User talk:RobertDavidSteeleVivas

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Defamation/highly POV edit with lousy source in this edit after release of recent block. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblocking

I received a very courteous email from William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) stating that you would like to be unblocked. I would be glad to entertain such a request. Please explain why you should be unblocked and how you will conform to our policies, especially WP:BLP, WP:Sock and WP:V. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to your question

I never violated your policies, at least not intentionally, and I was ganged up on by a combination of trolls and a couple of CIA fronts who absolutely did not want a serious Open Source Intelligence page. I spent FIVE DAYS, with over a hundred links to works by international people that had spoken at my conference (750 speakers, 7500 trained) over the course of 17 years, and what kept happening was some fool with too much power kept deleting me because all the links pointed to www.oss.net. Duh--it was started in 1993, is one of the oldest web sites in existence, and for 17 years and still, has been the archive for OSINT. Five days summing up almost 20 years of work, destroyed. I was sick to my stomach over this.

I complained to Jimmy Wales personally, and he blew me off, one reason I have never contributed to Wikipedia. What I learned from this experience is that everyone should be allowed to create, but only masters should be allowed to destroy, and only ubber masters should be allowed to block, and then only after due process. I am one of a handful of people who is actually a world authority in the area of OSINT (and now M4IS2), but I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia after that vile experience which incidentally, offered no counseling, no probation, and in being blocked, no means of fighting back.

Now that I am running for the presidential nomination from the Reform Party, such antics are harmful to the larger cause. I would like to get my personal page fixed up, and understand that the way to do this is to discuss what I plan to enter on the talk page, wait three days, and then do it.

I would be very pleased if you would "block any blocking." In the course of becoming globally known, I have picked up several stalkers, at least one of them on wikipedia, and judging from my experience--perhaps the situation has improved in all these years--the ability to block is too loosely shared and not well overseen.

I will not return to the OSINT page--that was so corrupted it sickens me. The new meme is M4IS2: Multinational, Multiagency, Multidisciplinary, Multidomain Information-Sharing and Sense-Making. It is a meme that CIA hates--and there are also people out there who think that anything I do is self-promoting--I seem to have a gift for alientating a certain type of person, but I am well regarded by hackers and other innovators. If you unblock me I will get my personal page unscrewed. Right now it is linked to from the Reform Party page, one reason I feel it needs to be done. If you protect me from trolls, I will build you a sensational M4IS2 page, but that is an offer, my own web site, Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog, was built in part because of my very bad experience with Wikipedia and being blocked. All the stuff you see there could have been on Wikipedia has I not been abused (in my opinion).

By the by, the JMITC Open Source Intelligence Handbook was deleted, see the note above, I have zero patience for morons for that cannot come to grips with the fact that I built this damn discipline from scratch, at great personal sacrifice, and that work I created is not self-promotion, it is being shared. I also wrote the NATO OSINT Handbook, but the trolls never figured that out or they would have attacked that as well.

Over to you.

Semper Fidelis, Robert Steele

WP:NOTTHEM is a better place to start the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done. Unblock or not, I am not going to agonize over this.

Ok then. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Will not pay attention to this matter ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.108.38 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That was the point of the indefinite block. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of American Intelligence Journal

The article American Intelligence Journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2008, website is dead. Cannot find an ISSN.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of American Intelligence Journal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Intelligence Journal 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/American Intelligence Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)