User talk:195.157.197.108

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 195.157.197.108, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Re: Polydnavirus

I'll take a look, but I don't think I'll be able to add anything. You may want to see if someone on the Cleanup Taskforce can help. Oh, by the way, it's probably more helpful if you add new messages to the bottom of a page; otherwise, they're likely to be missed. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shepherds Bush bombs

There were two devices in the area: one in the station that they attempted to detonate (the above ground/BBC TV comments apply here); one in bushes in Little Wormwood Scrubs (apparently abandoned and discovered at the weekend). Hence five bombs not four. Your rephrase appears to mix up the two (IMHO). I still like my version better but am happy for you to try for a better rephrasing. The rest of the article should help clarify the situation - if it doesn't, please let me know! 195.157.197.108 14:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I just made another attempt. It was less the content and more the style that led me to confusion. I hope I made it better without changing your content. I'm trying to stay away from a conversation or commentary style of writing and more of a neutral encyclopedic. I also moved the possible fifth bomb to the bottom. Otherwise all the text about the four bombs seems confusing. - Tεxτurε 15:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Aaaaaaarrrrrrghhh! You've cut out half the information again. There are two issues to be dealt with here, which differentiate 21 July from 7 July:
  1. The bombing at Hammersmith & City was above ground. Hence it would have caused a different sort of damage (much more visible and right next to BBC TV). Moreover the initial "failed" explosion could have been a dummy used to draw police in, with a subsequent detonation triggered with a mobile signal (more along the lines of an IRA bombing).
  2. There is a fifth device, discovered later and slightly north of Shepherds Bush (in Little Wormwood Scrubs - an area of open grassland). It is not clear whether the device is linked to the 21 July bombings but speculation has been that is. If so, what was the target? BBC itself? The Eurostar? The Westway? The device has been reported as a nail bomb but subsequently reporting has dried up. If it was a nail bomb, it suggests that the other devices were also nail bombs (police have stated they are the same design). If that is the case, the 21 July bombs sound more designed to injure people than destroy trains and tunnels.
I won't rephrase your rephrase again but I still think your version cuts out facts and muddles the two West London devices. The rest of the article should help you understand the picture. If not, try here (summary of the initial bombing attempts) and here (the discovery, controlled explosion and analysis of the fifth bomb).
Forgot to sign (and sorry for slightly ranting tone!) 195.157.197.108 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please look here. I did not cut any content. I moved half to the bottom since it talked about a fifth bomb and the rest of the section was talking about the four bombs that were attempted. You have additional content so feel free to add it to the section. The only editorial requests I would make are to avoid intro clauses such as "Moreover, unlike the 7 July attacks" or "On the other hand". These stray from a neutral presentation of facts and becomes a commentary. Those are the only things I took away from what you wrote. Does that make sense? - Tεxτurε 15:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't edit above my responses.

That takes my responses out of context.--Silverback 10:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the edits. They are all link fixes. I seem to remember something about assuming good faith? 195.157.197.108 10:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Your edits were fine. I just didn't know where you were going, with that unusual behavior.--Silverback 13:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You didn't know, so you assumed the worst. Nothing new there eh? 195.157.197.108 08:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Once Upon a Time in China

Can I remove the expansion box you added? I think it's been expanded by now. - 128.12.43.33 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Eunuch's fiddle

An editor has nominated Eunuch's fiddle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunuch's fiddle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)