the majority in parliament, that administers the affairs of state." And clearly that does not apply to which party holds a gubernatorial or Senate seat. The Republicans hold both of Georgia's Senate seats, but they're not the "ruling party" because they're not in a majority in the Senate.
"each state and sometimes each jurisdiction within a state, will determine the method of candidate order on the ballot." Yes and good for them. But on Wikipedia it's done in the same consistent way across every article, regardless of how candidates appear on the ballot. Further, not every candidate who appears on the ballot appears in the infobox.
Herring hasn't been certified as the winner yet, but he is in the lead. The article already reflects that.
You can ask other editors to weigh in if you like but they'll just tell you what I've been telling you: that you've got the wrong end of the stick. Tiller54 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you provided no links, just a laundry list of misinterpreted examples; you've referenced no policy, despite several requests; and you offer only an unsourced quote as support? Meanwhile, I provided links; Wikilinks; reliably sourced definitions; news articles; ballot samples; applicable policy comparisons from other states; as well as WP policy. Yet somehow you still think you're right? Nice trick. Whatever you need to believe. Just as long as articles don't suffer. But in future, kindly always use the edit summary when working on articles - instead of just occasionally. Also be aware that WP is not a newspaper. Any future edits should be encyclopedic. As "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." 107.214.30.15 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I provided dozens of links, which you are either ignoring or haven't even opened. That "unsourced quote" was from the Wikipedia article. You on the other hand have offered nothing to support your claim that infoboxes are ordered alphabetically other than the claim that I am "wrong". The links you provided were inconsistent (some list Obenshain first, others list Herring first), the definition completely irrelevant (ruling party referring to a parliamentary majority, not which party holds a seat), the news articles not definitive (Herring has declared victory but the race hasn't been called or certified yet), the ballot samples also irrelevant (different states use different ways of determining the ballot order. So? On Wikipedia it's done in the same consistent way on every article), and you referenced no WP policy. But, you still think you're right. Sure. And yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Which is why we will not call the race for Herring until he has actually been declared the winner. Tiller54 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP 107 is correct. This section reads like a newspaper NOT an encyclopedia. If there is no official source that still calls the race "too close to call" you CANNOT. It is NOT a subjective judgment you have the right to make, it's editorial commentary you DO NOT have the right to make. Tiller, your wholesale reverts are not necessary to fix minor problems. But they do show you have a problem with WP:OWN. You need to step back before you 3RR. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:2897:4163:FED4:A4A7 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out below, there are major issues with the version you are reverting to. In addition, the claim that "there is no official source that still calls the race "too close to call"" is not true, it is referenced by this source here. Tiller54 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see other editors weighing in and addressing your edits. I won't even dwell on the warring with the other editor. Because for the most part, I agree with both editors. I also take issue with your contention that there is an "official source" that calls the race "too close to call." If there is, where is it? Because all you used was this? That source is certainly not official. In fact, the phrase isn't even used in the article. Claiming the phrase used by some website headline writer for a local tv affiliate "an official source" is just nonsense. The only "official source" - the VSBE - doesn't use the phrase. It simply references the "unofficial results." That's all we need to do. So I sourced that and put it in the article. Also, you and the other editor can stop reverting the political offices to proper nouns. They are common nouns per WP:JOBTITLES. So the article should be set now until the certification is completed, and then if/when a recount is announced. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The race has not been called yet, so please don't go and do so. When multiple sources describe the race as too close for them to call it, then yes, it remains so. Tiller54 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the correct link for the Republican Party is "Republican Party (United States)" and not "Republican Party (US)", so I have no idea why you keep changing it. And no, their job titles should not be in lower case because they are not being used generically. Look at Ken Cuccinelli, for example. The article reads, "Kenneth Thomas "Ken" Cuccinelli II (/ˈkɛn ˈkuːtʃiˈnɛliː/ koo-chi-nel-lee; born July 30, 1968) is the current Attorney General of Virginia who was the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia" and not "Kenneth Thomas "Ken" Cuccinelli II (/ˈkɛn ˈkuːtʃiˈnɛliː/ koo-chi-nel-lee; born July 30, 1968) is the current attorney general of Virginia who was the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia". Tiller54 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* 1) Show where in the article the race is allegedly "called." You cannot.
By placing Herring in bold. That only happens when someone has been certified as the winner.
* 2) Show where an OFFICIAL SOURCE has called the race "too close to call." You cannot. The term implies they are still counting votes. They are not. And will not. Unless/until there is a recount. According to the VSBE, 100% of the votes have been counted.
An official source has not called the race. Why? Because it's too close for them to do so. Yes, Herring leads by a hundred odd votes, but that could easily be overturned. Hence why they haven't called the race. Multiple sources have repeated this, yet you just ignore them.
* 3) Both links Republican Party (United States) and Republican Party (US) work, do they not? If you had bothered to check, you would have seen that both are in common usage throughout WP. So your complaint is baseless.
Why change the correct link to the incorrect one? It's a pointless edit made by someone who is only making disruptive edits.
* 4) As the recount is the only mechanism standing in the way of the Democratic candidate's win, and by law, since that cannot even get challenged until after it is certified - that is useful information to include in the article. Your arbitrary removal of the only official, reliable source is clear disruptive editing and will be treated as such.
The recount is mentioned twice, which is more than enough. Lengthy quotes detailing how long someone has to apply for a recount are not necessary.
* 5) WP:JOBTITLES clearly states that office titles are common names. Your constant edit-warring to change them violates WP:TE and will be treated as such.
There has been no edit warring. And you're wrong. Look at any article and you will see that office titles are capitalised when talking about the specific person's office. For example, Bob McDonnell. Or Ken Cuccinelli. Or Bill Bolling. Or Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013.
* 6) You have edit-warred with, and now been warned by, 2 editors, that, per WP:OWN, you do not own the article. Your constant, disruptive desire to "have the last word" on the article is clear evidence of that violation. So unless you self-revert your last two edits and continue the discussion on this talk page in order to build consensus before continuing to make vast non-consensus changes to the article, your disruptive editing will be reported. And bringing in another editor again, will not protect you from your own disruptive pattern. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no such thing. In response to your attempt to restore a version of the article that was full of inaccuracies, I invited another editor to contribute. Your edits have been removed twice now because they are not accurate. Scroll down to see exactly what is wrong with the version you are trying to revert to. Tiller54 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop attempting to "debate" and just learn to collaborate. The fact is, your edits are incorrect and inaccurate because they are not supported by WP policy, or the lone official source. My edits are sourced and follow policy. Yours do neither. Specifically, your repeated refusal to abide by WP:JOBTITLES is tedious and unacceptable. As is the way you simply dismiss the lone offical and definitive source, the Virginia State Board of Elections, whose language of "Unofficial Results" you stubbornly revert wherever it is used in the article. There is simply no basis for that. Contrary to your assertion, the SBE does not "call the race" nor does that language do so. Media outlets do that, as many have done already. The SBE has not "called the race" for governor or lieutenant governor either, or for any of the other races, for that matter. However, on their home page they do have a link to "Who won?", which if followed for the three statewide races, will take you to the page that shows the "Unofficial Results" with "100% Precincts Reporting". You'll note no distinction about winners or losers there either. Just vote totals. The SBE apparently presumes that people can add. But the SBE does certify those results - and will do so for all candidates - in one week. So the article will be updated to reflect that certification when it occurs. After that, if the losing candidate wants a recount, he must follow SBE rules and request it after the SBE has certified the results. If you had actually read the SBE rule on recounts that I included in the article - rather than trying to delete it for no logical reason, you would know that. It has been widely reported that the recount is inevitable, so to excise a brief explanation of the process from the article is nonsense. I'm not interested in your equivocations or excuses for your edits, but warn that you appear to be POV pushing. If you are, then don't. If you aren't, then don't give that appearance. Just follow policy, collaborate with other editors and properly quote the official and reliable sources without bias. If you cannot do that, kindly either refrain from disrupting the article - or obtain the necessary consensus to support your refusal to abide by these basic rules of editing. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk pages aren't for discussion? What an odd claim. And no, the edits that Muboshgu and I have made are not "incorrect and inaccurate". As detailed below, the version that you were trying to revert to was the incorrect and inaccurate one. You have apparently now read the section below because you've finally stopped making those edits. In future, please read what people have written to you so you can understand why inaccurate edits are reverted.
  • "your repeated refusal to abide by WP:JOBTITLES" As I have pointed out, you are misreading and misrepresenting the policy. When used generically, job titles should be in lower case. When they're referring to a specific person, they are capitalised.
  • "the SBE does not "call the race" nor does that language do so." I have never said they do. I have said several times that news sources have not yet called the race and I have removed attempts by you and other editors to label Herring as the winner. Perhaps we just got our wires crossed here? You thought I meant that the VSBE called races when I was referring to news sources? However, your claim that "Media outlets do [call the race], as many have done already." is patently untrue. They have not called the race, which is why that point is mentioned in the lead.
  • "rather than trying to delete it for no logical reason, you would know that." As I said, copying and pasting whole paragraphs isn't appropriate or necessary and certainly doesn't meet the definition of "a brief explanation of the process". Summarise it and add the source so people can click through to read it in full for themselves.
  • If you still can't realise at this stage that Muboshgu and I have just tried to remove inaccurate information from the article, I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. But, you've stopped making the edits detailed below so hopefully you did read it and understand why the claims you kept inserting were being removed - because they were not accurate. That is not "POV pushing", "refusing to collaborate", "bias" or "disruption" or any of the other terms you threw around. Tiller54 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please stop shifting the entire article around. The Republican convention is listed first because they held the seat. That is why the Republican convention is still listed first on the gubernatorial, lieutenant gubernatorial and statewide elections pages.

Furthermore, the lead you are reverting to is not "superior", it contains errors like naming November 13 as the "final day for counties to report results to the state" when the deadline was in fact November 12. Then there's the claim that the SBOE reported Herring's lead of 164 votes on deadline day. That's not correct, it has been updated since then. It also repeats itself on the issue of the recount and the ordering is jumbled up - the hypothetical situation where the Democrats could control all the statewide offices for the first time since 1969 should be mentioned at the end of the lead, not in the middle of it. Furthermore, Herring hasn't been certified as the winner yet so the claim that the Democrats hold "all five statewide offices" is incorrect. Please stop edit warring or you may be blocked from editing. Please reply here or on your talk page. Thank you. Tiller54 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the intro claims "November 13, the final day for counties to report results to the state". That is not correct, as this source explains: "Localities had until 11:59 p.m. Tuesday to report numbers to the state." Tuesday was the 12th, not the 13th. The results have been updated since the 12th anyway, as the article says at the bottom: "Update at 12:12 p.m. The article has been updated to reflect the latest information from the Virginia Board of Elections website." Tiller54 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout with undervotes/overvotes

The turnout numbers given here are wrong, e.g. "Turnout 2,212,316". That is simply the total number of valid votes for the contest, but turnout is supposed to measure the number of people who vote, or the number of valid ballots cast. Since the same number of people were eligible for all the state-wide races, the turnout numbers should be the same for each state-wide race, but as shown in Virginia elections, 2013 they range up to 2,235,263 for the gubernatorial election (and now 2,240,314 in the updated Nov 25 SBE numbers). There are news articles with reports of the number of undervotes in some counties, but I can't find a valid total number of undervotes and overvotes state-wide, nor the number of ballots cast state-wide, nor the number of voters that showed up. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Virginia_Attorney_General_election