User talk:Robert Steele

Welcome!

Hello, Robert Steele, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fr a ncs2000 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally

Are you absolutely sure that you want your e-mail and phone number publicly available? DS 13:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, Robert, I have erased your phone number from the viewable page history. Happy editing! --Jay(Reply) 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles

In patrolling new articles, I've noticed a couple by you that need attention. WP:CORP are the notability standards for corporations. I have proposed deletion some of them because they don't meet those standards. Please read the WP:CORP standards, then go back and bring these recently created articles up to par. You are free to remove the PROD nomination at any time, but best practice is to do so at the same time as you address the concerns. GRBerry 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making progress. I'd recommend that you try to introduce more wikilinks (links to other encyclopedia articles) into the articles that you are creating. One trick I do is to initally put every proper noun in as a wikilink. Then I preview the page, and open each blue link in a separate tab. If any hit a disambiguation page (a page like "there are many people named John Doe, including..."), I figure out which I really want and use that. If any are inappropriate results, I remove them. For those that are red links (no article at the end), I decide if we ought to have an article at that title - if yes I leave them alone, otherwise I remove the brackets that create the link.

You might also want to learn more about the style. You could read the manual of style, but I find it dull and hard to get through. You would probably get a good sense of the basics faster by reviewing a few pages like Saco Bay, Thomas Jefferson, Islam, and Grateful Dead that are in reasonably good shape. For each article, look at 1) whether it has warning boxes on it, 2) the layout, then 3) hit the edit this page button to see how it is put together in wikisyntax. Another way to look at good and bad articles is to do hit the "Random article" navigation link on the left a few times. GRBerry 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia help

Hi Robert. I'm glad you have decided to edit Wikipedia. Here are some policy pages which I strongly encourage you to read and understand before you continue editing:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, explains what Wikipedia shouldn't be used for. In particular, note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for personal opinion or editorializing.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, explains the neutrality policy to which all content must conform.
Wikipedia:No original research, explains that all information in Wikipedia must be obtained from secondary sources.
Wikipedia:Verifiability, explains the policy that all information must be independently verifiable.

In addition, these are some useful user-conduct pages so that you don't fell ignorant of "Wiki-Politics" or rather, simply how things are done around here.

Wikipedia:Etiquette, explains the standard of user-to-user interaction.
Wikipedia:Be bold, encourages new users to be bold in updating pages because bad edits are easily reversible.
Wikipedia:Assume good faith, encourages users to assume good faith on the part of users with whom they may be in conflict, and recognize that everyone is working together to make a better encyclopedia.

If you have any questions about these or other pages or issues, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through email. I recognize that I've given you quite a reading list, but because your article appeared on the mailing list AND a Google recently, it is now very high visibility indeed.

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help

Hello Mr. Steele, I'm glad to see you have joined the wikipedia group. I recently started using wikipedia myself. As a recommendation, any views from persons (including yours) is best suited to be written objectively and cited from a source. For example, it is sometimes difficult for me to make a point about something because I don't have it documented anywhere, it just comes from experience (such as saying "the intelligence community has mistaken secrecy for intelligence"). Luckily for you, many of your statements can be found in your books and articles--you just need to write it in an objective tone, matter-of-fact voice, and site where the article can be retrieved via the web (external link), in wikipedia (internal link), or reference book. On a different note, I have a piece of information that I feel would be extremely valuable for you to know about, but can't disclose via these channels. Please email me at eagleelephant@gmail.com. Good to talk to you. WilsonjrWikipedia 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Web Technologies

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Deep Web Technologies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.deepwebtech.com/. As a copyright violation, Deep Web Technologies appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Deep Web Technologies has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Deep Web Technologies. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Deep Web Technologies, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Hawaiian717 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added you to "the list"

Mr. Steele: I went ahead a added you to this list:

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles

because Wikipedia likes to keep track of this kind of thing. Let me offer a piece of advice: Wikipedia prefers to hear what other people have to say about you and your ideas. Since you have an entry in NNDB, I bet that most of such evidence does exist. You should focus on that and you will be challenged much less here at Wikipedia. -- 75.23.154.202 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books that mention you...

You might want to go through by hand and examine

http :// www.name base.org/xste/Robert-David-Steele.html

(I had to insert some space to dodge the filter)

and see if those books that mention you can be worked into your bio. For some reason, Wikipedia does not allow links directly to namebase.org (I have to space it out like that just to dodge their filter)- it might be a quality issue or something. Anyway - just an idea. I am adding a few more links to your web page so that the 20-something kids can see that you certainly do have a message that some people are listening to. Believe me - that is how you go about establishing your credibility around here. -- 75.23.154.202 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not forward-looking

Wikipedia is almost exclusively about history. They even add disclaimers about planned Space Shuttle launches: STS-121. It is not a place to network about ideas. The only thing you can accomplish here is to document what you have already accomplished. There certainly are Wikis for networking and advancing organizations, but not this one. -- 75.24.106.52 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a call to action

You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Some people use the shortcut WP:NOT to refer to that page. Wikipedia is not a call to action. All you can do is present the facts and hope and pray that people "get it". I have found that if you keep your article short. You have a lot of factual history in OSINT, but you have to take a passive, analytical approach to reporting the events or your stuff is likely to be deleted. Avoid explainations of "why". Stick to the other four standards: who, what, when, where. Then your stuff will survive. -- 75.24.106.52 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert

Hi Robert,

I submitted your article Open source intelligence to articles for deletion because I genuinely thought that it was original research. I can see now that I was almost certainly wrong. However, please take the time to read our site policies so you can get a better idea of what is and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. We have a list of policies, of which I think the most valuable for yourself might be Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

I would like to say that we do encourage you to write for us, because what you have to say is valuable and appreciated. However please be aware that to have made this project a success we have had to impose certain site policies, of which most of them are decided by the community. I do hope you understand and won't take offense at me posting this note on your talk page! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of style issues

I am going to dribble my thoughts in as they occur to me: avoid acronyms unless you are going to use them again in the text. Let me acknowledge that Wikipedia (like the U.S. Gov't, Scientology and almost any beuracracy) uses them a lot, but in the text, you waste the reader's time if you do not use them in that article.

BTW: I can give you some other examples where a person and a concept are tied together. Here is a pair: Parental alienation syndrome and Richard Gardner. Now those articles are also rather so-so in quality, but you get the idea. You ideas and your books stay on your page. The more generally accepted concepts go onto the OSINT page. -- 67.116.252.120 16:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2006

You should check out Wikimania 2006 and then work with Jimbo to ensure that your aspirations and his coincide. I will bet that he will want to see some kind of synergy where the Foundation perceives that it benefits in some way. If you are trying to get the factual low-down on all countries (including dirt about the USA), then you might have a basis. But if you are simply looking to exclusively promote the national security of the US and its allies, then I expect that you are barking up the wrong tree. I dunno, if you shape your interaction carefully and keep it neutral, then mutual benefit might still be possible. -- 67.116.252.120 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent post

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_source_intelligence - there is no need for you to leave, we always welcome editors. The Afd is on the article, not on any contributors, and it appears that the article will be kept and edited to a more neutral point of view. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page and I will be happy to assist you if I am able. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heartbreak of Wikipedia

It is a common problem for experts to become very frustrated when "consensus" rather than well-documented assertion prevail in the article text. There is plenty of documentation of experts becoming frustrated with such a process off-wiki. Uh, you can read Wikipedia:Expert editors and maybe User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming to see what the ethos is. It is more like communism than like private enterprise. Attribution is often lacking and errors are introduced. It does mean that some people are going to walk right in and make themselves at home - deleting what they want and adding as they see fit.

Jimbo is an anti-credentialist. That means, in theory, that the assertions in the article text should be non-controversial or have good supporting evidence. It is frustrating, especially if you have many years of experience or an advanced degree on the matter. In, theory, there should be minial references to copyrighted material, brand names, or anything that really requires attribution to just one person in the world (assuming we are not talking about art and artists or something along those lines). It should mostly be shared public-domain knowledge that no one person or entity controls the definition of.

That can be frustrating if you are an expert. That is why I moved some of those lists back onto your biography page: these really are your specific organzation of the subject. Is the acronym "OSINT" copyright or trademarked? If so, then maybe it should your biography to your biography instead of the subject. Just a thought. You are allowed to get touchy about your biography having errors but on the OSINT subject page you will have to clean up the crap, untruths and vandalism as you have time and the it is a terrible trap to get mad about it. It is pretty much a cardinal sin to get proprietary about any general subject at Wikipedia except for your own biography. If copyrighted material has been copied wholesale from your web site, then that is a problem, but Wikipedia is about sharing such knowledge so I would try to figure out what info you want to release and what you want to retain control of.

This guy has a funny sense of humor about the situation: User:Avidor. -- 67.116.255.18 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Naconkantari 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours for making threats: [1]. Please use the time to become more familiar with our policies, particularly WP:NLT, and to reconsider your method of contributing to the project. FeloniousMonk 04:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating Stuff

I'm sorry you seem to have had a bad time here Mr Steele. I read one of your powerpoint presentations and found it to be fascinating material. Secretive intelligence is out-dated in the post cold-war world, so what if Opium warlords and Al-Qaeda know what we know?.

There were several resignations from British intelligence services such as GCHQ prior to the invasion of Iraq, due to questions over the quality of, or rather the political use of, secret intelligence relating to WMD. I wish there were more people in the US Intelligence services like you, or better still, in government.

Mostly Zen 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information peacekeeping

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Information peacekeeping, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Open sources of information

I have nominated Open sources of information, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open sources of information. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Terraxos (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Intelligence Exploitation of the Internet

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Intelligence Exploitation of the Internet, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Intelligence Exploitation of the Internet is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Intelligence Exploitation of the Internet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for OSS.Net

I took the time to read a few of these almost ridiculous discussion comments. I can't for the life of me figure out Robert why so many people have it in for you??? It is almost like "yes we like you here, but please don't write anything that isn't already in Wikipedia" Go figure! If you are as you state you are, the CEO or owner of the website oss.net, I can't thank you enough for your incredible efforts. I accidently stumbled upon you while researching open source intelligence, as I started a Facebook site called Intelligence Agency. Finding your site, OSS.Net proved to be extremely useful -- I still don't even know where to begin in incorporating the content. I will go as far to say that out of over 100 internet sites that are or primarily dealing with open-source intelligence, I rank your site number one. Keep up the great job and service you provide us. You are appreciated by those that count!

--Roman Terry (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information Operations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Information Operations. Since you had some involvement with the Information Operations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of OSS.Net for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OSS.Net is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSS.Net until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. →B music ian 11:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Commercial intelligence

The article Commercial intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I could not establish WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peacekeeping intelligence

The article Peacekeeping intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deep Web Technologies

The article Deep Web Technologies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A barely remarkable startup

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of DIALOG

Hello Robert Steele,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged DIALOG for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]