User talk:Philip Stained Glass

SPA
you are saying it is not relevant, the views of  backers - but GHouta says it does matter. they are shadowy figures, exept odeh muhaweh and his daughter in law he is setting up - the bloke appears to be a serios Shia 12 er or summat with virulent anti Syrian rebel views- if you say how is that relevant to the ghouta story being promoted by mintpress news you are obviously being disingenuous. there is now just one sentence on the PJ media story - hardly undue. please show a little tolerance and not allow a desire to destroy all comment on the mintpressnews. that is not the purpose of articles I don't think. goodbye spa. Sayerslle (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * of course the views of backers are relevant - will you stop censoring the article. arguing they didn't write the article is irrelevant - they are the distributors and exhibitors aren't they etc .Sayerslle (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that they played any part in the actual content besides choosing to publish it. Look, the Ghouta story lacks credibility because it's based on hearsay from interviews. I'm not challenging that. Al Jazeera, The Guardian and others have published countless stories on Syria based on similar hearsay, and people have questioned it, but no one has called them "Sunni advocacy sites." Suggesting this entire news organization that published it is "advocating" for "Shia" is absurd, irrational and not supported by anything referenced in this entry, including the PJ Media article. Just because that article has a sensational, poorly worded and/or deliberately misleading headline does not make it worthy for inclusion in a Wikipedia entry. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'besides choosing to publish it' - Sayerslle (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you went and charged every single news organization with religion-motivated, credibility-usurping bias just because editors choose to publish whatever third-party allegations, you wouldn't have a media. It doesn't stick when people call the New York Times "Zionist," and no one would ever go so far as to call them "Jewish advocacy." Nor do people call the Christian Science Monitor "Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist -advocacy journalism." Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Philip Stained Glass. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Please indicate as much in Talk:Mint Press News. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * insisting you know it was no sectarian spirit that led mintpressnews publishing that story is just your pov - misinformation played a role in influencing uninformed public opinion - as it was meant to - about this event and  if  writers have questioned the odeh muhawesh/mintpress sectarian motivation they have. you are obviously determined to destroy any observations  about a sectarian spirit in a disingenuous way that implies it is a sectarian spirit that motivates the other writers. ah well. you are angry at the title of the PJ media piece. fine. but don't censor.Sayerslle (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By "sectarian spirit" you literally only mean that the editor-in-chief suggested that Shia are underrepresented in U.S. media. That is a valid POV. Editors-in-chief of publications are allowed to be Shia. And their fathers-in-law, whose connection to the company have never been established, are allowed to have attended Qom seminary. Third-parties not editing the publication are also allowed to use the word "takfiri" on their Facebook pages, which is not an inherently sectarian word (it doesn't mean "Wahhabi terrorist," it means "Muslim who accuses others of apostasy"), nor is decrying the heart-eating incident inherently sectarian (why would it be, just because it again HAPPENS not to support 100% of Syrian opposition 100% of the time?) "Sectarian" would have require some actual mention of someone's Shia faith motivating their support for the Syrian regime. No evidence has been cited that suggests either Muhawesh or her only-tenuously-connected-to-Mint Press father-in-law either explicitly supports Assad, much less is motivated for doing so based on their faith. Decrying takfiri and not-supporting-100%-of-Syrian-rebels could both just as easily be neutral POVs held by secular observers. Your argument is pure conjecture and speculation, and moreover relies on a nonexistent Facebook page post cited in some blog entry. That is not how Wikipedia works. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Philip Stained Glass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Mint Press News. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)