Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zape82 (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 16 July 2006 (→Mena). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages ;-). Hagiographer 14:07, 13 July 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)

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)