Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

• Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Dispute

About Introduction I think the Jose Mena's sack was a secundary news in the local press and it should be moved to 6.3. Also, i will change catalonia autonomy reference for "he impulsed a new autonomous statute for Catalonia"

• Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1

Notice: SqueakBox and Zapatancas are banned from editing this article and all related articles for one year.

The users specified have edited this article inappropriately and have been banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing it for one year. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice. Posted by Tony Sidaway 19:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC) for the arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas.

State of the articles

I notice someone deleted the José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero category. I am fine with the article as it is and also happy to see that all the sub articles are now redirects. I strongly support that they remain that way, SqueakBox 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Lokks to me like Hagiographer is a Zapatancas sockpuppet. His edit summary Inserted links to articles redirected by user banned from editing the article. It seems he deletes them as part of his fight against other user. in poor Spanish attacking me is pure Zapatancas and of course I wasnt banned when I made the edits which were supported by every user other than strange Hagiographer. Bet he wants US spellings too? SqueakBox 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

I've updated the article. I've removed old information that doesn't look as important now as it did one year ago and that can be found in the sub-articles. I've found that in the article there were several mistakes, for example, the surname Armendáriz was written Armendáris. I believed that in the fight between SqueakBox and Zapatancas those mistakes were added on purpose as part of the conflict between them. So I've recovered a version previous to the edit war and I've added to it the scarce new information that have been posted here in the past two months. Hagiographer 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been busy, Zapatancas, reverting the article to your version in defiance of the arbcom ban and using sockpupets. Nothing changes, eh? SqueakBox 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Update" is really vandalism and should be reverted

Although Hagiographer's comment above sounds reasonable, in fact the "edit" s/he has performed amounts to vandalism. Huge tranches of useful information have been removed and many smaller edits that had greatly improved the article have been eliminated, for example the well-considered changes by David Kernow and the genuine update, now restored, by Zape82 regarding the education system. Indeed, far from being an "update", as claimed, the article is now mutilated compared with the version as of 05:24, 10 July 2006. In my view the article should be reverted to that version, the bot edit of 00:33, 11 July should be restored, and if Hagiographer wants to make such drastic changes s/he should discuss them here first. AdeMiami 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your view AdeMiami. I urge you to revert Hagiographer's edits, I would have done so myself but am banned from editing. That ban does not mean I dont get to have a point of view as a wikipdia editor, I think what Hagiographer has done has been a crying shame. If this continues I will take Hagiographer to Rfc or arbcom, SqueakBox 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

Excuse me, AdeMiami but I ask you not to use the term vandalism so easily. You must assume good faith first. I believe you have made that "mistake" also in good faith, but I think you are wrong. As far as I know, I have not removed any information. I have only removed that information that was already in the sub-articles and that refers to old events or that I think it does not belong here. For example, that thing about "Asesinato en Febrero", what is the use of having it here? It has nothing to do with Zapatero. If it has to be placed somewhere is in the articles about the March 11 attack. Please tell me what information I have removed that were so useful and all that. If necessary, I can accept I made a mistake. Regarding those edits by David Kernow, I have already recovered them - I believe. I don't find them so impressive but quite petty and unimportant but it is true there is not reason not to recover them.

Besides, it something amounts to "vandalism" is your request to go back to the edition of July 10, so the vandal here is you!!! :-) You are requesting to recover mistakes such as "Armendaris" instead of Armendariz, that is petty vandalism difficult to detect. SqueakBox, and probably, Zapatancas, added mistakes as part of his fight.

But of course, I believe that everything has been a misunderstanding. By the way, what this article really needs is not to keep that tons of old information that are already in the sub-articles but to include into it the most modern events that have taken place. So, probably, more information currently present will have to be reserved to the sub-articles.

AdeMiami, I recommend you not to become an instrument of SqueakBox, a user banned for insulting other users. So please, if you are interested about keeping information in the Wikipedia, what do you think about redirecting the sub-articles to the main article? SqueakBox insulted me first when I reverted his redirections, so it would be good if you could prove you are acting in good faith and not as a part of the campaign he started against me even before ever talking to me. SqueakBox really destroyed information and mutilated an article.

By the way, I have changed the title of this section because I think that AdeMiami will recognize that the use of "vandalism" was inappropriate and it amounted to an insult, something forbidden in the Wikipedia ;-). Hagiographer 14:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If making false vandalism accusations is an insult perhaps Hagiographer would explain why he knowingly indulged in such behaviour [1]. Who on earth does Hagiographer think he is going around insulting people? SqueakBox 01:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you chill out Hagiographer. I agree witgh SqueakBox and Miami and think you should withdraw before you get blocked as a vandal. Ras Billy I 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the better version. Are there other users out there with an opinion? Having looked at Hagiographer's edits today and the history between SqueakBox and zapatancas I am forced to include that Hagiographer and Zapatancas are indeed the same person, Ras Billy I 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that looking at your history and when you were created and when you have got so interested in this article, I cannot help thinking you are SqueakBox. It is difficult to believe for me you are acting in good faith as you have recovered an evident mistake I have talked about several times here. Hagiographer 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I only know about this case because SqueakBox gave me a welcome message and when I replied his page came on my watchlist. When you started vandalissing it today I spotted that and, of course, reverted. Do you think Miami is also a Squeakbox sockpuppet. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience. No, I am not SqueakBox, I am not white, I am black and I am from Belize. It seems to me you are trying to prevent the consensus going against you with these sockpuppet claims, having looked at Squeak's latest edit I am inclined to believe him, no more. God bless your soul. Ras Billy I 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how you can act in good faith and claim something so false that I have said Miami is a sock puppet? Why have you recovered the mistake? Hagiographer 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

hey I dont want to argue with you Hagiographer. I got involved because I saw you vandalising Squeak's user page. I dont want anything to do with your locuras on this page or arguing with squeak. Dont impose your ideas on me, okay? Ras Billy I 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article shold be the object of such controversy. No-one is disputing the factual information it contains (or contained) except for a few minor points, so surely it should be posssible to reach a consensus about how it is presented. However, there's no chance of consensus in this atmosphere of mutual accusation, so personally I'm going to take it off my watchlist and ignore it until the dust settles while I get on with something more constructive. AdeMiami 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mena

I'm not sure that the sacking of Gen. Mena is correctly attributed to Zapatero. As I understand it, former Defence minister, José Bono was responsible for Mena's punishment and sacking. I get a funny feeling that this is not only incorrect but that it's being given too much significance.

One source: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_5328.shtml

I'll leave the edit for now, and see if anyone agrees with me before I make the change. Tomclarke

I agree, SqueakBox 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In Fact the disciplinary reponsability, repecting high ranking officers, in the Spanish Army is responsability of the Chief of Staff of the Army (Jefe de Esatdo Mayor de la Ejercito) or of The Chief of Staff of The Defense (JEMAD) --Zape82 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is true, but the way Mena thinks it's quite similar (the same) to the way Bono thinks:

• read Bono's speech when he's been chosen member of Spain's State Counsil or Bono. He declared himself as moderate (while he is member of progresist socialist party) and found alliance with people's party (opposition) as key.
• Also the fact that Bono "personally" quitted the charge of Minister of Defense can be due to his differences with Zapatero. The start of conversations with ETA, the fact that the word "nation" was present in Catalonia's Statute when he had said before that it wouldn't be used, the fact that he was obligated to get Mena out of the way when he had said on TV that he "couldn't punish a Military member for reading the Constitution and defending it" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP0GFLWOzg )

By the way, i'm quite unhappy with spanish government and would like to write some thing's on wikipedia that would be interesting for people but i'm spanish and my grammar is sh*t. So, if anyone would like to hear day by day stories about 11-M and other stuff in order to write it properly on wikipedia (with it's sources, of course), please write me to alex_pedre@hotmail.com ... thanks

in general

This entry is seriously lacking in citations. I have, today, performed a tidy-up, basically correcting language and grammar errors... but more needs to be done. There are specific areas (such as the education reform section) which need a complete re-write. Tomclarke 21:09, 15 July 2006 (CET)

Sub-Pages

Why has all the relevant info of this article been moved to various sub-pages? In my opinion it makes the article look like a skeleton, previously this was a full-fledged article.--Jersey Devil 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I opposed having the sub articles in the first place, and this opposition is what led to the huge conflict with Zapatancas. Now Zapatancas has been banned from editing this article Hagiographer has taken his place to pursue this same strategy of the sub-articles which I for one oppose strongly. I believe all the sub articles should be turned back into redirects (which they were until Hagiographer decided to pursue Zapatancas path and reinstate them) with all the relevant information being put in this article, which is what we had before Hagiographer decided to single mindedly impose his and Zapatancas views on other users away, chasing away 2 other editors so far this week, SqueakBox 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, possibly a straw poll to find consensus is in order to settle this.--Jersey Devil 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Several comments:

• I propose to ignore SqueakBox and his sock puppet User:Skanking. He is an absolute liar and he never talks about content, he only insults, preventing users like AdeMiami from editing the article or exposing their opinions. If the history page of any of the subarticles is examined it is found that they weren't redirected until some days before he was blocked when he already knew he was going to be blocked. I recovered them because I don't understand why a sub-article is redirected to the main article. It seems SqueakBox only argument is this is a war and he'll be the winner if the articles remain redirected.
• In regard to the article, Jersey, if you believe the article is a skeleton is probably because it is a skeleton. The article would have been wonderful one year ago. Now it's completely outdated. I believe that's good if it looks incomplete because it's incomplete. It makes clear that it has to be updated.
• What's that relevant information that's lacking? I only removed from the main article information that was old and irrelevant, nothing else.
• It has to be decided if the limit of 32 KB recommended is going to be respected or not. Before my change, the article was longer than that and, as I've said, it has to be updated.

Hagiographer 07:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling, zapatancas, calling me a liar merely demonstartes that you arer Zapatancas. You may choose to chase every legitimate editor from this site and ignore me but I am an editor with a record that isnt 99% trolling and therefore my wishes are not to be completely ignored by a sockpuppet like yourself. The consensus is overwhelmingly against you and your trolling clone Zapatancas. One only has to look at the history of this article to see how you and Zapatancas have stubbornly and persistently destroyed this article. How is it that 4 genuine users dont want this and one troll user insusts on getting his way, iussuing death threatsd to those in his way. I am baffled and wont have anything more to do with this project which is doomed to failure bexcause of [people like Zapatancas. Well it is much easier to destroy than to create, as Zapatancas will soon find out for himself and in the real world, SqueakBox 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links and Succesion Box.

I have eliminated the links to antizapatero pages as this is not a political webpage but an enciclopedia. As well links to pages such as el Zapatazo or los Genoveses are not acceptable links in the Spanish Wikipedia. I also added again the Leadership of the PSOE succesion Box, which I have aded to all the recent leaders of the PP, PSOE, IU & PCE (but Hernandez Mancha and Gerardo Iglesias with no article) as I think it ads interesting Information to the article.--Zape82 09:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Lebanon Conflict

Most recent coments on Isral Lebanon conflict are absolutely POV and unsourced. The ONLY offical satement on hizbula made by the spanish governement was the stament made yesterday by Minister Moratinos at the Foreign Affairs comitte of the congress and where highly critical on Hizbula and Hamas. Criticism by the Spanish PM is always directed to the attack on cicilians. --Zape82 17:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Zapatero wearing Palestinian garb and saying that Israel is using "abusive force"??? --Rambone (Talk) 01:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

- Now. Saying Israel uses abusive force is said by nearly all the leaders of the world and does not make the antisemitic. Even more if your Foreign Minister clearly states on a parliamentary comitee the main responsible for the current escalation is Hezbollah. And wearing a palestinan garb for a few seconds while a group of palestinian youths took a photo with him, is not an act of provocation.-- --Zape82 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• "And wearing a palestinan garb for a few seconds while a group of palestinian youths took a photo with him, is not an act of provocation"

You're right...it's an act of foolishness. --Rambone (Talk) 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He should have punched in the face, the palestinian guy and then ask his security services to finish him according to you. That would have been an act of foolishnes not taking a photograph with some of the many a atendants to an international mass rally. --Zape82 07:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Where did I say anything like that? Could you point it out to me? Now I remember why I dislike Europeans so much---you lie and twist people's words around like a petulant little child would. --Rambone (Talk) 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Important Message to alex_pedre@hotmail.com

a) Wikipedia IS NOT a forum nor a blog. So crictical comments and not encyclopedical comments are not welcome. You are of course welcome to have your own blog or post on poblic forums. But wikipedia is not the place to do it. I am higly critical on som policies by the current governement, but my criticisms are not encyclopedical, as well as if I public on articles to promote my personal Party. As NPOV must prevail on an encylopedia open to anyone. b) You have errased a signed comment by myself which I consider an utter lack of respect to a fellow wikipedian, aswell as heavy trolling.

Por si no te enteras e lo digo en Español: a) Wikipedia NO ES un foro ni un blog. Asi los comentarios criticos y no enciclopedicos no son bienvenidos. Por supuesto si tu tienes tu propio blog o posteas libremente en foros de politica. Pero la wikipedia NO ES el lugar para hacerlo. Yo tambien soy muy critico con el gobierno actual. pero no considero mis criticas enciclopedicas, ademas tampoco me dedico a postear articulos promoviendo mi opción politica personal. Recuerda que la Neutralidad debe de primar en una encilopedia siempre b) Has Borrado un cometario firmado mio, lo que me parece una falta de respeto a otro wikipedista. Ade mas de hacerme ver que eres un troll.--Zape82 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zape82, I have a lot of experience in Wikipedia conflicts as I suppose you have already guessed and I can say to you respectfully that the attitude you have shown above, after introducing so many useful changes in previous days, can attract unpleasent results, such as having a bad relation with users with whom you could cooperate constructively, something I sure you do not want. Comments such as "heavy trolling", "por si no te enteras" are very unpleasant and I do not believe you wanted to hurt other user. An important rule in the Wikipedia is "assume good faith". Perhaps alex_pedre@hotmail.com did not delete your comment on purpose. Give him a chance. Don't interpret this as a critic against you. I simply try to help because now after more than a year this article is becoming again a Wikipedia article, and not a useless battlefield. It would be a pity that honest users would lose the opportunity to write a good biography for unintended mistakes. Zapatancas 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Who prefers

Hagiographer version?

Pura Paja (vandalised) version?

1. Pura Paja 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero's call to Bush

Somebody asked a citation about that Zapatero's phone call that George Bush ignored after being reelected. The source was in Zapatero's foreign policy, the article SqueakBox wanted to destroy. Hagiographer 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)