Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapatero and the 2004 General Election


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was NO RESULT. The AfD was actually a request for reversion and protection, a mandate not held by AfD. Try WP:RFPP. -Splash talk 00:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero and the 2004 General Election
Also No need for a separate article, and these were redirects for months. Nothing has changed. All the material needs to be merged with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero SqueakBox 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Zapatero's years as an opposition leader
 * Articles for deletion/Zapatero's domestic policy
 * Articles for deletion/Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003
 * Articles for deletion/Zapatero's foreign policy
 * Merge and redirect, no need for AfD. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid there is a need as User:Zapatancas just reverts me every time I make them into redirects. He believes these articles should exist so i have no other recourse but to do this, see the talk pages of the articles, SqueakBox 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case, undoubtedly delete and protect the lot after merging, per WP:FORK. And beat the POV pusher vigorously with a stick until he is very sorry indeed. Also, I suggest you redirect the other AfDs into this one and merge them, since they are a package deal. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to see them redirected into one, not quite sure of the procedure, but if anyone wants to they have my permission as the person who set these Afd's up, SqueakBox 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article about José Luiz Rodríguez Zapatero is very long, but, in spite of that, it does not contain all the information about the subject. That is only natural as there exist printed biographies on Zapatero with more than 400 pages. As it is evident, an article equivalent to 400 pages would be too long, specially as there are a lot of users who do not want to know "all" about Zapatero. That's why I created the "extended" articles, like this, long ago: to place information that is not so important but can be very interesting for journalists, ambassadors, university students specialized in foreign relations and so on. As far as I know, the Wikipedia is for everybody, not only for the "average" user.


 * When I create the articles nobody complaint, in fact, as can be found in the archived talk, other users accepted the change. In fact, when I divided the article I commented on the talk page my decision and nobody showed any opposition. One day, SqueakBox came to the article and substituted them with redirects to the main article. He did not ask the opinion of the users who have worked in writing and improving those articles. He did not care about making very interesting information inaccessible to others. Well, he never justifies his deletions, although the rules of the Wikipedia recommend to take everything that is deleted to the talk page and explain the decision. That is especially serious as he has spent a lot of time already and he knows what he does is a pure attack against other users. He enjoys those attacks. When other users ask him why he has deleted his contributions even though he has never contributed anything useful he simply insults them: you are a POV warrior, you are a spammer, you are a disgrace for the Wikipedia, "your" article is very bad, "your" article is a pile of cr**p, "your" article is a "disgrace" (it is worth noting that he uses "your" in an individual sense even if dozens of users has worked hard in an article he has attacked). For months nobody has been able to edit the article on Zapatero as he removes everything that is added. Once, he removed a sentence by another user 15 minutes after it was introduced. That user had never before edited nothing but SqueakBox claim he was a POV warrior, so breaking the Wikipedia Policy about assuming good faith.


 * The redirection was never accepted. It is stupid to substitue with a redirect an article called "Zapatero's foreign policy". Who can search something like that if he/she does not know previously that it exists? It is absurd. However, SqueakBox could impose his abusrd decision because he spends all day long connected to the Wikipedia, what allows him to behave like a bully. He never uses logical reasons and, if you try to protect an article recovering the damage he has done he reverts it again insulting you by the way. I dare to recover the real articles he has destroyed because he has been scared away by the administrator Katefan0. This user blocked the main article on Zapatero. SqueakBox had caused an edit war because he introduced mistakes on purpose. For example, he changed European Union for European union, and paid no attention to anybody when he was told that was an evident mistake. When Katefan0 asked all the users to expose his point of view on the "conflict", SqueakBox dissapeared as he is afraid of administrators as they can punish his bad faith. Against an administrator is useless to spend ten hours every day in the Wikipedia. To play bully is useless.


 * I simple asked the Wikipedia community to look to the "extended" articles. They have defects, but those defects can be improved and they contain information that can be very useful for a lot of people. The Wikipedia is a place for sharing knowledge no for bullies and monsters. Zapatancas 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the personal attack from User:Zapatancas against me. it is unwarranted. me doing my job here doers not mean I have to suffer abuse. He is inventing lies about me, andf I don't like it, SqueakBox 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As I want you to know I still value your opinion you can tell me when I have lied about you. I am willing to provide a mountain of links that prove your real activities. Zapatancas 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

See and  are your accounts and you lied on a number of occasions about me while using those accounts. I can provide the diffs but here is not the place to do itm (perhaps an Rfc?), SqueakBox 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What is certain is that if our case came up before the arbcom both our behaviours would be under scrutiny, so it would providse you with an opportunity to state your case with diffs and it would mean SQ and SQAA would be the subject of a sockpuppet test to determine exactly where these 2 accounts were being edited from (your IP range is known as you have made edits which are obviously you while not signing into an account). All my SB edits have been made using the same static IP number so your claims that I have edited from the UK or that I was SQ or SQAA can also be disproved. If this is what you want I am sure it will be easy enough to do, SqueakBox 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As Zapatancas you have also made a number of lies about me and my mental health (which as you have never met me and are not a psychiatrist are patently false) on your user page, SqueakBox 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the fact that you have undone my redirect repair linls on the zapatero articles on more than one occasion, which is petty vandalsim, SqueakBox 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)