Portal talk:Current events/March 2005

message: 09-Jan-2008: The edit-buttons might not work at each day (the highly complex, peculiar article format has been garbled). However, each day in April 2005 really is a WP article of the form:
:::* Article name: March_1,_2005
:::* Proposed name: Portal:Current events/2005_March_1
Refer to each day, using those article names. I didn't create this design, just trying to help others work with it. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to edit days

message: 09-Jan-2008: The format of article "March_2005" involves the inclusion of the 31 individual daily March-2005 articles (such as "March_13,_2005"), with all 31 articles stacked into a list. That technique is extremely simple, and should probably be used in other month-2005 articles, such as "August_2005". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: I'm just wondering why there was no headline on this today, unless I missed something. J. Parker Stone 08:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err.. if you don't see a headline for something that should be there.. make one --195.7.55.146 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Syrian Lebanese protests?

message: Why was the death of John DeLorean repeatedly removed ? 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=next&oldid=11369854
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=prev&oldid=11352882
: Because deaths don't go on current events, they go on Recent deaths, where you'll see DeLorean is mentioned. A very few deaths to go onto current events, mostly those where that person's death will have repercussions one would expect to see in current events (so deaths current presidents of countries should, but of past presidents probably shouldn't). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the death of [[John DeLorean]] repeatedly removed ? 

message: I am surprised there is no mention of all the events listed in Current events regarding the Terri Schiavo case. I'd do it myself, but right now my Wikipedia time is very limited. Kingturtle 17:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terri Schiavo 

message: There needs to be better communication here as to how people can get involved with writing articles if you want to take on new users. There is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever. Take this edit as a case in point: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&oldid=11702438
It was reverted as vandalism. The content of the picture notwithstanding, (because I'm sure several of you will flip out) the current events page would look much better with a picture of a current event on the front page.
This edit was reverted as vandalism, and the person reverting requested a ban. Innovation is not vandalism. Communicate, don't persecute. --Dbsanfte 23:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the charge of vandalism stemmed from the one guy holding a sign saying "We are idiots". -- Cyrius|✎ 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, so what's the point of this exactly, that a picture of demonstrators is fine, as long as their signs don't conflict with one another? That picture is real -- is it 'vandalism' because that 'idiots' sign expresses a viewpoint? Don't all the other ones, too? Is that guy's right to protest any less newsworthy or accurate than the other demonstrators? This reeks of persecution, if not outright censorship. --Dbsanfte 04:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dbsanfte, I'll assume good faith and try to be charitable since you seem to be new. The Wikipedia guidelines are a central part of what you need to read. There, you will note that one of the key guidelines is the NPOV policy, described as "representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically." You would have us believe that the two balanced views fairly represented in that photo are (1) Some Christians believe euthanasia is murder, balances with (2) Anti-euthanasia Christians are idiots.  This is a patently unbalanced and inflammatory representation of the views surrounding the case, which makes the photo inappropriate. Even you recognized the possibility that some people seeing the picture might "flip out." I agree that pictures in the news section ares something we should consider, but that particular picture was clearly inflammatory. Every edit box has the following message underneath it that says "You're encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed. This one was removed, and rightly so. MPS 15:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Communication 

message: Any topics below are after 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics after 2007