Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1

message: This article isn't neutral.
It only shows the critics of the right wing on Zapatero politics, which are not exactly fair.
The external links are unfair too. Note that "Right-wing website highly critical of Rodríguez Zapatero" and "News about Rodríguez Zapatero" are the same link, a page which is devoted to destroy Zapatero's image. Also, the link "Copy of the editorial of the Wall Street Journal "The Accidental Prime Minister" " belongs to a page right-winged.
It seems that the author wanted a site to promote People's Party ideas.
:If you look at the page history you will see that the latest barrage of loaded statements comes from an anonymous user... In fact, there seem to be many anonymous users with an axe to grind in (in both directions) editing this article, which is a problem especially if their edits violate the NPOV policy.  — Miguel 05:07, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
-------
Miguel, I am sorry for you because you cannot take part in an open, serious discussion. If you don't like a comment you needn't insult people who do not think like you. You can change it saying something like: "Although some critics say ** sentence I do not like ** it has been also argued ** sentence you like because it reflects your point of view**". That's the way towards objectivity: mixing different points of view. 
:Actually, opinions should generally not be presented without attribution, and the prefix "some people say that" is frowned upon and discouraged by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms) although, to be sure, even the policy is a matter of disagreement. 
::When I said some critics I supposed it would be understood as something equivalent to x in Maths. You can put whatever you want. Besides, I have seen the articles about the NPOV policy before writing that and they advice exactly that. If you do not like something you keep that (that is, you do not destroy everything) and you write "According to X (if you prefer) this. According to Y this other thing". 
:And, unlike other people, I stand behind my edits instead of making them anonymously, which was the main point of my comment anyway. Miguel 23:41, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
::I am very sorry Miguel but I cannot pay for Internet access (I belong to that group of guys who are poor) and all my access to the Internet is limited to some hour from time to time in a Public Library with a terrible computer and a terrible connection, after several weeks in a row studying 10 hours a day. When you have only an hour even if it seems impossible to you, it takes too long to register (and to discover that you can register). Forgive me for neither having money nor time (and even for being too silly for not discovering at the first second that I could register). I cannot be so superb as you. 
I added the link to The Wall Street Journal because it is a respected, old newspaper that published an article whose opinions are shared by millions of people in Spain and the rest of the world. Add additional information if you do not agree but don't try to delegitimize hard-working decent people because they include a link about Zapatero published by a newspaper read by millions of people all over the world.
Besides, the PSOE was a marxist-leninist party until 1979. In fact, Felipe Gonzalez had to resign temporarily to force the party to make the decision of renouncing to that ideology. So removing data that is so significant about the past of the current president of the government of Spain is quite Stalinist in my humble opinion.
:PSOE may have been formally revolutionary Marxist until 1979, but González already declared himself Socialist before Marxist in 1974. And it wasn't Leninist. Even PCE had renounced Leninism in 1978. --Error 02:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long

message: I think the sentence  Against expectations isn´t true. Here, in Spain, public opinions gave the same probability to win to PSOE and PP. And the PSOE was increasing his results for months.
Also, I think a comentary about wrong informations said by Aznar´s goverment influence the results too will be good. Some people think 11 March bombing affected the results, but others think PSOE wins because PP lies.--FAR 09:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: There is an user (perhaps more), that has prevented any update of this article for a long time. He (assuming this user is male) attacks from several addresses,
82.213.209.45; 82.213.218.133; 82.213.216.73; 80.58.14.170 (this is his favorite); 82.58.14.235;
and recovers and old, very short version full of mistakes and propagandistic comments; whose full text can be found here.
It can be observed that that "old" version is 99% very similar to that of February 5, 2005 by Jrgl, that is, in two months, none of the thousands of users of the Wikipedia has been able to make any useful contribution according to the person who continuously recovers it. 
This is now specially serious as some secondary articles about Zapatero have been created to make the main article more readable (specifically: "Zapatero's years as an opposition leader", "Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003", "Zapatero and the 2004 General Election", "Zapatero's domestic policy" and "Zapatero's foreign policy"). The old version, of course, includes no link to those articles what makes them useless as it is impossible for a normal user to find them individually. 
The lack of useful contributions is very strange as the article so loved by 80.58.14.170 (probably his favorite address) includes some flagrant mistakes, such as:
# "In 1977, though legally too young to do so, Zapatero joined the Partido Socialista Obrero Español ...". That is not true, Zapatero was under 18, but he could join the party.
# "PSOE won 168 seats in the Cortes, and the Partido Popular obtained 148." The real data is 164 seats for the PSOE and 148 for the PP.
These mistakes has been corrected several times, but 80.58.14.170 continues recovering them again and again. 
In fact, it is a proven fact that he does not read other people's changes. A user wrote some time ago in the Talk page: "If people want to incorporate their perspective into the content of the article, that's fine, but I don't understand why people would revert fixes to the grammar of their own writing. Do they even read the changes before revrting them?" 
This probably also proves that he does not read the Talk page either. In fact, he has never made any effort to communicate with the rest of the users but for a comment in the History Page on March 2005, 22 referring to his beloved version: "This version is neutral and utterly right".
It is clear that his version is not utterly right but it is not neutral either, as it is proven by the following comments:
# "... Zapatero, representing a modernising faction known as "Nueva Vía" (New Way) ...". A lot of people believe that Zapatero in fact represents a return to a more radical Socialist Party and that he is obsessed with the Spanish Civil War. So to claim that his faction was modernising without any further information goes clearly against the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
# ".... Against expectations, Zapatero led the PSOE to victory ....". In the talk page of the article the User FAR has complained about the use of the expression "Against expections", as he believes that an important number of people believed in the Socialist victory before the 2004 Election took place. This is an additional piece of evidence that proves that 80.58.14.170 is acting with bad faith.  
# ".... He [Zapatero] has said that the government will not be "soft on terrorism" ....". This is a pure propagandistic statement as the reasons that moved Zapatero to make that declaration are not stated. Zapatero said that because of his pacts with some Spanish Parties that are in favor of the independence of their regions, what makes them close to the terrorist group ETA at least ideologically. Zapatero's declaration tried to tranquilize his voters. 
My attempts to communicate with him have not been reduced to the Talk Page and to the History Page (where I have told him I considered his activities as vandalism). I have also used his own talk page (that belonging to 80.58.14.170) where I have warned him about the consequences of his actions. I had not been the first to do that as a previous user had written this in the same page:
"OK, joke over. Stop creating pages that say 'in Spanish -------'. It's not funny. It's not useful. It's not clever. It's not allowed. Four reasons: don't do it.--Honeycake | talk 18:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: First, I want to welcome you to the world of the people who talk instead of simply trying to impose their ideas destroying other people's edits (it seems that now, at least, you complement both activities).
I will try to help you because I want you to learn to think for yourself.
I will start solving your mistakes about your appreciation of the 'real' article:
# Regarding the Resolution 1546, as the real article states, it can be read in it the following:
:"15. [The Security Council] Requests Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces, as agreed with the Government of Iraq, to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people for security and stability, humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and to support the efforts of UNAMI;" That is, it talks about troops. Learn to check your sources.
#Regarding the Law of Gender Violence the change of the term woman for that of "Specially vulnerable victim" is the pure truth. Read the law, read the newspapers. I think that your problem is that you do not know what is the "Exposición de motivos". It only explains why the law is written and passed not what the law orders (that is established by its articles where no real reference to woman or women is made as it appears only within larger expressions like "Judges or Courts of Violence against Woman"). It has really surprised me that you have had any problem with that part of the article as it states simply something that has lasted for months in Spain. Besided, the law was passed by unanimity I do not know where you have been that you do not know it.
#It seems very funny that you say that the ABC is partial. Could you tell me the name of an impartial newspaper? "El Periódico de Cataluña" has a very strong left-wing bias on the other hand. What I do not understand is why you do not include what it says instead of removing everything. That is how Wikipedia works and you would know it if you would read the Wikipedia articles about its NPOV policy. 
They also state that nobody must never offend other user (as you have done with that comment about "real intention of make proselitism and false acusations with wikipedia and thas not right"). I can justify my edits with references. You cannot.
Regarding your comments about "your" article I would like to know the following:
#Saying the Nueva Vía is modernizing is POV because there are a lot of people who think that Zapatero is an extreme-left radical obsessed with the Civil war as it is proved by his obsession with statutes that have spent more time in the street with the new Democratic System that with Franco or by his friendship with Fidel Castro. In Wikipedia you must reflect all points of view, this is not the PRISA group. That thing about young people is very funny. The Catholic Church has a lot of young members, does it made it modernising?
#The comment about Zapatero's statements about terrorism is also POV because it is a propagandistic comment whose causes are not stated. You must include all the truth not only what Zapatero wants you to know.
The worst of everything is that you have been so terribly manipulated that you feel afraid of the truth when you confront it. Please learn to think for yourself. You owe it to yourself. Zapatero 17:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I fear that you have been brainwashed 

message: One matter more to coment.
About the "poor" studies. I don´t have any access to the results. If you put the reference we will judge it. But it they were poor... how did he finished law studies in time? By the way, the post that he occupied it he university was not a titular one, that needs public examinations. It was by direct election, so the references to problems with the him being chosen for the post are pure speculation
:That matter seems a little confusing. I remember testimonies of former teachers of him saying that he was not too good. I also remember a Professor (teacher of the University) that said that he did not pay too much attention to his courses because he centered most of his attention in his political activity. However other sources claim that he was better than average before studying PREU (the preuniversity year). From that year, he became a mediocre. I found the information in the book by "Óscar Campillo: Zapatero, Presidente a la primera". (You have an interview with the author here ) Zapatero 16:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More matters 

message: I have the following comments about the changes made by the  SqueakBox(if he has not made any of them, the comment has the same value):
* "The media perception during the congress was that Zapatero was the underdog to the other three candidates: José Bono, Matilde Fernández, and Rosa Díez." Explained it to me: what media? He was the favorite. The PSOE looked as if it had no future and he was the only renovation. Saying that Rosa Díez or Matilde Fernández had any chance of winning is really amusing.
I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
*   "He represented the New Way (Nueva Vía) faction, defined as modernising, whose ideology is inspired by Tony Blair's Third ". That is very fun. It is true: Iraq, approaching France, Zapatero's good relation with George Bush, everything proves you are right. What do not you become a clown? You would make people happy, ah, excuse me, I forgot you were not interested at that.
I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 
* "[...] the implication being that crispación was a result of Aznar's style (and the PP's generally) both in the government and earlier on in its opposition to former PSOE leader Felipe González, which was described by the PSOE as arrogant and authoritarian. The People's Party had long blamed the sharp atmosphere on the scandals involving González's governments and the PSOE during González's last two terms (1989-1996)." Have you been frozen on time :-)? That thing of blaming the corruption with González is also a good joke. I think they blamed that Zapatero did not condemn those who attacked the Popular Party premises and thing like that. Are you trying to write a novel? You have imagination, you should try.
I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 
* "Zapatero also cooperated with the central government on some matters. For instance, he was the main proponent of the Pact of the Liberties Agains Terrorism, which was signed on December 8, 2000 [5]." It is written against. You are too used to making mistakes. Another thing that points that perhaps your mind is not well (this is not an offence not an insult, is simply to gather enough evidence to decide if you must be blocked or not).
I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? Withdraw your rude and uncollaborative comments about mental problems. Peersonal attacks are not allowed here, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
* "In 2001, the Government reformed the University system through a law that changed its organisation. Zapatero opposed these reforms. In 2002 the Government reformed the system of unemployment benefits by decree (the so-called Decretazo). This included a redefinition of who were eligible for unemployment subsidies, arousing left-wing and trade union opposition. This was his first important clash [...]". Removing the background information about what was changed did certainly improve the article for the people who have not lived in Spain for the last ten years.
Great, --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
* I am not an expert on the sea but I believe this statement is a total falsety caused by bad faith: "In November 2002 the oil tanker Prestige, Spanish territorial waters off Galicia." According to the Spain article of the CIA world factbook Spain enjoys 12 nm of territorial sea, and 24 nm of contiguous zone. According to : "13 de noviembre de 2002. El petrolero "Prestige" navega cargado con 77.000 toneladas de fuel de mala calidad. Cuando se halla a unas 28 millas del cabo Fisterra sufre una importante vía de agua en medio de un temporal, quedando a la deriva con olas de 6 metros y vientos de fuerza 8." (Sorry, I have not time to translate). This shows the total lack of information you have and how manipulated you are.
I never said that, or added. What are you talking about? --SqueakBox 15:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
* Estremadura is not at the South East of Spain. (Or perhaps if you are neutral enough it is). I klnow where Extramadura is. Check who put it in the wrong place instead of following the lazy path of blaming me. False accusations are no substitute for hard work,  
You are lucky I have to leave. SqueakBox or you change your attitude or you will be blocked very soon. (And do not remove this as you did yesterday) Zapatancas 10:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not SquealingPig I will not accuse you of being him but you cannot accuse me either. You say you have not been blocked. Have I? I do not know who believes your accusations. Perhaps are those who have spent months accusing an article of being not neutral, have removed it hundreds of times and never said what they considered that was not neutral. Zapatancas 09:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing the wonderful changes of SqueakBox 

message: *It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see Captain Liberty (talk · contributions) and Cap. Freedom (talk · contributions)for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical revisionism

message: All the excess Zapatero articles have been brought back here without overweighing this article. The POV and unencyclopedic styles have, for the most part, bneen removed. Anti-Zapatero rhetoric cannot be allowed to dominate this article, --SqueakBox 19:52, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
: You are very hard with other people edits. You do not look very tolerant, truly. SquealingPig
There was no need for more than one article, --SqueakBox 16:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Instead of debating the issues  created  to vandalise and harrass, --SqueakBox 22:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
: That is completely false. I have gone to your personal page and I have seen how you act. Why do not you ask an administrator to remove the "excess" articles, instead of rendering them useless? Do not answer, it is because you know that what you have done is absurd but, still, it is very amusing to vandalize articles inventing absurd reasons. I do not intend this as something offensive at all but I think that it is necessary for everybody that you will answer sincerely: are you mentally unbalanced? do you need psychiatric aid? Zapatancas 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zapatero excess articles

message: His vicious personal attack has been removed. I expect an immediate apology. If he replaces it or writes something equally nasty he will be repeorted, I am not far from trying an Rfc. His right wing views, which are found in all his encyclopedic writings, are very clear from his latest edits. Wikipedia is not a place to launch a passionate defence of the PP and an attack on Zapatero. Zapatancas appears to be a POV warrior trying to manipulate wikipedia for his own political ends. There is absolutely no nedd for excess articles, and particularly not excessa articles that Zapatancas won't let anyone else edit, --SqueakBox 14:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
:You have had a negative attitude towards me since the beginning. Simply answer this questions:
* Why have you substituted an article impossible to find with a REDIRECT statement? If it is useless, why did not you ask an administrator to delete it? Have not you heard that every day hundreds of articles are deleted?
* What are those right-wing comments? That thing about Zapatero being the first Spanish prime minister talking to the French assembly? You have removed it, so it must be right wing. 
* Excuse me, what are my recent right-wing edits? When I changed your mistake in the Aznar page because you have written "it's IX congress" but it should be written "its IX congress"? When I tried to help you correct that mistake in your talk page, you deleted it although it was clear that I only tried to help you. 
* What is that passionate defence of the PP? An invention to hide your own radicalism?
* When have I not allowed other people to edit an article? When I removed their links from a Main article and I substituted them with nonsense REDIRECT statements? Oh, excuse me, was not it you who made that?
* Where is the attack on Zapatero?
:You have insulted me calling me a POV warrior. Tell me only an example when I have deleted anything from an article. I expect an apology. 
:And this time answer the questions and answer them fast. Zapatancas 09:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recovered in a single article all the changes destroyed by SqueakBox. Let's see what excuses he uses this time to destroy it again. Zapatancas 09:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zapatancas

message: Thank you for your contributions and especially for having cited your sources. It seems you want to demnostrate the existence of manipulation by the Popular government after the attacks. According to the NPOV policy, all theories must be reflected fairly and your theory is as valid as the one stating it was the anti-government groups who manipulated. I have made a series of changes, trying to preserve what you wanted to communicate, but also trying to make it look like what I believe it is, another theory. If you disagree with me, I am open to a sincere discussion. If you want to convince me anything I have written is wrong, please try to find new sources proving it or ask me to find them. I think we will finish sooner if we do that :-) Zapatancas 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To 80.102.6.36 

message: This article is hopelessly biased against Zapatero (my opinion is by Spaniards more patriotic to the USA than their ownm country and region). When I changed it I got loads of persoanl attacks, and am uninclined to reedit until the atmosphere of intimidation here improves. Don't remove the NPOV unless you can answer my objections, --SqueakBox 15:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:SqueakBox, I really thank you for the more peaceful approach you have shown of late. I believe your personal image would improve even further :-) if you instead of simply including NPOV signs also stated what you find to be not neutral. 
:It would also be interesting if you explained a little what means to be a Spanish patriot for you. I believed the Wikipedia was about saying the truth. The rest is not important. 
:To end I think that you should improve your way of communicating with other users. That thing of "This article is hopelessly biased...", is kind of offensive, you know. As the articles about neutrality say, it is better to explain clearly an opinion instead of using general adjectives. 
:Yours truly, Zapatancas 18:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mistakes were in the "general" single article you created some weeks ago. I described some of them at the beginning of this talk page. Regarding the foreign policy article, I do not understand why you deleted that about Zapatero being the first prime minister in talking to the French assembly or the introduction about his foreign policy philosophy. Thank you for your positive attitude :-)Zapatancas 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have just cast a shallow look, but I wonder why somebody thinks that the DNI number is interesting?
Is it an interesting number as in the Ramanujan anechdote?
A prime?
--Error 21:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it as interesting as what he had tonight for dinner. Unless it's a significative dish or it's somehow telling, it is not article-worthy. --Error 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, leave me out of this, SqueakBox 16:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another comment about the DNI. It could be used in the future for a researcher to find "official" information about Zapatero. I think it can be a very interesting data. Zapatancas 18:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Um. Maybe. But I don't know if this is the place for that information. --Error 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DNI?

message: SqueakBox removed the following passage 66.38.206.10 added for the first time on 22:15, 18 July 2005: 
:Although Zapatero's stance was more moderate than that of outspoken French President Jacque Chirac, Spain's lack of diplomatic influence relative to France may have led Bush to simply ignore Zapatero.
SqueakBox claimed he had removed the last speculative and POV sentence. He did not take the passage to the talk page as it is recommended to avoid conflicts, by the way. 
SqueakBox, in any case, should be thanked for that. Those of you who have come recently to this page must know that this user added a NPOV notice about two months ago. I asked him once and again what he considered not to be neutral (to try to fix it, you know), but he never answered (he simply included some offensive comment here and there). Some days ago I expressed that the NPOV tag should be removed if nobody reported any disputed passage because I believed it was absurd to have it if we don't know what is not neutral. Finally other user, not me, took it away.
Once the NPOV label was here no longer and 15 minutes after 66.38.206.10 made his short-lived contribution, he removed that user's edition affirming, as it has been already mentioned, that it was the last POV passage. So the last POV (or should it be the first?) was added two months after he included the NPOV tag and some days after the NPOV tag was removed!!!  
The most amusing thing is that he claimed the invisible :) POV (?) of the artice was right-wing and 66.38.206.10, in my opinion, is reflecting a left-wing opinion. That is, the Spanish Left claims that Zapatero has not soured American-Spanish relations. I believe the comment means: if Bush does not meet Zapatero is not because he wants to "take revenge". Spain (a second-class country, it must be recognized) is not important enough for the American president for caring about it (this is only my opinion, in any case). Zapatancas 16:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV at last 

message: The current article says that:
"The Socialist Party won again with 25 seats against 24 for the People's Party (out of 54). Although José Borrell was the official candidate, Zapatero played an important role in that campaign (as is usual in Spain). The new triumph seemed to dissipate the doubts about the causes of his previous victory, though the Socialist victory was exceptionally narrow."
The last entailment about dissipating the doubts is very weak. In fact, the information is not completely true, since of the 25 seats obtained by the Socialist Party, one was agreed with Ecologists that, after obtaining the seats in the election, separated from the Socialist group as previously agreed. So, strictly speaking there was 24 seats for the Socialist Party and 24 for the People's Party. This kind of biased and unnecesary entailments should be removed from prestigious efforts as the Wikipedia, especially for events as controversial as the 11-M, for which there is still a lot of unclear elements.
Be careful (second part)
----
It is funny to discover that the concept of objectiviness is supported under the following argument: "you are intoxicated by socialist propaganda". I warn Wikipedia users not to put confidence in any statement only contrasted by a source like "libertad Digital". Since the defeat of Peoples Party it has been clearly detected the following political action. Libertad Digital (a web only news paper) takes the news only from agencies, then they add extremely right wing opinions to the agency, then the web rings, forums, chats, etc... of the youths of the peoples party, start spreading just the opinion, and write in every foro they can get. After that they show to their principals their merits. So, I advice you that any information based only in the a/m media not to be considered as reliable unless it can be founded in other sources of information. If not, wikipedia is at risk of falling in stupid strategies of a political party, which I do not suppose to be the aim of this media. 
The matter of the suicide bombers is a very good example of a posible missinformation. Check the answer given by Zatapancas, and consider if this is an academical answer or just a political and disgusting justification.
:Please, if the anonymous user who contributes from several IP addresses starting with 83. is the same person I would dare to bage him/her to create a wikipedia identity to help identify him/her.
:I will assume it is really the same person, so the following is for him/her (or for them if I a, wrong):
:First, a question: do you work for the Socialist Party. If you belong to the PSOE I respect you and I believe it is very positive to have a person like you providing his POV in this article (you have lots of it!!! and, as a little common sense makes clear, a NPOV article is the one that reflects all POVs). But, to make your work useful you must respect others' POVs also (and you must show more respect for objective facts). 
:I hope you are being paid for your funny contributions, because if not in my own humble opinion you will enjoy a lot becoming a grown-up (enjoy your adolescence) ;-). I have really enjoyed reading them. I would have laughed a lot if I were not in a public place when I did. 
:Please, be humbler when you make a mistake. I do not like either to recognize I have made a mistake, but it is so clear that you have been completely misled with the thing about the suicide bombers that an apology would be welcome (and would also made you feel better).
:The thing about the People's Party youths is also very funny. Is it a joke or are you talking sincerily? If you are talking sincerely, you have been "informed" about it or the idea has occurred to you by yourself :-). In the second case you sound a little paranoid, but I would be intereseted in listening more about that thing of conspiratorial PP youths and all that. 
:Another question. You have defended that the Republican supporters during the sad Spanish Civil War fought for freedom, democracy and the Constituion. Well, that is the true. But, all of them? Because the POUM (a Republican party) , was exterminated in Catalonia in 1937 by other republicans. If they fought for freedom, why did they kill each other? Please, show me the truth. Show me the light. Show me the Darkness visible (as Freemasons say ;-)). 80.37.203.118 16:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non accurate info on the last european elections 

message: Please make edits neutral and not an attack against the article's subject. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits are not neutral 

message: A user has recently removed the paragraph about Zapatero's supposed belonging to Freemasonry. First of all, I would like to remember that being a Freemason is as bad as being homosexual, it depends on  every person's opinion. So, it is absurd to interpret it as something negative.
I would also like to remember that that possibility has been exposed publicly by people like Ricardo de la Cierva, a famous (Right-wing) Spanish historian and nobody has contradicted them (including Zapatero). That provides some evidence (although non conclusive) about the problem we are treating now. 
Not only that, some elements of Zapatero's behavior (for example his good relation with the French government, led by Chirac, a known Freemason) could be better explained if Zapatero were a Freemason. That added to his huge grandfather's influence (who were a Freemason) are other interesting links between Zapatero and Freemasonry. 
It must not be forgotten that a lot of Spanish politicians are also Freemasons (Joaquín Leguina is an example) and a lot more are supposed to be (e.g. Gallardón, who is a famous PP leader), as well as other members of Spanish Society. It must not be seen as a taboo. 
I believe this article must be as relevant as possible. And providing information about Zapatero's ideological background is always relevant. So I hope the information about Freemasonry will not be removed again. Zapatancas 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zapatero and Freemasonry 

message: First of all, I want to make clear that I have never claimed that either American or British English are used in Spanish schools. From my own experience, I can say that the topic of spellings is too advanced for the current level of English teaching in Spain. You can believe me if I say I have known Spaniards who believe that 'ungry' is the American for 'angry'. 
What I have said is that it is absurd to defend that British English must be used in the articles about Spain as Spain is in the European Union. We speak Spanish in Spain, and not any variant of the English language. I have also said that, in my opinion, American English is more international than British English as the American influence is bigger than that from Britain. I believe this is significant because in Spain when English words are used they usually follow American spelling (for example, it would not be rare to find a gym called "Body Center" instead of "Body Centre", in fact, if you asked from what language 'centre' comes I believe most people would answer French). 
It must not be forgotten either that American spelling is more similar to Spanish than British English. For example, Spanish verbs that end in '-izar' have American counterparts ending in '-ize', whereas the British form ends in '-ise'(for example, 'analizar is 'analyse' - British - but 'analyze' - American).  Other example is provided by the words ending in -or (Am), -our (British): 'favor', 'favour' = Spanish 'favor'; 'honor', 'honour' = Spanish 'honor', and so on. The similarity is not strange. In Spains spelling and pronunciation always coincide and American spelling was created to get closer to the real pronunciation of words.
What is really important is to use always the same spelling and, the fact is that we Spaniards are more prone to use American spelling, especially if we are influenced by the way words are written on the Internet, where American spelling is far more typical. As this articles attracts a lot of Spanish users (for evident reasons), in my humble opinion it is more sensible to keep using American spelling as is the safest way to preserve a coherent spelling throughout the article.
I also find absurd the current obsession of SqueakBox with the spelling of the article. If the editions made by Squiquifox really belong to him, he had no problem with using American spelling at that time, as it can be easily checked here.
In that version of the article, the following American spelled words were used: characterized, criticized, favor, generalized, legalize, legalizing, organization and radicalization. If he did not complain then, when the supposed change from British, Australian, Commonwealth English to American English took place was closer in time than now, why does he complain several months later?    
In any case, in my opinion, the worst part of this problem has been the attitude of SqueakBox. He came here one day (after implicitly accepting the American spelling used by the article as I have already explained) and tried to impose the spelling he prefers due to his origin without taking into account other users' preferences and without starting any previous dialogue using as only argument that thing about Spain is in the EU.
I believe that everybody must accept the spelling s/he finds the first time s/he edits the article, if nobody is contesting that use. Therefore, if nobody but SqueakBox wants to move this article to British English (including the person who first started it who has shown no interest in this discussion as far as I know) I do not understand what it must be changed unilaterally after so many months.
Zapatancas 11:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What spelling do you think Prime Minister Zapatero would prefer his article to be written in?  --Zephram Stark 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zapatancas' opinion 

message: This article does not conform to wiki stanmdards, is full of original research, and has had the spelling changed to US English, so it needs both a cleanuop tag and an NPOV tag until thesde problems are thoroughly sorted. At present this article is a disgrace to wikipedia.  SqueakBox 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up and POV

message: 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)
thread_title: Deliberately creating [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BrokenRedirects&limit=500&offset=0 broken redirects]

message: 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  were vandalsim and making false reports tot hat effect . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a death threat all right. - Tεxτurε 17:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Franco statue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism lie

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected