Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



As this article began in UK English it must continue in said style. Until this, issues of style and issues of NPOV are cleaned up (and the article is riddled with them) the tags must stay. Is Zapatancas really claiming the article is clean? conforms to a neutral point of view? contains no original research? if he claims such things I dispute these claims, and will not accept his removal of legitimate tags without cleaning up the article, making it conform to NPOV, and without his original research in it. As for his false vandalism claims, I suggest he reads the policy on what vandalism actually is. As it is his false claims make him seem a POV warrior, which, as he is a committed PP supporter with a huge agenda around Zapatero, may well be true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to either promote political beliefs or launch attacks on other editors, SqueakBox 13:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, this is the Wikipedia and in the Wikipedia the Wikipedia's Manual of Style must be followed. We have already explained to you why you must use American English in this article and, most important of all, why you cannot mix spellings. Please, stop your childish attitude.
I must remind you that you added a NPOV tag in May and it had to be removed because nobody reported a single disputed passage. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and we are now in November. How can you use an argument that we don't need a POV tag because the article was alright 6 months ago? Which "we" have explained that this article cannot use En spelling because Zapatancas changed it? Zapatancas and SquealingPigAttacksAgain, SqueakBox 16:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You (and anybody else) did not report any disputed passage then. You do not report any disputed passage now. Do you believe you can deceive anybody? The "we" who explained you why you cannot use British English in this specific article is all the people who recently took part in the discussion about that issue. I know you archived all that discussion because you felt it to be a personal defeat. Zapatancas 08:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I treported the passage. Viajero had a look and agreed with me. Noen of the people who took part in the recent discussion agreed with you. Now we have ity confitrtmed Spanish kids learn Brit English it is easy to see thatb you don't know how to write in American English. You tried and it was a disaster. I archived the discussion out of space issues, as per standard procedure. What is this talk of my defeat? I thought the discussion ended with a clear consensus to use Brit English, which also follows policy (which are the rules we are duty bound to follow) which states that we should use that English which was initially used, which was clearly British English. BTW the policy also prohibiyts using sockpuppets to vandalise the user page of other users. I suggest you rwead the policies pages, as I have done, and then follow them, as I do, SqueakBox 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if you lie on purpose or if you have problems perceiving reality. Viajero did not take part in the discussion as an easy search in the archived talk shows (well, perhaps he did but you delete his edit because you did not like it).
In any case, you have proved again you are a liar for other reason. Fortunately, I am humbler than you and I can recognize my English is not perfect (not like you, who are all the time making mistakes and are unable to stop mixing spellings). Because of that, I use the spelling checker of Microsoft Word from time to time to ensure my edits do not include mistakes. So if somebody really does not know how to use American English if must be the people of Microsoft. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The liar here is you. Going to erase me are you? Going to fuck my dead dog in the ass are you? Zapatancas. Why not try? Oh, you donm't have the guts. If all you can do is Squeal, don't do it too loudly. Spelling won't solve your grammar problems, notr thj efact that you are defying policy both in attacking me wioth your nasty sockpuppets and by changing the spelling of the article from en to us, SqueakBox 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I just started the cleanup. There is masses to do. The article is POV and does not conform to wiki style. I am coming tio the conclusion that it has been written in Spanish English, which is not a native form and therefore has no place in any wikipedia articles. Foreigners must always expect their grammar and use of language to be corrected by native speakers. I expect and accept that. The idea that putting the tags on is vandalism is lamentable. Is zapatancas claiming the article must stay as it is. tghe section title is not Personal Life and Youth it is Personal life and youth. That is the standard, abnd therefore the tags must stay, or does Zapatancas want to single handedly change wikipedia standards too, SqueakBox 16:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, are you inventing a new language or is your keyboard broken? It is becoming more difficult everyday to understand your poor English and your spelling and grammar mistakes.
Another thing, the article, according to you, is not POV but invisible POV. You have never reported any single passage in more than six months of attacks.
Regarding the capitalized titles, they were first introduced by Pbhayani, whose contributions were defined as superb by you. Since then, they were removed by other users (not by you) until November 16, 2005 when a user from the IP address (located in Massachusetts, US; it does look Spanish, doesn't it?) introduced that title "Personal Life and Youth" you find so disgusting. Furthermore, capitals are used far less often in Spanish than in English.
In any case, you have proved again you don't master your own language. In English, capitals are used with common nouns when they behaved like proper nouns. That's why mother is capitalized in the following sentence: "Mother sent me to other continent because she did not bear me any longer". Mother is used as a proper noun (the mother of the one who talks), because of that it is capitalized.
Something similar happens with the Spanish Civil War (you are talking about a unique war) or the National Hydrological Plan (it again is something specific). Zapatancas 08:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The style you insist on is not used in wikipedia ever by anyone. Why not look at other articles and you will see that you are deliberately dewikifyingh and thus ruining this article. I advise you to stop, as I strongly advise you to stop your sockpuppetry. I have removed all your stupid attacks as per wikipedia policy, SqueakBox 13:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, SqueakBox, learn to write your own language. Zapatancas 15:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a foreigner like you can point out my mistakes to me? Like I do know in English we don't say its sex when referring to people, but who knows? you may really know best and I may be wrong on this one even though you are clearly not a native speaker and would actually be well advised with your poor command of the language not to criticise native speakers. Either provide evidence or stop trolling, SqueakBox 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Deliberately creating broken redirects

Perhaps you can explain your deliberate reinsertion of redirects? Why you refuse to follow wiki convention and call the parties PP and PSOE. These are wiki conventions you deliberately flout, not anything made up by me. By attackingt me in this form you attack wikipedia and the article you claim to value. You don't get any credo for deliberately creating redirects in the text when they have been removed and I am not sure why you are doing so, other than to attack me. Wikipedia encourages getting rid of redirects, ie making the encyclopedia better. Please do the same. To give an example Zapatancas deliberately delinked Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to replace it with PSOE. There is clearly no justification for such behaviour. If it happens again it should be treated as vandalism as the deliberate creation of redirects merely serves to clog up and slow down wikipedia. See Broken redirects. In this case Zapatncas appears to be breaking the redirects deliberately, and as I say if it happens again it should be treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How does continuously reverting to your beloved broken redirects an improvement of the article. Or are broken resdirects just a sign of my bad faith in you? It is true that I assume bad faith from you because of Squealing, but that does not in any way effect how I treat this article which should be beyond and more important than editorial disputes, like lets not break redirects to prove a point, SqueakBox 15:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I am clearly not the first person Zapatancas is making false claims of vandalsim against; evidence is emerging that he does the same with other users. When he was User:Zapatero he was doing exactly the same thing, claiming legitimate edits like this [1] were vandalsim and making false reports tot hat effect [2]. He has used at least 4 accouints now to intimidate other users so that he drives them away and gets his absolute way over how this article will be. There is clearly enough evidence emerging to try to take the case to arbitration and seek a permanent ban on him editing this article with which he is clearly obsessed, as users like this who go out of their way to make life thoroughly unpleasant for other users need not be tolerated at wikipedia, SqueakBox 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, your edit summary talks about a "death threat". I can't find one. What are you referring to? - Tεxτurε 16:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I am referring to the edit summary in this edit I haven't read the content. User:SquealingPig came into action within an hour of Zapatancas getting angry at mje for daring to edit his work here, and given the style of User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain I have no doubts that this is also Zapatancas, though the only way of getting a developer to prove it would be taking the case to Rfc as a preparation to take it to the Arbcom, but this kind of behaviour is clearly completely unacceptable, SqueakBox 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a death threat all right. - Tεxτurε 17:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You can send a request to User:David Gerard to check the IP history of both users. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I believe I would need to biuld a case againt Zapatero/Zapatancas for the Rfa before David would check out these rogue sockpuppets, and right now I haven't the time or the energy to prepare a case against him. I would welcome someone else asking David. perhaps Zapatancas would like to prove his innocence by asking himself. I think the problem David has is being overwhelmed by requests. I am aware that there is a very strong case to take Zapatancas to Rfa, and if it is proven that these are his sockpuppets he will most likely face a ban for his incredible behaviour. So I am really just thinking about it aty the moment, SqueakBox 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course you have no time. You feel defeated in the issue about the spelling and you prepare the sockpuppet yourself. The killer going to the police? Neither SqueakBox makes mistakes like those. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You area so deviant I don't want ot know. You cre4ated your sock[puppets. You think the police aren't interetsed in your death threats. You think wikipedia doesn't have the proof of your criminal activities and behaviour. Wrong on both counts. Doi you want to ruin your life? SqueakBox 15:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Franco statue

Is the dictatorship statue retirement important enough to appear in the first briefing? It caused some controversy, but I don't think it had real consequence for the citizens. Maybe it should appear somewhere below...

And, maybe it is my poor English understanding, but "Francisco Franco, the former military dictator", sounds me as if Zapatero's government came directly after Franco's. Am I wrong?

I believe you are right when you say that the comment about Franco's statue should be placed below. However, you have to ask SqueakBox for permission before editing anything in the article. (And also in the talk page, he likes deleting the arguments he feels he cannot answer).
Regarding the use of 'former' I believe that it can be translated into Spanish like 'antiguo'. For example, I have tried to search in Google for "the former president Lincoln" and I have obtained a lot of results, although, evidently, Lincoln has been dead for a lot of time. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proofs showing bad faith

SqueakBox has proven again he acts in bad faith. He claims I have accused other users of vandalisms with no reason when the fact is that the last time this article suffered vandalism four users defined it as such (and one of them was the very vandal!). Some months ago, an anonymous user kept recovering again and again an old, incomplete, full of mistakes version of the article, preventing everybody from contributing to the article. (Including SqueakBox himself, because his version of January 10, 2005 under the nick of SquikiFox was removed next day, on January 11, by, one of the several addresses the “vandal” used.) Due to this situation, in the talk page corresponding to the IP address, fvw (not me) posted the following:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 01:20, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
Please have a look at NPOV. If there are any untrue facts in the article [about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero], correct them. If there are opinions you disagree with, balance them according to our NPOV policy. &#0xfeff;--fvw* 02:08, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

He did not change his behavior so I had to ask for a Third Opinion. The result was that another user posted this in the talk page of this article:

Outside opinión
I know little about the article topic. But it does appear that one person is going against consensus. That is not the Wikipedia way.
I would suggest that instead of deleting or reverting, a better way is to note on the talk page any specific objections. Maurreen 18:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the user did not change his attitude I decided to warn him I would report his behavior as vandalism in the talk page of the IP address he used the most, in the talk page of this article and in the summaries of the history page. He continued his attacks what moved me to write this Dispute page and to report his behavior. Although he was never blocked, all these efforts finally changed his behavior. He started to use the talk page where he posted the following:

"I haven´t used this disccusion forum before just cause I didn´t knew how did it works. I´ll kept on learning how to do it."

That is, he recognized he had never used the talk page (the only available mechanism to solve disputes) and that, unwillingly as it seems, he had never tried to reach a consensus. In any case, once it was possible to begin a fruitful dialogue he realized that some data he believed to be biased or untrue were simply the pure truth. For example, he could not believe that Zapatero's Government had voted in favor of a resolution asking all UN countries to send troops to Iraq after he had ordered the Spanish soldiers there to return. However, the article he was removing included a link to the Resolution 1546 and the text of the "controversial" articles. Finally, he stopped reverting to the old version, what in my opinion is a tacit recognition of how unacceptable his previous behavior had been.

In my opinion, it is easy to understand what is really behind SqueakBox’s claims. His problem is that he feels frustrated and, as he feels lonely in the real world, he tries to forget his inferiority complex harassing other users.

In fact, I believe the only reason why he has created so many problems here is that before his first attack he did not read the bottom of the talk page, so he did not realize a consensus about the controversial issues had been reached long ago. I have observed that he likes harassing users he believes are easy preys. For example, some time ago, he harassed KapilTagore who contributed to the article on Fidel Castro. When KapilTagore added sourced information about Fidel Castro’s personal wealth he removed it immediately without justifying his decision, as can be seen here. Why did he harass KapilTagore? Because several people among those editing the article on Castro were against him. He thought: "It will be easy to insult this person; I have a lot of people who will welcome my acts of aggression against him". And he has harassed me because he thought exactly the same. However, he made a terrible mistake this time because nobody was against me either here or in the rest of the Wikipedia. As I have already said, every controversial point had been discussed and solved long before his attack.

Moreover, when he first added a NPOV tag on May, nobody, including him, ever reported a single disputed passage. This can be checked here. Another piece of evidence of his bad faith.

I believe he is falsely accusing me of vandalism with no proofs because, recently, he tried to change unilaterally the spelling of the article from American to British. When he asked other users to contribute their opinion nobody supported him and his arguments were described as absurd (for example, SqueakBox defended that the article had to be written in British English because Spain belongs to the European Community, something completely nonsensical). As he felt humiliated for his defeat he is trying to retaliate now.

The ultimate proof of SqueakBox's intentions is the following message posted in my user page (as can be checked in User_talk:Zapatancas_Archive):

If you apologise for the SquealingPig episode and don't attack me on your user page or elsewhere I am happy to let you be on the Zapatero article, by which I mean I would remove it from my watchlist, SqueakBox 18:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe he has made clear what he thinks of his contributions to this article. SqueakBox, I have no more patience left for you so I am going to report your behavior and I will not stop until a vandal like you is finally blocked. Zapatancas 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You have already stated you are going to erase me if I continue to work at wikipedia. I have no idea what you are talking about here but I find your imputing UK IP numbers very funny. I am not that technical that I can use proxy IP's in order to edit wikipedia, and actually Zapatancas is far closer to the UK than I am or indeed have been for years. So just for the record, though you know this already, I live in Honduras, about 6000 miles from the UK. Please stop cluttering up this page with idiocy. Instead of apologising about squeal;ingPig you created SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Perhaps in your logic doing that will help your case getting me banned as a vandal for edits done by someone else half way round the world. What a lovely chap, with his charming sockpuppets, SqueakBox 16:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you continue insulting me I will have to report your behavior. Zapatancas 08:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not insult it is fact. Are you denying that ypou are SquealingPig and squeal;ingPig AttacksAgain? Who will believe you. Your are not the first person to use despicable sockpuppets. Do you honestly think your denials have any relevancde. You have to learn to take responsibnility fopr your actions and stop insulting me (I am going to erase you, you are a piece of shit, ad nauseam. I would welcome you to report my proveable allegations as you will then sa\ve me the work of having to put a case against you with the arbcom myself. Your behaviour has gone way beyond the realms opf decency, morality, etc, and you will pay the consequences for your errant behaviour if you continue down this path, Squeakling Zapatancas, SqueakBox 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you are not going to solve your real problems with that self-damaging attitude. Zapatancas 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? I have no problems. You, on the other hand, have the somewhat hopeless problem of trying to prove you are not SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain. You should have thought of that before creating your nasty sockpuppets. Now you have to face the consequences of your deviant, criminal-like actions, SqueakBox 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism lie

As we all know the false vandalsim accuser is a POV motivated troll. Zaopatancas keeps accusing me of vandalsim, something wikipedia has an excellent record of fighting vandalsim. therefore it is funny that nobody reverts or touches my alleged vandalsim opther than Zapatancas. It obviously isn't vandalsim. i know already from the squealing episodes that Zapatancas is a criminalistic highly deviant liar. These false allegations merely prove it, SqueakBox 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Please work out your differences on the talk page instead of edit warring. Also, please try to keep your discussions civil. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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)


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)


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)


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 [3]. 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)


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:

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" ( )

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 ... 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)


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'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

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 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 version?

  1. User:SqueakBox 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (SqueakBox = Pura Paja, your attempts to pretend several people like your vandalism won't be tolerated Hagiographer 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

User Pura Paja's version contributes nothing and he simply deletes information perhaps more suitable for a Spanish audience than an international audienca but as far as I know the aim of the Wikipedia is to be the sum of all knowledge. Hagiographer 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) this comment was made by Hagiographer while he also changed my signature to that of Pura Paja (that's your real signature, respect the rules, no wonder you've been blocked five times Hagiographer 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)), indicating a user who is not willing to abide by the rules of the community here SqueakBox 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely an international encyclopedia for an international audience, SqueakBox 04:43, 19 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)

That isnt a source that is wikipedia. What we need is a a source outside Wikipedia, ie a source for the statement in Zapatero's foreign policy or it MUST be deleted as a slur on the Spanish President as is made clear at the top of this page, SqueakBox 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox has proved again he's a troll. He redirects using sock puppets articles he has never read!!! He has never taken a look to the articles so he didn't understand that in Zapatero's foreign policy there's a link to ",,11069-1354071,00.html" (look for [2]) that points to an article of "The Times", that's the "outside" source somebody asked for. SqueakBox has proved against he's a vandal and troll. Hagiographer 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Altering other users comments will not be tolerated Here, SqueakBox 03:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

Adopting a commonsense approach to identification, the administrators of Wikipedia have decided to enforce the provisions of this case against anyone who exhibits behavior similar to that of SqueakBox and Zapatancas, to wit: Hagiographer and Pura Paja, and anyone else who engages in warring, tendentious edits, personal attacks and harassment related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles.

Pura Paja has been blocked indefinitely because of his username.

The ban on editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles will now be applied to Hagiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as will the personal attack parole, because his involvement in the mutual harassment campaign closely resembles that of Zapatancas and it is reasonable to treat Hagiographer, for the purposes of this dispute, as if he and Zapatancas were one and the same person. For good reason, any administrator may extend the article ban to other editors exhibiting substantially similar behavior. --Tony Sidaway 10:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article lacks of a neutral point of view. There are severe references to a biography of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero written by Óscar Campillo Madrigal, who is a journalist that works for media with strong links to Zapatero opponents. That book goal is to form an opinion in favour of the opposition point of view, it is not a neutral attemp to let people know his life or ideas. Most of the events are targeted to point at negative matters, even if they are not relevant, skipping other positive achievements.

Last edited at 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)