User talk:Public Intelligence Analyst

A barnstar for you!
These edits to the Salvadoran Civil War are fabulous indeed.

Thank you. I have plenty of material. It just takes time to put it together. Ive even payed $$$ for many news articles. Much of this history is hidden in pay articles.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we just organize it. I am thinking of perhaps breaking up much of the information under "human rights abuses" and incorporating it into more of an overall summary of the events, much as I did with the Guatemalan Civil War page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milexpert101 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I was thinking the same thing. Remember to sign your comments.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say this is getting very close to what we want, it is starting to look very good. The formatting that we have it in now is almost exactly what I had in mind. --Milexpert101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Salvadoran civil war
I am not changing this stuff because I do not like it. I changed it because it is incorrect and incredibly dubious to say dissidents. You have to mention the VC. It is a counter insurgency program against the VC, not some program used to crush all peaceful dissent even if the South Vietnamese government did that, the program was used to target VC which involved killing or capturing civillians. It is far more accurate to say sympathizers and collaborators and it is sourced. How is it OR. You add a mention of the program on this page and you described it. You sourced and linked the program with the Salvadoran war page with a source and I described the program with another source. How is it original research. Can you only describe the program with a source that mentions both the program and the Salvadoran war even if that description is wrong. You have edit warred me and I have you edit warred you as well, so I don't think it is important enough to push this further. Lastly would it not be better to change it to suspected VC sympathizers, as you had previously changed and agreed to, prior to me adding the word collaborators. It is more accurate than dissidents. Stumink (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I compromised. I figured the term "disloyal" was broad enough to work with.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for on the basis of your edits, it is obvious that you are attempting to evade their block. I note in particular your huge number of edits to the Salvadoran Civil War focused on the United States' role in this conflict, and generally similar pattern of contributions to other articles Horhey420 focused on (for instance, Guatemalan Civil War). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)