User talk:104.52.53.152

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider  [ creating an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (104.52.53.152) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 03:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm DarthBotto. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Alien because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

gilmore as still-exploring versus not-invited
Hello, you changed Gilmore from out-of-race-or-still-exploring, back to not-invited. Although you are correct about Gilmore being in the race now, according to what the refs I added to the article say, the reason that he wasn't a speaker at the VotersFirstForum was that he announced his run for the presidency after the cutoff date set by the forum organizers. In other words, at the time the VotersFirstForum was deciding whether to send out invitations, Gilmore was "still exploring" his run, and thus I still think he should be listed as "o"==out-or-still-exploring. Does that make sense? (You can reply to me here, just click edit at the top like usual, or you can click the talk-button next to my user-addr and click new-section to leave me a message over there.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Talked this over with another user, see here -- User_talk:Guck14 -- and ended up deciding to leave it marked as "n" like you originally changed it to be, since although the cites can be interpreted different ways by reasonable folks, I'm leaning towards how you two read them. Also, there was a Gilmore quote (from before the VotersFirstForum moved from the 6th to the 3rd of August) that he was hoping to attend the VotersFirstForum, if he could not get into the second-tier-FOX-debate.  So from that, it seems clear that Gilmore *wanted* to attend, and was thus almost certainly not-invited on the part of the VotersFirstForum decision-makers.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can comment over here, that would be appreciated. Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2016   Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting close to a decision on this one. I added source#6 and source#7, not sure if you have seen them, and also not sure if they sway your bangvote stance one way or the other.  Also pinged the other folks, to see if we can get forward motion on whether Gilmore's status is acceptable enough to all concerned.  Again, thanks again.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

no clear frontrunner, methinks
You wrote up a quite-good summary over here, thanks for the good work, but I disagree we should say 'frontrunner' because I think that has a meaning different from what we've seen in the 2016 race. In 2012 there most definitely was a frontrunner (albeit a weak frontrunner relative to frontrunners seen in earlier contests), with many 2012 challengers who rose and then fell away whilst the frontrunner stayed strong the entire time; in 2008 there was also always a frontrunner, but *who* exactly the frontrunner was, changed from time to time (it started out being Guiliani but eventually became McCain, with Romney and Huck acting as persistent challengers -- though in terms of *endorsements* McCain was always way ahead). During 1992/1996/2000/2004 there was always a clear frontrunner, no questions, and in 2000 and 1996, the only non-incumbent years, the data showed relatively strong frontrunner-status ... though perhaps not quite as strong as Clinton'16 frontrunner-status.

But in 2016, we arguably have no clear Republican frontrunner, and never have had one. The only person who has *ever* been steadily above 20% is Trump... unless you count Romney's brief blip in Dec'14/Jan'15 before declining to run... and I'm not sure I would classify Trump being above 20% for a few weeks (June ~20th thru present) as being "steadily" above 20% to any degree. I've listed some additional sources, and detailed suggestions over at the talkpage. I may try to integrate that view with what you've already written, but I figured I'd leave you a note here in case you wanted to do anything with the stuff I found. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input! I agree that there is no clear frontrunner, and that's what I tried to convey with the paragraph I came up with. The "frontrunner" has fluctuated rapidly, but during each fluctuation, there always was a clear pattern of one candidate leading the polls consistently, by however much; from Rubio, to Christie, to Bush, to Trump. If you can think of a better term to use other than "frontrunner," feel free to change it. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Candidate-with-a-big-target-painted-on-their-back? No, too wordy.  :-)      I'll think about it.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

July 2016
Please do not add text unless it is cited to reliable sources, as you did in this [edit. A reliable source is one that has established editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking. "IndependentSentinel.com" and Breitbart do not. If you have a question about the reliability or validity of a source, please bring it to the article talk page or [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]. Neutralitytalk 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)