User talk:9 hits
Welcome!
Hello, 9 hits, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you.--9 hits (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
SSCS Category
[edit]I reverted your edit, as it has been discussed multiple times on the talkpage about adding eco-terror(ist/ism/ists), and it has been decided that this is not appropriate. It is mentioned in the article, but it was decided that it should be stated that SSCS had been called terrorists, but not to categorize them or list it in the infobox.--Terrillja talk 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I did not know the decision, I esteem the decision. But I have one question. As you said, International organization (IWC) recognized their action is terrorism. And their action does not stop. Why cannot we categorize them eco-terrorizm? --9 hits (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- It came down to something to the effect of blowing oneself up in the middle east is not the same as throwing acid bottles, and calling SSCS terrorists is not even close to the same action, but with the same wording. I'm just going by memory, but it pretty much came down to people saying that it wouldn't respect the victims of terrorism to put the two together, and that those who had called SSCS terrorists were likely doing so because their actions had been impeded. As such, it was seen as better to state what had been said about them, by who, and cite it, providing context, rather than just have a category thrown in without reasoning. Hopefully that makes some sense, I'm just trying to go by what I remember, which was a few months ago.--Terrillja talk 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. then I will write my question in the talk page.--9 hits (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- It came down to something to the effect of blowing oneself up in the middle east is not the same as throwing acid bottles, and calling SSCS terrorists is not even close to the same action, but with the same wording. I'm just going by memory, but it pretty much came down to people saying that it wouldn't respect the victims of terrorism to put the two together, and that those who had called SSCS terrorists were likely doing so because their actions had been impeded. As such, it was seen as better to state what had been said about them, by who, and cite it, providing context, rather than just have a category thrown in without reasoning. Hopefully that makes some sense, I'm just trying to go by what I remember, which was a few months ago.--Terrillja talk 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)