User talk:Mugshots

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mugshots! Thank you for your contributions. I am TenPoundHammer and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

August 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mug shot publishing industry. Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Nakon 04:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Block
Hello, Please be aware that your block was a result of you vandalizing the page User:Hasteur. The unsourced content in dispute has been removed. Vandalizing a user page is not permitted in any way. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Nakon 05:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I object to this user being released from block. 1. The user has an unsurmountable COI with respect to the Mugshot posting website industry as they have repeatedly removed content negative to the industry. 2. The user's unblock request focuses only on other users and not on the MS's behavor that caused them to be blocked. 3. The user has failed to engage in discussion to establish consensus on the affected talkpage (as per WP:BRD), and instead opted for revert warring. 4. The user has (after 2 years) still not understood the basic concepts of Wikipedia Pillars/Rules/Guidelines/Best Practices.  If the unblock is accepted I formally petition for a topic ban from "Mugshot Websites" somewhat narrowly construed with focus on Mug shot publishing industry,List of mugshot websites, Mugshot, and any reasonably related articles that are first level expansions from these subjects. Hasteur (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur, thanks for the concern. You're right, I do not know exact Wikipedia policies/procedures and I will look into the specific ones that you have mentioned. However, I only try to add factual and sourced material, unlike the edits you previously made to the Mug_shot_publishing_industry article, claiming it was extortion and controlled the legal system. Mugshots (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015‎

Hasteur ,You should review the Fiver Pillars[], as I am pretty sure I adhered to all of the pillars and you did not. I removed your unsubstantiated claims of extortion from the Mug_shot_publishing_industry[] article. I believe every revert I did, against your edits, was allowed per the 3RR exemptions. "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material".

I now know how to address such a problem in the future, if one should arise. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page.

I am now reviewing these Eight Simple Rules and Ten Simple Rules as well. Thanks again! :) Mugshots (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2015‎

Mug shot publishing industry
Hello, I'm Valereee. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mug shot publishing industry because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please stop adding unreliable sources. Google groups is not a reliable source. This feels very promotional in nature, especially given your user name. '' valereee (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit was sourced, other than Google groups. Although, in this instance, the Google group source is a reliable and very important source, as it is not only the first known complaint about the mugshot removal process on the internet, but a Google employee, John Mu, replied in that thread as well. BTW, other than sourced historical fact, I've also posted about litigation and legislation of the Mugshot Publishing Industry, so I'm not sure what you think I'm promoting.Mugshots (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2015‎
 * Mugshots, I don't think google groups is ever a reliable source, is it? If it's an important piece of information, some reliable source would have picked it up and covered it.  The promotional issue was with placing an URL in the article.  That always looks like promotion of that business.  valereee (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Valereee, In this instance I would not only consider it reliable, but relevant as well since a Google employee, JohnMu aka John Mueller, replied. I also referenced a reliable web site that was the first to publish anything about mugshots and the removal scheme. If I'm correct the URL you're referring to was from the criticism section? If so I believe all URL's  listed should have been there. A state employee was trying to impede the free flow of information. If anything you should have altered it and not deleted it. It was sourced, twice. Mugshots (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mugshots, you need to go read WP:RELIABLE. Just because a google employee said something in a forum does NOT mean it's in ANY way a reliable source.  If the NYT reports that a google employee said something in a forum, THEN it's a reliable source. And we simply don't put URLs to business sites into articles.   valereee (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Valereee, perhaps you should read the article if you can't determine why it's relevant? I have read WP:RELIABLE and would like to point this section out to you . So, not only is it EXTREMELY reliable, it is very RELEVANT to the article.. Your issue with the URL's elsewhere should have been resolved by fixing it and not deleting as a state worker admitting to altering the free flow of information is a pertinent fact to the criticism section. You also deleted two sections of sourced legislation that I posted: .Mugshots (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , the source appeared to be a couple of posts in a forum, not a broadly published article in a reliable source? valereee (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * valereee, No. There is an article that accompanies it. Mugshots (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the article in question? I'm only seeing the link to the forum posts.  valereee (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take 's suggestions to heart and read WP:BRD very carefully. You added something, they reverted you citing a specific problem, and you (in violation of editing guidelines) reverted again instead of taking the issue to the talk page to establish consensus for the viewpoint (The discuss).  This is exactly the behavior that caused you to be blocked previously.  Continuing this behavior could cause you to be blocked again as you haven't learned from your previous block for disruption.  (CC ,) Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) An internet forum such as the one you linked to is not a reliable source. The fact that one of the people posting to it was an employee of Google does not somehow turn it into a reliable source, any more than an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation editing a Wikipedia article somehow turns that article into a reliable source.
 * 2) In this particular case, it is actually irrelevant whether it's a reliable source or not, because you cited it as a source for the statement that a particular posting was "The first known public complaint involving removal of mugshots", but the source you cite does not say that it was the first known public complaint. A source can serve as a reference only for facts which are stated in that source: the statement that it was "The first known public complaint" is, as far as I can see, supported only by your personal commentary, which is not a reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)