Talk:Mug shot publishing industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed Deletion Notices[edit]

I've taken the liberty of removing the out of order deletion notices as it was a deliberate campaign by a specific IP range that wanted to banish the article. Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"whitewashing" of article[edit]

I have now reverted twice the unexplained removals of this user. Per WP:BRD the onus is on the other user to open a discussion here at the talk page to justify their removals. I have given them a UW-COI warning and a Final warning for vandalism. Hasteur (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed additional unsourced content from the article. I would recommend it not be re-added without strong external sources. Nakon 05:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nakon: What part of "not enabling unrepentant WP:COI editors" did you miss when graduating Admin school? Mugshots is undeniably a editor who is whitewashing this article to remove negative aspects that are well reported in multiple sites. Mugshots is undeniably an editor who does not understand the standard operating procedures of wikipedia (as evidenced by edit warring to put a warning on my user page), breaking the BRD process, failure to accept consensus. Finally, I've refactored the bulk removed line and added a reference to prove it. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur:,You should review the Fiver Pillars[[1]], 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[[2]] article. I believe every revert I did, against your edits, was allowed per the 3RR exemptions[3]. "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material". (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur:, Was that a note to yourself? Should have at least spelled it correctly. [[4]]Mugshots (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing history from talk page[edit]

@Mugshots: Please let's discuss before you remove talk page history. In general editors like to leave it in place so that future editors can see what has been discussed before. valereee (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: It was an unfounded claim. I have added nothing but facts to the article. The user that made the claim, Hasteur, was upset that I removed his extortion claims from the article [5]. His updates were removed and I removed this. You have added nothing to this article. You constantly vandalize it. Please stop. Mugshots (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: btw, why did you remove the legislation that I added here [6] ? Mugshots (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict: :@Mugshots: Whether or not you believe the claim was unfounded, the history here on the talk page is still helpful to future editors. Please let's leave the history intact. valereee (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: There is no merit in leaving inaccurate information in Wikipedia. However, I will leave it for someone else to decide. You still did not tell me why you removed the litigation that I cited sources for [7]? I'm beginning to think you are the one with an agenda. Mugshots (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mugshots: Actually, there really is merit in leaving histories intact. It allows editors to see that a subject has already been discussed and decided. It's almost never a good idea to remove history from a talk page. valereee (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict @Mugshots: The edit you refer to above included an inline URL to a business site, which tends to feel like promotion of that business. I reverted the edit because of the business site URL. I think I accidentally reverted additional constructive edits you'd made at the same time; my apologies for that. I think I must have hit the wrong button. I didn't realize it until I saw a subsequent edit summary. valereee (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

valereee You selected multiple paragraphs of text below the URL you keep referring to and you claim it was "on accident"? Sounds like something a kid would come up with. Mugshots (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mugshots: Hm...I see that you haven't done a lot of editing. I can assure you that while most editors try very hard not to make mistakes, most of us do occasionally make them. I've apologized; I apologize again. You can revert any edits you think are worth reconsidering. I'd definitely recommend you don't put that business URL back in, though. valereee (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Google forum[edit]

@Mugshots: Seriously, it's not a WP:RELIABLE source. You're doing WP:ORIGINAL research. valereee (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

valereee No, it's reliable [8] and extremely relevant to the section. I will revert and we will seek a third party to moderate.Mugshots (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: That's fine. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. valereee (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Mugshots I suggest you read WP:SPS again as it clearly says Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.. Your insistance on a very narrow reading of standard operating procedure is significantly out of line (if not entirely disjoint) from the community consensus at large. If you continue to attack others (as above) WP:NPA, refactor non-userspace talk pages without a exceptionally goood reason WP:REFACTOR, and continue to ignore or disregard the advice of multiple editors regarding disrupting the page WP:DE you could face more restrictions on your editing as the net positive of your contributions could be deemed lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: -- okay, so we have a third and a fourth opinion on this, here and on your user talk page. I'm going to revert; let's discuss here before making further changes. valereee (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Mugshots did previously include a media report which referenced the posting but was removed in a big rollback. That media org _may_ be acceptable for citation - although I would prefer something more scholarly, such as a paper or book detailing some aspect of this, or even just a higher quality source. In this case, it is not original research as a third party has validated the statement.
The newsgroup posting itself may also be included within the same <ref> with media publication as a convenience or courtesy.
Newsgroups, forums and mailing lists are not forbidden, they just have to be used with care, and above all common sense. In some cases they are appropriate for sourcing and able to stand on their own; however, this is not one of those cases. A third-party will be required; as stated, this was previously provided. -- dsprc [talk] 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

mugshot extortion industry[edit]

Valereee Linkie? Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hasteur it's at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/10/07/payment-providers-and-google-will-kill-the-mug-shot-extortion-industry-faster-than-lawmakers/ , I placed it into the references as forbes13. valereee (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Valereee, is the reporter that called the mug shot publishing industry extortion a lawyer or is there a legal opinion/case law referenced in the article? What two industries are YOU trying to connect? I have been looking and can not find any criminal cases involving the mugshot publishing industry, only civil ones. Mugshots (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no requirement for the individual to be an attorney. The line clearly attributed the statement to an individual and which publisher carried them; this is all that is required. Sources need not be neutral - indeed, oppositional positions are a great way to get to root of issue. We include viewpoints, so long as they're properly attributed and not presented as matters of fact. There is no consensus for your removal of this content. Furthermore, please stop refactoring editors Talk page comments. -- dsprc [talk] 09:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: -- you're misunderstanding Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. A reliable source does not mean the opinion of an expert; reliable refers to the publisher of the information. That's why a google employee's post in a forum isn't a 'reliable source' and a reporter in Forbes is a reliable source. It's because Forbes is considered by most of the world to be a publication that generally checks their facts before publishing. In a google forum, anyone can say anything. No one is checking the facts. You can find an explanation of what Wikipedia requires for a reliable source at WP:RELIABLE. valereee (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Valereee: As explained above, they did provide a third-party source, with editorial oversight, independent of the Newsgroup posting - which got removed, after you rolled them back. Not the greatest of sources but, it backs the claim. -- dsprc [talk] 13:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dsprc:, point taken.  :) I was more trying to explain that this is a basic misunderstanding of what wikipedia considers a reliable source. Here and on other talk pages, editor Mugshots has consistently shown that they believe an expert opinion, no matter where voiced, is a reliable source, and that a nonexpert opinion, even when published in an internationally well-regarded publication, shouldn't be considered a reliable source. valereee (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dsprc: Is this the one you mean? https://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020959.html valereee (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

() Without digging through history: I believe the SEO one is the source they provided, yes. -- dsprc [talk] 14:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Here's the diff for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mug_shot_publishing_industry&type=revision&diff=675832430&oldid=675762078 This was the edit I was actually attempting to revert when I rollbacked instead. The assertion it ostensibly supports is "The first known website to offer mugshot removal for a fee was Clarksburgleak.com," and there doesn’t seem to be anything in either the forum post or the source -- which is one I would certainly object to as proving a contentious assertion -- to support the assertion that clarksburleak.com was the "first known website" to offer mugshot removal for a fee. No one on either the forum or in the source calls it the first such website. The only assertion this could back up is that in 2009, clarksburgleaks.com existed, that Google has an employee of unknown status who goes by the handle JohnMu, and that when he was asked about mugshot removal sites, he recommended reputation management as a strategy. All of which I’d probably object to including in the article as trivia; maybe an argument could be made that it’s worth mentioning that in 2009 at least one employee of Google didn’t take the problem seriously. valereee (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
valereee & Dsprc, I cited two published legal references saying that it is in fact not extortion. One from a Georgia District Attorney and another from a Florida law professor. However, there is still a reference to what the Forbes reporter called the "embarrassment extortion industry" in the article. Mugshots (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: Can you give those sources here? I think it's totally fair to present both sides of the argument. valereee (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: Why did you change the section head for this section? valereee (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
valereee the title was changed to accurately reflect the full quote from the article. You can view the quotes/citations from the district attorney and the law professor stating the practice is not extortion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot_publishing_industry#So-called_.22embarrassment_extortion.22Mugshots (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Whethr or not it reflects the full quote from the article is not the point -- talk pages should not be edited in that way. valereee (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

() The Forbes writer is entitled to their opinion and are certainly a reliable source for it. There is no conflict with its inclusion, so long as the position is properly attributed and not presented as a matter-of-fact. As for the other issues at play here, please do not refactor other contributors' Talk page comments -- the exceptions here being formatting, such as indentation or positioning (comments at top when should be bottom), blatant vandalism, personal attacks et cetera. -- dsprc [talk] 14:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee:, You have not posted in quite some time. However i have noticed significantly more information recently has become available in Google in reference to "US Support LLC", the company you initially inquired about. quite a bit to read through, good luck! StopMugshotExtortion (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Refactoring proposal[edit]

To help condense some of the "Legistlation" spam. I'd like to propose converting the legislation section into a wikitable that has State,status (law, court ruling, bill introduced, etc.)(including ref to the law/bill/court decision), brief synopsis of the legislation, and a wildcard for either govenor comments or other text that would be useful. We don't want to bloat the page or section out. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I think a table is a good idea for organizational/ease of reading purposes. As additional states pass such legislation it'll get even more cumbersome. valereee (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: It's not spam, it is prose, the preferred method to convey information. I oppose table-fying it as they're a pain in the ass to edit and navigate (Opera Mini for example, can not navigate them at all), they almost never format correctly across various screen sizes, are hidden by default within official mobile app, they restrict range of information which can be added, and often create significant problems for screen readers used by visually impaired.
I don't see a "problem" with bloat, but if one does, the solution is to make the text more concise while still addressing key aspects and points. -- dsprc [talk] 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur how is adding legislation to the legislation section considered "spam"? Mugshots (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mugshots: Please read Wikipedia:Article size. The repeated "This state says X" along with what date it was enacted bloats the page. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur , Oh, the legislation in the legislation section? Yeah, definitely not spam. If there are too many (repetitive) words for you , clean it up. I'm more worried about adding accurate data than the formatting.. Mugshots (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur Spam probably isn't the right word. The information is useful in the article. It just would be easier to read if it were in table form. Mugshots Dsprc, prose isn't always the preferred method to convey information. Sometimes a table, a chart, a map is a better way to convey certain kinds of information. When we're trying to compare the legislation on a particular issue over multiple jurisdictions, I think a table would be really helpful for readers. You say a table is difficult to edit -- they do take slighly more time to find the correct place, but otherwise it's the same amount of typing, isn't it? valereee (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur "Spam probably isn't the right word". Probably? It's not spam if it's relevant. Words mean things and it's pretty important to use the right words, in proper context, when communicating. Although it does seem to be a recurring theme here, lol. ::shrugs:: Mugshots (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: editing a wikipedia article collaboratively can be a frustrating process, I know. But try to assume WP:GOODFAITH on the parts of other editors. For the most part, what every editor is trying to do is the same thing you are trying to do: improve the article. We may have different opinions on what that means, and that can create tension. But one way we can try to NOT make that tension worse is by not making snarky remarks. It's counterproductive to your argument being listened to sympathetically if you've pissed off other editors by continually sniping at them, namecalling, making accusations of bad faith, being sarcastic, etc. valereee (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Assuming this was directed toward myself... Prose is always the preferred method. If statistical data (simple Yes/No entries) then sometimes a table is appropriate. That would be fine to indicate if a region has taken action, but would still require a large section of text to explain and elaborate upon nuance, background and context. Would make editors' perceived "bloat" worse not better. Tables significantly decrease the range of information and of thought as they narrowly confine to small subsets of criteria which don't scale. If we need to include an image, use quotation template or simply more elaborate text to explain something, it would explode the physical limitations of tables. If tables are default, we get less expansion. We should encourage growth, that way it can grow huge and we simply spin it off to a new article.
If it is difficult to edit, then that's just how it is but, the barriers to entry should not be increased. I know trying to use Visual Editor on tables is an absolute nightmare and sometimes there is no possible way to add certain content. I am more concerned with presentation to readers and have significant concerns if shoving it into a table is the proper way to convey information to them. Hasteur could sandbox an example proposal for clarity, however. There are lots of other formatting games we could play with layout or structure of text instead of just tables; section is fundamentally a list after all. Making text more concise still seems a better way to deal with cruft, as condensation was the rationale given for this proposal in first place. -- dsprc [talk] 13:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Mugshots, thought that was you up there, got confused by the multi-paragraph answer and thought the first paragraph was yours. @Dsprc:, a table may have its drawbacks, but it also has significant advantages when presenting information intended to be compared by multiple factors such as jurisdictions, date, type of protection provided, etc. valereee (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Easy to distinguish: mine are properly indented. ;) -- dsprc [talk] 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 :) valereee (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict -- a list, particularly one with a fixed format, would work. That is,
Connecticut -- jurisdictions not required to publish mugshots until guilt proven; 2013 (HB 2066, SB 158)
or something like that. valereee (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, they can be quite advantageous at times. That is why I say let us see a sandboxed draft example first. I may very well be supportive if done well. At this point it is speculation. :) -- dsprc [talk] 14:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mug shot publishing industry/Legislation section is the sandbox where I'm working on trying to slim down the repeated language. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I like that a lot. Of course, it shows up fine on my screen, so there's that.  :) valereee (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not just do something like this and just keep concise? I've no objections but, why wrap in table? Seems rather superfluous is all. -- dsprc [talk] 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"What a reporter calls the industry has no place in the article. "[edit]

Mugshots: What a reporter for Forbes calls the industry is EXACTLY what has a place in the article. I think you are misunderstanding on a very profound level what Wikipedia is about. And a claim by Forbes is not "unsubstantiated." valereee (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

valereee Then it should be in the criticism section, not the opening paragraph explaining exactly what it is. BTW, at least I'm being constructive and adding relevant content instead of just editing other peoples edits like some kind of old troll.. Mugshots (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: it is perfectly fine in lede. Leading paragraph is a summary. Content referencing or in the vein of critical positions are fit for inclusion there. You can stop the bullshit and name calling already; were already warned once. Keep it up and you'll be blocked from editing. Grow up. -- dsprc [talk] 10:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dsprc:, I've added a lot of content to the article. Would be nice if people would help instead of just being fixated on re-inserting "extortion". A reporter said the word, other than that there is no legal basis... Sorry if I feel like I'm being trolled.. Not sure exactly what bullshit you're talking about?Mugshots (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mugshots: I _am_ trying to help. :) The line in lede is A-OK for now, as it lays a groundwork for upcoming information reader will encounter. The line says this reporter from this notable publication holds this view; that is perfectly fine. If it said "this industry is filled with nothing but extortionists who hate sad puppies and sunshine" then taking exception is understandable and content would not be suitable for inclusion.
  • With that said, the lede may not be properly summarizing content of article body sufficiently at the moment. Cleaning up and expanding there would also pretty much solve your "extortion" beef (and a damn fine policy and consensus based rationale for carving it out). It is fine now, but if you made the summary an actual summary (radical idea, I know :)), the statement probably wouldn't stand on its own.
  • The bullshit is calling people children and trolls and refactoring talk page. Concentrate on content of article and ways to improve it collaboratively; look for ways to compromise and reach consensus, not belittle others or call them names (basically, just be a mature adult about things). There is a nice list of items on my user page which you may find helpful. As seemingly a relatively new contributor, you are encouraged to review and become familiar with some of them. Everyone needs to work together. -- dsprc [talk] 11:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: You have absolutely added a lot to the article, and you've improved some of the content. I wish you would stop assuming that I'm operating in bad faith and give me the same courtesy I have been giving you by assuming you are operating in good faith. I sincerely am finding reliable sources that consider this business model extortionate. Multiple sources already being used in the article use the word extortion IN THE TITLE -- just scan the references section to see how many times this business model is being called extortion. I believe you have a blind spot for this particular assertion; you've said that you don't work in the industry, but you obviously have a very deep interest in it. You might consider whether maybe your passion for the mugshot industry is a type of COI. Multiple editors have now tried to add this information to the article, which means the consensus disagrees with you. That is how wikipedia decides what goes into an article: consensus. valereee (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Move to "Mug shot publishing industry in the United States" ?[edit]

Is this even a thing anywhere else? If it's not, then we ought to make that clear in the lead and get rid of the Globalize template. valereee (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Appears a USA phenomenon, AFAICT. "Right to be forgotten" censorship and harsh libel/slander laws of other nations keep it in check (along with other forms of expression). USA also have different police/imprisonment philosophy/culture than rest of world as well. Oppose renaming article, chiefly due to ignorance - neither of us know, and I suffer from same wp:systemic bias. -- dsprc [talk] 22:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Instead of move, maybe just say in the lead that it's a US phenomenon? There's this: which says "Mug shot publishing has recently become a growing industry in the United States."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talkcontribs)
@Valereee: Fine by me. If someone else comes along with additional information is easy enough to change it. -- dsprc [talk] 00:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Legislation section[edit]

Should section only include legislation which has become law instead of every wild idea banded about by politicos? Would help keep some cruft down.

Section has a bunch of failed measures or others which indicate a measure was proposed or passed by the state houses, but zero indication or follow up if signed by Governors and into law. State houses propose and pass crazy stuff all the time, so need some focus here. I already removed section on Florida legislation as it was failed measure, state constitution and a near century of FL Supreme Court precedent prevent it. -- dsprc [talk] 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO Anything that is a restriction (Law, Exeutive Order, Judicial Ruling) that is in effect should be included. As to failed attempts, not so sure on. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's were I'm leaning on this. Would need to close some of these open-ends like Colorado, which doesn't note if Law or not; California clearly states it has become Law after being signed by Jerry Brown, need more of that. For failed proposals/attempts, mayhaps include additional subsection for proposed legislation and the like? Am inclined to leave the latter out (proposals aren't restrictions), unless numerous failed attempts themselves become notable (eg California's numerous failed ballot measures for legalization of cannabis). -- dsprc [talk] 01:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started working on something.. how's this look to everyone so far?

State Bill Introduced Status Effective Ruling Reference
California SB 1027 08/15/2015 Passed 01/01/2015 Unlawful to solicit or accept payment to remove, correct or modify mug shots.
A civil action may be brought against any website that violates the law.
Colorado HB 14-1407 04/11/2014 Passed 08/06/2014 Requires websites to remove mugshot if a person was found to be innocent.
Georgia HB 150 05/06/2013 Passed 05/06/2013 Requires websites to remove mugshot if a person was found to be innocent.
Requires websites to remove mugshot if the case was dismissed or nolle prossed.
Removal must be completed for free and within 30 days of request.
Missouri HB 1665 07/09/2014 Passed 08/28/2014 Makes it a misdemeanor to publish mugshots and request money for removal.
New Jersey A3906 03/07/2013 Passed 12/19/2013 Mugshots are no longer considered public record until a conviction has been made.
Oregon HB 3467 03/25/2013 Passed 01/01/2014 Requires websites to remove mugshot if a person was found to be innocent.
Requires websites to remove mugshot if the case was dismissed, reduced or expunged.
Removal must be completed for free and within 30 days of request.
South Carolina SB 255 12/10/2014 Pending N.A Requires websites to remove mugshot if a person was found to be innocent.
Requires websites to remove mugshot if the case was dismissed.
Removal must be completed for free and within 30 days of request.

Mugshots (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: @Dsprc: @Hasteur: .. thoughts anyone? Mugshots (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: Do it as list with prose and not $DEITY awful tables and you might be on to somethin'. My issue is simply having too many loose ends hanging off the edge with proposals and few mentions of actual laws or judicial precedent. Also, can/should draft in sandbox, ideally, or article subpages. -- dsprc [talk] 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: Sounds reasonable to me, w/@Dsprc:'s suggestion. valereee (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Valereee: @Dsprc: Ok, that's what I wanted to know. I'll quit and let someone else do that.Mugshots (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing of article redux[edit]

@Mugshots: I feel your recent changes represent whitewashing this article. Calling mugshot removal services the "reputation management industry" seems disingenuous at best. I object to nearly every change you've made. valereee (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: I have cited a CNN source that states reputation management firms handle the removal. Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article.[[9]]Mugshots (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: I'm not discussing the topic. I'm discussing how the topic is presented in the article -- the content, slant, and language. This is appropriate discussion for the talk page. valereee (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Valereee: the CNN article cited clearly said reputation management industry handles mugshot removal. Calling me disingenuous is not talking about making the article better. What ever happened to [[10]]? Mugshots (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: The CCN.com article actually seems to me to say that RemoveSlander.com via Imagemax Mugshot Removal called itself the first reputation management firm to offer some service. The fact the mugshot removal industry calls itself 'reputation management' isn't really proof the rest of the world calls them that. And yes, I am starting to wonder if you're operating in good faith. If you personally believe the mugshot removal industry is part of the reputation management industry, I suspect you may have a COI. You've said you don't work in the industry, but you clearly have an extremely strong interest in it. When we have a passion for something, that itself can represent a COI in terms of working on that subject's wikipedia article. valereee (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Valereee: There is no such thing as the "mugshot removal industry" is this some type of research you've done? Reputation management is the influencing and or control of a business or individuals reputation.Mugshots (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: I'm not sure what you're saying...are you saying the fact that there are multitudes of businesses that provide this service doesn't constitute an industry? I object to the changes you've made.  :::Sigh::: I really don't want to, but I think we're going to have to take this to arbitration. valereee (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC) @Mugshots:
Here's a source calling it the "mugshot removal industry": http://www.wired.com/2013/07/mugshot-removal-extortion/ valereee (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The process of having mugshots removed is a subset, or off-shoot, of Reputation management (you should read this).btw, I think you're giving too much weight to quotes from random,unqualified, people Mugshots (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots:, but you added that line to the article yourself. You can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. valereee (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point.. you should read the article.. not just a line Mugshots (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I did read it. I need to see uninvolved journalists reporting that mugshot removal services are part of the reputation management industry, not just that mugshot removal services are calling THEMSELVES part of the reputation management industry. Or is your point that this is part of the 'ethically gray' portion of the reputation management industry? valereee (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mugshots: Mr Watson! Good day sir! I had myself a look at the backlinks you have on this particular article.It has come my attention there are some pieces of misinformation and missing references for the state of Missouri, my repairs will begin there! StopMugshotExtortion (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So-called embarrassment extortion vs. embarrassment extortion[edit]

Mugshots, it doesn't matter that it's a phrase coined by a journalist. We're reporting what has been said by journalists. Referring to is as 'so-called' slants that reporting. The simple phrase 'Embarrassment extortion' IS one of the criticisms being made of the industry. valereee (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The name of the section doesn't make any claim to the accuracy of the term. It's simply a reference to what the sources have said. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

reverted edit[edit]

66.87.103.17 (talk · contribs) I see you reverted an edit of mine that I made reverting an edit of yours. I feel your edit added spam. Please lets discuss here before you revert again. valereee (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary link to mugshotSearchnet[edit]

The link was added unnecessarily, as no information was being referenced. A commercial mugshot publishing company is not a verifiable source of information StopMugshotExtortion (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed second paragraph of litigation[edit]

The bulk of the paragraph is merely weasel words compromising neutrality on the side of the mugshot publishing industry. The intention of the addition to the article was for the purpose of referencing a false, unreliable news website named "MugshotNews". Furthermore the ip address is also the host of US Support LLC, & Mugshotsearchnet, another link removed due to self promotion and black hat SEO back linking. Here is the proof of my claim Mugshotnews.com Ip Addr:98.180.231.149 StopMugshotExtortion (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism From User ThatsMethedUP[edit]

Recent addition to authorized link for Missouri HB1665 & HB 1335 removed, and black hat SEO links to promote US Support LLC has been attached yet again!StopMugshotExtortion (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)