Talk:Steve Comisar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Alexo65 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr Comisar has authorized the distribution of all images uploaded to Flixter, IMDB and related websites. I am in personal contact with him on a regular basis.

I have also had some contact with Mr Comisar and have his permission to upload a studio picture that is the same as on his IMDB page, but have been unable to do so.{unsign|Alexo65}}

He is the main guy in several educational videos about fraud, fraud prevention and money laundering. His appearance in that movie "Tough Luck" was meant to lend credibility to the movie in much the same way the appearance of Sonny Barger in the last season of Sons of Anarchy lent biker credibility to that series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusXXX (talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of "The Creep With the Golden Tongue"?

Can someone resolve the copyright status of the clip from "The Creep With the Golden Tongue"? I see that this is on the author's website. However, presumably GQ owns the copyright. It will need to be removed unless we know it's there with permission. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My take on it is it is owned by GQ and not the author. Under most circumstances I would say remove it and reference the GQ article; however, I am going to throw a wrench into the works, I have not been able to find any instance of the article anywhere other than the .pdf version on the author's website. It could very well be the article was never published and this was a proof that was given to the author to approve prior to deciding not to publish the article. Given that, the next question is is it really an independent, secondary source? ttonyb (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The best source for that would be a library with GQ backissues. It's in the author's clipping files; I doubt that it would be there if it weren't published, however, I agree that we want to be sure it was published. It's not surprising that print backfiles aren't online; non-tech magazines were not commonly putting articles online in 2003. I agree that this should be double-checked in a library. Unfortunately, I don't have access to GQ backfiles; where's a good place to ask for referencing help for somebody to check in a print collection? Alternately, if the article title and page numbers can be found in the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature that would satisfy me; again, I don't have access to that :(. Is this a question for the reference desk, or...? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I posted a request at the resource exchange project; let's see if someone is willing to verify this for us. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like this GQ article checks out as published. What do you think? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say use it as a ref; however, I don't believe it is enough to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If an old copy of the magazine were found, as I think I can come up with that, what is its significance apart from the reference published elsewhere on the net? It seems that standards of "notability" may vary, but as Wikipedia grows, the notability of various individuals remains in a flux. The remaining questions would relate to perspective and bias which I think gets to be a touchy subject when it is asserted that a person's only notability or significance is related to criminal convictions. OJ Simpson was significant as an athlete prior to the publication to Wikipedia, but for most of this generation, he is significant for the infamous murder case and a later conviction in Nevada for actions which would quite possibly not even be illegal in California. Mr Comisar had an acting career both before and after his "career" as a con-man and is mostly listed elswhere on the net as an actor. I originally noted this in the "early acting career" and "later acting career" sections of the article. This is mainly because the two were very different and for the most part, not appropriately listed as overlapping criminal activity. The "early acting career" being primarily TV commercials and parts in made for television movies prior to any significant criminal activity, the later career being the guest appearances on television shows as himself AKA Brett Champion, and then the appearance in Tough Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusXXX (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional references

Here are a few additional references; "Steven Robert Comisar" is a useful search term:

• Author of Consumer Fraud Guide Arrested, L.A. Times July 24, 1999

Related Reuters story The Man Who Can't Stop Conning (Reuters story) July 24, 1999

• CAREER CON MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO ATTEMPTING TO EXTORT MONEY FROM ATTORNEY RELATED TO CONVICTED MURDERER United States Attorney's Office Central District of California, Release No. 06-168, December 8, 2006
• Prisoner Admits Trying to Extort Money From Two Local Lawyers By TINA BAY Metropolitan News-Enterprise December 11, 2006 (I'm not familiar with this source, but it appears to cover legal specialty news)
• CAREER CON MAN SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS FOR ATTEMPTING TO EXTORT MONEY FROM ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MURDERER The United States Attorney's Office Central District of California, Release No. 07-066, May 15, 2007
• Also, his case is mentioned as part of the qualifications of a California federal prosecutor in Names Federal Prosecutor to Court, by Andrew Ramonas, July 2, 2010 (I'm not familiar with this source, but it appears to cover legal specialty news)

Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Television appearances?

The United States Attorney's Office Central District of California mentions his TV appearances: "Comisar is the author of America's Guide to Fraud Prevention, a handbook published under the pseudonym "Brett Champion" that landed Comisar appearances on several network television shows in 1990s." Is it worth tracking down titles and dates for these? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by 71.214.79.239

The Extortion conviction has several facets of the case which are under dispute. Mr. Comisar was coerced by prison officials and the FBI in to a series of confessions related to the situation. This was an ugly situation where a law firm had taken money from the clients and then offered a less than sufficient level of representation. Mr Comisar had gotten involved with the case when referred to it by another inmate who requested his assistance in the situation. While Mr Comisar's attempt at prison based litigation ultimately failed, it was in light of one of many situations in US prisons where people are wrongfully convicted. Mr Comisar had been attempting to redeem himself through his involvement in the situation, then through various negative interpretations of his actions, the law firm retaliated by pressuring the US attorney's office into filing the extortion charges. Realize on that one, we are talking about an entire crowd of organized crime figures, and not innocent victims of anything. Steve was among the losers in what a detailed look into the situation will reveal as a power struggle among some organized crime figures in California whom he had no previous connections with.

Another reference on the notability of Mr Comisar is a series of Television appearances he did in the late 1990s. I would also note, that Mr Comisar had requested that a page be put up about him on Wikipedia, and it initially included a public "bio" which he has listed on several other websites. TTonyB1 has taken it as a personal crusade to cause damage to Mr Comisar through Wikipedia, thus any and all "contributions" or argument from ttonyb1 should be viewed in light of his obvious hostility toward Mr Comisar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.79.239 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC) alligations

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to voice unsupported views. If you have reliable sources to support the allegations, please provide them, otherwise please do not add them back to the article. There is no personal crusade to cause damage to Comisar, all the statements in the article are supported by reliable sources, unlike the fluff piece that was the original article. You might want to note that it was because of the work done by Jodi.a.schneider and myself that the article survives. I would suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before you make any more comments as you did in your above statement. Such statements will get you banned from editing or creating articles in Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The black and white photo seen at the IMDB page and elsewhere is public domain. It is not "copyright material" from anyone but Mr Comisar, who has requested its use on Wikipedia. Excerpts from several of his television appearances are available for viewing on Youtube. These are not "allegations" but television appearances.

There are other articles on the net surrounding the controversy of the relationship between the other inmate and that inmate's lawyer, however much of that is disputed by the parties involved and may not be appropriately discussed on the page about Mr Comisar. I had originally submitted the biography that has also now been posted at the IMDB page for Mr Comisar. It is also found on several other websites and authorized by Mr Comisar. I would request that my account here not suffer additional attacks or blockages due to this matter.

Mr Comisar had made a request for the original article to appear word for word to be similar to other bios posted elsewhere. I resisted that due to the academic theme of Wikipedia, however I still maintain that Ttonyb/Ttonyb1 has transformed the article into a "hit piece" and taken hostile action against me in pressing the "sock puppet" and other issues to restrict my account. I also note that the alleged copyright issue if related to the standard black and white picture of Mr Comisar is also a false issue. The picture has been submitted to several sites as a public domain picture.

If I need to actually argue the bias that is going to be plain and clearly evident in a press release issued by a prosecutorial organization (the US Attorney's office) then perhaps it is a lost cause, but realize, that the "US Attorney" is always an interested party in a legal dispute, not a neutral arbiter or reporter of facts. Or perhaps someone wants to rewrite the history of COINTELPRO? of course not. You can call it a soapbox, but what Ttonyb/Ttonyb1 appears to doggedly consider credible is only that information published by an obviously biased party (US attorney's office press releases) in any issues surrounding Mr Comisar.

We are not trying to "argue" the nature of Mr Comisar's convictions, but the fact of the matter is, that being guilty of some crimes, even several crimes, does not equate to being guilty of all crimes. Bank robbers are rarely child molesters, Con artists are rarely personally violent. Professionals, whether for better or worse tend to eventually specialize as Mr Comisar did in the past. I think it is an incorrect implication to have the statement "numerous crimes" in the main article while articles even about other criminals wills tend to be fairly accurate about what they were known for. John Dillenger never ran a con, Steve Comisar never robbed a bank. Neither man ever smuggled drugs internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusXXX (talk • contribs) 07:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can address your "issues".

• Paragraph #1 - Material that is copyrighted, regardless of the owner of the material, is still copyrighted. There are very specific rules forbidding use of copyrighted material in Wikipedia and very specific guidelines concerning how to allow for the use of copyrighted material. I don't understand the comment about the TV programs and how this relates to the copyright comment.
• Paragraph #2 - The article item concerning "relationship between the other inmate and that inmate's lawyer" was removed from the article because it was written in a manner that lacked any support or reliable sources. If you can find any reliable sources to support the comments you are welcome to add the text to the article; however, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to voice unsupported views and any unsupported or badly supported text will be removed. Let's be clear about your account, it has not been attacked and the block you received stemmed solely from your attempt to use multiple accounts to edit the article.
• Paragraph #3 - The fact that Comisar requested you add an article to Wikipedia about him is a concern that there is a WP:COI issue. The copyright issue has been addressed in the para#1 comments. I have not transformed the article into a hit piece. All the text is supported by reliable sources and there are no false allegations. It may lack any text such as he likes cats or he sends his mother $20 a week, but he is not notable for such actions. There have been no "hostile actions" taken against you. You chose to act as a sock puppet and violate Wikipedia guidelines. I simply pointed your actions out, the action was reviewed by others, and the action to temporarily ban you was taken by the reviewing admin. There have been no other actions to restrict your account. The copyright issue has been addressed above.
• Paragraph #4 - You can condemn the US attorney's office press releases, but there is plenty of other secondary support for the statements in the article, including the GQ article.
• Paragraph #5 - Wikipedia is not for self-promotion.

I suggest you review the Welcome message on your talk page. It has a number of useful links that might help you with the creation and editing of this article. ttonyb (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported article text

Mr Comisar has been a member of both SAG and AFTRA. His earlier working name with the film industry has been Steve Camden. Video proof of this will soon be posted on Youtube. Mr Comisar received a primary listing in the acting credits for the movie Tough Luck. Minor cameo appearances tend to not be listed this way as they get listed lower down in the credits just above extras. Mr Comisar's credit in the film is consistent with some definitions of "co-starring" although we can see how the wording may be disputed, the listing in credits is clearly above the level of "minor cameo" in the appearance and is cross referenced on several movie sites. The mention of the Lee Strasberg acting training is significant to several elements of Mr Comisar's life. It is my personal opinion that the formal acting training played a role in other elements of his life due to the acting/interaction element of his performance cons done on the television shows. This information is verifiable but I am not as yet fully sure how to link the information to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.79.239 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsupported text to the article. Unless the text is support by independent, verifiable, reliable sources the text will be removed. Please note the author of the text has the WP:BURDEN to provide such support. If you have questions about how to provide support please let me know and I can help you. ttonyb (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a youtube channel with a short video showing Mr Comisar in a 1995 movie called "fists of Iron" where he plays a waiter. Given his apparent age on screen and the date of the film production, I consider it verifiable that he was actually doing acting work under the name Steve Camden. Steve Camden was not a "lookalike" but a working name for Steve Comisar when he was acting early in his career. I should also note that it is reasonable to believe that even small speaking roles in a Hollywood movie production generally do require SAG membership and SAG membership generally does not come to someone immediately, but after doing a considerable amount of uncredited work, which lends some credibility to claims of having previously done television commercial work. I also have a reference for a Steve Camden who had a small role in a made for TV movie called "The Seduction of Gina" but have yet to find footage of a person resembling Mr Comisar in the film (he would have been fairly young then).

I still consider the shortened "acting career" being condensed to a single mention of his role in "Tough Luck" being just a cameo as being incorrect. There are two possibilities to this, both claimed elsewhere on the net. One that Mr Comisar's presence on the set was to lend authenticity to the film, the other that he was simply another actor whose agent had gotten him the job due to qualifications and experience. I don't think it was simply a charitable "toss out role". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.79.239 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is all speculative and unsourced, and thus totally unacceptable for a biography of a living person in particular. Just because Comisar is sending me (and presumably other people) letters with his preferred version of this article, doesn't mean we have license to include such things without the customary reliable sources. He is, after all, a convicted professional liar and hoaxer. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The youtube channel has been updated with videos which clearly show Mr Comisar in the roles that he claimed to have acted in. I have obtained a letter from the Screen Actor's Guild dated June 15 2011 from an official there named Kathy Gunnel who can be contacted at (323( 549-6778. The SAG verifies that Mr Comisar was a member in good standing from July 16 1984 to April 30 2003 (I assume when he was arrested and no longer seeking work as an actor). They also verify that he worked under the name Steve Camden with the SAG ID number 00284877. This information is not "speculative". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.144.108 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue to add unsupported text to the article. Unless the text is supported by neutral, independent, verifiable, reliable sources the text will be removed. Please note the author of the text has the WP:BURDEN to provide such support. If you have questions about how to provide support please let me or Ttonyb1 know and we can help you. Note that "verifiable" means from published sources, not from personal letters, phone calls, and the like; nor from "can't you tell it's him on YouTube clips" assertions (see WP:OR). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Annoying personal contacts

Comisar has taken to writing me at my home street address, asking me to improve his article with lots of unsourced information. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that harassing people he has discovered via the internet could easily lead to him losing his internet access privileges. I am sure that if a prison allows its inmates access to Wikipedia it is for educational purposes, not so that they can try to manage their own reputations or just use it to be annoying. Personally, I wouldn't kick up a stink if it was just one letter, provided it wasn't abusive, but if he keeps it up... --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He is not sending me e-mail: that was requested (via the prison system), but I declined to accept the request. He is sending me snail mails (seven or eight so far) to my home street address. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty obsessive and you would be well within your rights to complain about it. My point is that he clearly has access to the internet in prison, as he is seeing and obsessing over this article, and I doubt that he would be allowed to retain that access if the prison knew he was using it find people to annoy, even if the actually annoying part is done by good old snail mail. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr Comisar is attempting to set the record straight in relation to validated recognition on his non-criminal career, although at this point it seems obvious the two were related, it is dishonest and adversarial to emphasize one without an honest and complete acknowledgment of the other. What I am seeing here is evidence of strong personal hostility against Mr Comisar when what we are doing is an honest attempt at presenting the facts of his life in a positive but realistic light. Now I have recently become aware of vandalism to other pages that we have put up on Mr Comisar's behalf.

I don't know what satisfaction that you get from undoing other people's work, but in your internet lynch mob mentality, you have been making it plain and obvious that your agenda to defame Mr Comisar outweighs any adherence to facts and verifiable information as has been presented elsewhere and the only reason it is not here is the difficulty I have encountered uploading pictures, and of course video uploads are impossible on Wikipedia in its present form (unless you can show me otherwise). Any false offers of "help" from Ttonyb1 are just that, false, and with the obvious hostile intent of those Wikipedia staff who decided to get involved in this page, I think there is an opening for a liability issue that should not be tarnishing the otherwise good work that is being done at Wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.78.37 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? Sounds like an admission of both conflict of interests and meatpuppetry. Anyway, Wikipedia is not for "setting the record straight". Axes should be ground elsewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry? No, what this is getting to be is a personal web stalking hate campaign. Yes, I know Mr Comisar, and so do some other people in this world who have decided to help him out with some positive exposure on the net. What you are doing here is a smear campaign. I have just become aware of a false facebook page that has been put up in the name of "Steve Comisar" which includes your hit piece "bio" sourced from Wikipedia. I don't have a fancy term for it, but it is clearly the wrong thing to do and you are doing it with the intent of smearing Mr Comisar.

Bullshit! We have no control over what Facebook does; and as an open-source project, that means that Facebook is allowed to re-use Wikipedia content. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How would anyone know if my offer to help was false if no one has taken the time to request help? (This does not include Mr. Comisar's attempt to contact me via e-mail — I have no interest in any direct e-mail contact and believe all discussion concerning the article should take place here.) I will also point out that the original article would have been deleted if another editor and I had not taken an interest in the article and edited it.

I am concerned that 71.214.78.37's statement, "...I think there is an opening for a liability issue that should not be tarnishing the otherwise good work that is being done at Wikipedia in general" may be considered a threat of legal action. ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you were contacted for "help" then you managed to get my primiary Wikipedia account blocked. That's when I figured out that it was a false offer. The false Facebook page appeared at the same time your associates replaced Mr Comisar's desired biography with your Wikipedia hack job version on Freebase.com and sent threats to my regular email. Given the processing times associated with IMDB updates, the removal of Mr Comisar's references to prior film and television appearances and vandalism to his IMDB pages also dates to roughly the same time period. This is called "destruction of evidence" in the legal world. You are so bent out of shape about the truth of Mr Comisar having once had an acting career that references to it are getting vandalized and deleted elsewhere on the net. Even when videos of him were clearly posted of him appearing in multiple films. What's next? What you have done is basically carry out a net war on a vulnerable person. You are sick.

So now with hit and run techniques, you re-nominate this entire page for deletion from wikipedia. Further evidence of your vindictive action, like a child who would rather tip over a game board rather than admit "defeat" when all I was trying to accomplish at the start of this was the establishment of a small Wiki page noting an individual who appeared in a few films and television shows and as mentioned in the original bio, has been looking to sell the rights to parts of his story to some old associates in the Hollywood crowd. The deletion you seek of course would be the concealment of the source where the internet attacks against Mr Comisar originated because the fact of the matter is, they originated right here. It is plain and clear they originated here and nowhere else when anyone can look at the upload/update dates on the other pages and sites, and the fact that the hack job stuff starts and ends with its basis on the Wikipedia article that you folks continue to assert in its present smear version which includes:

Continued deletion of film and television credits other than one wrongfully listed as "cameo" in the film Tough Luck (and to note, that although video of Mr Comisar performing in the film are posted elsewhere, someone managed to get his name deleted from the credits using a wiki-like function through the IMDB automated system). His credits from Seduction of Gina were deleted, and his credit in Fists of Iron continued to be denied in spite of the fact of a video clip from the film which clearly shows him with a comedy speaking role in the film.

An open disclosure of the location of Mr Comisar in a particular prison where anyone who wishes to would be inclined to take action against him. This information is not otherwise openly disclosed in other articles about other persons on other wiki pages, although not consistently omitted or disclosed.

Attempts my Mr Comisar to contact editors here and set records straight, verify information, and explain facts had been not just taken as "offensive" by "pestering" but openly discussed as cause by retaliation by persons claiming to be Wikipedia contributors. Which means plainly you would rather see Mr Comisar beaten, isolated and removed from normal prison activities (like use of a library or internet) than simply admit certain aspects of his past career and allow a normal small biographical article to be posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.145.28 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem understanding who controls what. As has already been made 100% clear, the Facebook page is nothing to do with us. Neither is the IMDB site. I doubt that what is going on there is malicious or intended to disadvantage Mr Comisar but even if it was it wouldn't be anything to do with us.

As far as I know nobody here is trying to get his internet access privileges revoked. If that happens it will be as a result of his, and your, actions. Not ours.

We just want him and his friends to respect Wikipedia and stop trying to use it as a platform for pushing their own ideas of how he should be covered. Neither Barack Obama nor the Queen of England can write their own encyclopaedia entries. Why should anybody else?

Personally I think it is great that the prison allows its inmates to use sites like Wikipedia. For those willing to engage with them for constructive educational and cultural purposes I am sure that they can provide a lot of benefits. It would be very sad if he were to lose his access due to abuse of it, which brings me onto my main point:

I assume that you regard Mr Comisar as a friend, as you are willing to spend so much of your time flogging this particular dead horse on his behalf. If so, please consider carefully whether you are actually helping him by behaving in this manner. Is it really in his best interests for him to become obsessed with this article and other media coverage of himself, all of which is out of his control, and put his internet access privileges at risk? As a real friend, shouldn't you be trying to encourage him to get a bit of perspective and just let it go. There is so much more he could be doing with his internet time than wasting it on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Annoying personal contacts, take 2

I have just received a letter from Comisar at my work address in the UK. I have not opened it yet. I am inclined to regard this as harassment. If the content is anything but gracious or if I receive a second letter then I will definitely regard it as such. I would welcome advice on how I should pursue this. I am not looking to hurt or disadvantage Comisar but I do want him to stop. I will certainly not tolerate the level of crap Orange Mike has put up with.

Is the prison obligated to let him write to whoever he wishes or can I request that they prevent him sending me any further letters? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just glanced at the contents. It was sent on the 12th of July. It must have been sent by slow boat. I am more inclined to let it slide now, so long as it really was a one off. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Information removed from First section should be restored.

In a version of the heading section, reference was placed to his acting career. It was quickly deleted with the note of "Let's be clear about what he is primarily notable for". I will not argue that one of his most significant aspects is his criminal history; however, no one can deny that he has made several movie and TV appearances. The fact that he is significantly notable for his career in crime is not something anyone can reasonably delete; I did not delete it, but left it there, as it was. However, his television/movie career - while perhaps not as famous or interesting (to those who revel in others' misfortunes) as his criminal career - is certainly expansive enough to make a significant note on the page, and be included in the first section. I do not know about you, but I have not had ANY TV/Movie appearances. He was not just an extra in some film where you could see him for a second - he had credited roles in multiple films, and was a featured guest on numerous talk shows and news magazine programs.

Deleting reference to these roles lends itself to propagating a misleading article. None of the statements made were unsupported.

As an example, I point to the entry for Roman Polanski. Many know him primarily for the fact that he sexually molested a young girl - a crime far more heinous than any that Mr. Comisar has committed - yet the first paragraph of his wikipedia entry does not make a single reference to his disgusting crimes. How is this a balanced site? It seems, from this little bit of experience here, that there is indeed a vendetta against Mr. Comisar on this site. I will not argue that he has always behaved as well as he could, but facts are not changed by this. I would like to see the information on his acting career be replaced in the first paragraph - alongside - NOT REPLACING - mention of his criminal history.

Thank you.

HohiroKurita (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

His unremarkable exposure as an actor is hardly a notable aspect of his life. There are many other more active actors that do not have Wikipedia articles - simply put they do not meet WP:ENT. Too re-add to the first paragraph would be misleading. Nothing in his acting “career” is WP:ENT enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia if it were not for his criminal ventures; therefore, it is not logical to include this as something he is notable for. His acting “career” is indicated in the body of the article so nothing has been deleted.

Before you continue down the road of personal vendetta, read WP:AGF and note that no one has anything to gain if your allegations were the truth. This is about the accuracy of this Wikipedia defined notability, not about how he “behaves”. His behavior is not a criterion for inclusion. All this vendetta junk has been discussed before in the comments above and this combined with the comments about Polanski are frankly a misguided attempt to avoid the real issues at hand. If you wish to complain about the presumed bias in the Polanski article the correct place to do so in that talk page not here. reddogsix (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Reddogsix,

Please forgive my inexperience to Wikipedia, but I would like to learn. It is not misleading to put "American actor" in the first sentence because Mr. Comisar has 126 credits as an actor in movies, television, and commercials. He is notable for being an actor, without question. He is not, however, notable for being an "extortionist", having only one conviction for this crime; yet you allow this fact to remain in the first paragraph of the article. Let's be fair and also include the notable fact that he is an American actor. HohiroKurita (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABLE for the Wikipedia definition of notable. "Real world" notability does not apply here. Please read WP:ENT for what it takes to be a notable actor. reddogsix (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with America's Guide to Fraud Prevention

The references cited all talk mainly about the author and his notoriety as a con man - the book itself isn't particularly notable. Ruby Murray 16:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Object to deletion of article about America's Guide to Fraud Prevention

I object to the deletion of the book article for America's Guide to Fraud Prevention. Steve Comisar's book America's Guide to Fraus Prevention should have its own brief article. Besides discussing the author, all of the 11 references I have read also mention the book. All references are reliably sourced. Don't allow the fact that the author is a notorious scammer cloud your sense of fairness. The book should be mentioned in Steve Comisar AND also have its own separate article. The book meets all criteria for its own article per Wikipedia Policy. The proposed article is appropriate and should be published. This is my vote on the matter. ----katmandu111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.37.227 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support merger - book is important only in relation to Comisar's history of scamming the public; it has no independent notability whatsoever. See WP:BOOK. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion of the page: America's Guide to Fraud Prevention

Object to deletion of article about America's Guide to Fraud Prevention[edit] I could not find anything new, same old stuff.

I object to the deletion of the book article for America's Guide to Fraud Prevention. Steve Comisar's book America's Guide to Fraud Prevention should have its own brief article. Besides discussing the author, all of the 11 references I have read also mention the book. All references are reliably sourced. Don't allow the fact that the author is a notorious scammer cloud your sense of fairness. The book should be mentioned in Steve Comisar AND also have its own separate article. The book meets all criteria for its own article per Wikipedia Policy. The proposed article is appropriate and should be published. This is my vote on the matter. ----katmandu111 Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.37.227 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2 Furthermore The article is being improved as reddogsix suggested. Both citations support the addendum to the last sentence. The book is considered a "piece of fraud history" by the Association of Fraud Examiners and is on display in their National fraud Museum{1}{9} (same). Please edit accordingly--Katmandu111

PLEASE REDIRECT

Re: America's Guide to Fraud Prevention, by Brett Champion/Steve Comisar - Since the book article I wrote had been deleted for not being notable enough, I'm requesting a redirect for this book title to the Steve Comisar article. I'm also requesting a redirect for "Brett Champion" to the Steve Comisar article. This way, when site users enter the book or Brett, they are taken directly to the Comisar article, which covers both, instead of receiving the message of: "the page does not exist" and finding nothing. I do not know how to do this. Would you please be so kind as to do this? Thank you, Amit Mishra Maniamit (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling all Wiki editors

I need help with the Steve Comisar article. The page is not allowing me to make edits. I am also a novice and don't know how to do it myself. REDIRECT: Please set-up a redirect for Comisar's book, "America's Guide to Fraud Prevention" and his pseudonym "Brett Champion" to the Comisar article, to make finding information on these subjects easier for Wikipedia site users. CAREER IN CRIME: Ruby Murray was kind enough to add the accountingtoday.com reference [10] to the Comisar article. The last sentence in "Career in crime" should now say: "The book is considered a "piece of fraud history" by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners and is on display in their museum. [10] [11]." The new reference fully supports this addendum. Can someone please edit this? Kindest regards, Amit Mishra Maniamit (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk: Tokyogirl79

Inappropriate editor-directed lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have also read the GQ article again and found the acting reference. The article does mention all the talk shows which we know are not acting. The article also mentions his acting in movies. It's there, read it for yourself and edit this article per the suggestions. The Observer article has nothing to do with Comisar's acting. It references what he is notable for, being a con man. The statement was not from a Comisar interview. It was obtained from law enforcement. It's a credible news article, from a reliable source, written by a reputable journalist. It should be included in this article. Amit Mishra, India.--Maniamit (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

more lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note to @Tokyogirl78 and associates: I just re-read the GQ article and it certainly does mention his acting. It specifically references his role in the motion picture Tough Luck, and the producer of the film says "he is not a bad actor." The article is now worthy of the one reliably sourced proposed sentence. As for the Observer article, the claims made were not extracted from any interview with Comisar. The reporter was given the information directly from the FBI. The claim is solid, reliable, and the sentence should be included.71.254.190.157 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's negligible acting career. A single mention in one source does not make the subject of this article notable as an actor. Continuing to push this agenda is becoming disruptive. Scr★pIronIV 21:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

GQ does mention acting!

Guess what? More lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The GQ article most definitely mentions Comisar's acting. Please read the entire article again. When you find the acting claim, can you admit you were wrong and add the suggested sentence to the end of the career section? Please be fair. The top ten con men claim in the Observer article was not a reference from an interview with Comisar. The claim was independently investigated by the writer. I just emailed him and he told me. Comisar has no control of what goes into the article. The article is referenced by sources independent from him. The fact that he is a liar or scam artist is irrelevant here. We should focus on the Comisar "article" and not Comisar the person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F283:3D00:2C0E:96B7:D95C:9009 (talk • contribs)

GQ article is a reliable source.

Yet more lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The GQ article is a reliable source. It was an investigative piece written by Sabrina Erdely, an award-winning journalist. (see her Wikipedia page) The article clearly references Comisar's acting. GQ was used to reference Comisar's acting in the very first version of the article. Every subsequent version of the article over the past 4 years mentioned his acting until last month. The mention of his acting only became problematic when IMDb was added as an additional reference. One short sentence about his acting, referenced by GQ, at the end of the career section seems reasonable. This in no way implies that he is notable as an actor. This merely reveals the biographical fact that he did some acting. If anyone agrees, please edit. "Comisar had supporting acting roles in several motion pictures, television shows, and commercials.[3]" [3] GQ article link. I also strongly disagree that the Observer piece is not a reliable source. It was not an opinion piece, and it was not from a blog. It was an investigative article from the actual New York Observer newspaper, a very reliable source. (see their Wikipedia page) I'd ask that you please reconsider this edit as well. If anyone agrees, please edit. "The FBI has ranked Comisar in the top ten con men of all time, second only to Frank Abagnale, the subject of the motion picture, Catch Me if You Can, directed by Steven Spielberg.[12]" [12] The New York Observer http://observer.com/2015/11/how-watching-mr-robot-made-me-paranoid-about-getting-hacked/ I completely agree with everything else that all of the other editors had to say about this article. A big heartfelt thanks to @Tokyogirl79, @DanielRigal, @LjL, and @Onel5969, for educating me on the Wikipedia editing process. You all seem like very intelligent, dedicated, and decent people. Keep up the good work. 205.115.188.114 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC) GQ is not usable since it only mentions that he appeared on various talk shows. Being on a talk show is not the same thing as being an actor. Now as far as the Observer source goes, a look at the claim shows that it references an interview with Comisar where he claims that he was one of the top ten and that he was an actor. Given that he's in jail for being conning people, we cannot accept anything he says at face value and we absolutely must have this backed up with more reliable sources than this. Under these circumstances Comisar cannot be seen as a reliable source on himself since he has a history of being dishonest whenever lying would benefit himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC) And that is the fundamental point. All references to Comisar being an actor, track back directly to Comisar - a convicted fraudster. And incidentally we also have a lot of trouble with this sort of claim on numerous articles. Writing a memoir makes the subject suddenly an "author", appearing one on Tonight makes them a "television personality" and so on. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing requested on the Steve Comisar article >>>

Lobbying by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New Google references over the past year support the inclusion in the opening paragraph of Comisar being an actor (as well as a con man an extortionist) please edit the article as follows >>> Opening paragraph >>> edit first sentence >>> Steven Robert Comisar (born December 30, 1961) is an American actor [12][13], convicted con man, and extortionist [1]. Alternative opening paragraph >>> edit first sentence >>> Steven Robert Comisar (born December 30, 1961) is a convicted con man, American actor [12][13], and extortionist [1]. Acting career paragraph >>> add first sentence >>> Comisar has appeared as an actor in many movies, TV shows, and commercials [13]. Photo box >>> edit occupation >>> Occupation: actor, con man (or) con man, actor Comisar article references >>> [13] "Jailed Actor Steve Comisar asks President Obama for an Early Release" - Reuters article: 9-1-15, retrieved: 11-24-15 [ ? ] Many other references on Google supporting Comisar as an actor. (search: Steve Comisar + actor) Please make the above suggested edits. Not being an editor, I have no clue on how to do it myself. Much thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonySpraks (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar article needs technical assistance.

Lobbying by blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please provide some technical assistance on the Steve Comisar article by enabling the reference links. You are not being asked to edit the article, just to provide your technical skills to the editing already made. Not everyone has the computer skills to navigate the tricky editing process. I personally can't figure out how to do it. Much obliged, Tony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:F283:3D00:D94E:3ACB:D12C:3D07 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Comisar is notable as a convicted con artist. He is not notable as an actor. Appearing in a documentary is not "acting". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar article talk page

Lobbying by sockuppet of blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I feel that the removal of the acting career section from Steve Comisar by Cullen328 was erroneous, and not in compliance with WP:Neutrality. Please consider reinstatement of the article to "22 Nov 2015" revision after reviewing these observations: Acting career section should be reinstated because although not notable in themselves, the acting roles are verifiable and standard biographical details. While not entirely reliable, IMDb is still used to reference acting roles in countless articles, and should be okay to use here as well. Please reinstate the article back to the "22 Nov 2015" revision as it represents the most neutral and overall accurate portrait of Comisar. Note: Ruby Murray (a great editor) created the acting career section over a year ago using IMDb as the reference. Nobody objected to it until Cullen328 came along and butchered the article.PediatricMD (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)PediatricMD It's really odd how many new editors appear out of nowhere to suggest changes to this page. As noted before, appearing in a documentary isn't "acting", and if (if) the other appearances are to be mentioned, note needs to be made of the nature of those films e.g. pornography. Part of the problem with IMDB is that, even if the cast list is to be considered reliable, its not always reliable or complete as to the nature of the production, which matters. If no other sources mention this it's likely not worth mentioning. EEng (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

More on Comisar article situation

Lobbying by sockuppet of blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello again. I did not know about any threats but I did some research. Comisar is in prison with no access to email or the Internet (including Wikipedia). It is highly unlikely he had anything to do with any threats, nor did his agents, managers, or lawyers, who are all very well established and reputable people. The alleged threats were all hot air. My private investigator friend found out that "TonySpraks" is an 87 year old handicapped man. There is absolutely no legitimacy to any of his threats and they should not be taken seriously. There is a nothing to worry about. When contacted by the PI he profusely apologized and promised never to visit the Wikipedia site again. I did not know anything about this before I suggested the changes to the article. I just saw an injustice to the article and I suggested a reinstatement to a previous revision.PediatricMD (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Please tell us what your relationship is with Steve Comisar, PediatricMD? Certainly you do not expect us to believe that, out of the blue, you were motivated to hire a private investigator who, in less than three days, identified an anonymous Wikipedia editor, and interviewed that remorseful 87 year old who threatened me only a couple of days ago? Have you ever heard the phrase "strains credulity"? While you are at it, can you or your crack private investigator tell us who actually controls Steve Comisar's Twitter feed, where he (or someone posing to be him) spews a continuous stream of tasteless, scatological jokes? You seem to think that it is an "injustice" that Wikipedia does not describe Comisar as a notable actor. No, it is not unjust, unless you can provide a reliable source (not the IMDb page he wrote) that devotes significant coverage to his acting career. Comisar is notable as a felon and a con man, not as a movie and TV actor. Wikipedia will not be a supple tool in Comisar's efforts to win early release and reshape his image into a "lovable Hollywood rogue". That will not happen. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC) I am sad, but not greatly surprised, to hear that he lost his prison internet access. I did try to warn him and his friends that this could happen back in 2011. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we really being neutral and fair?

More lobbying that fits the existing pattern
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "acting career" section should not have been deleted. I agree that while Comisar is not notable as an actor, he still has verifiable acting credits, and the "acting career" section should be reinstated (22 Nov 2015). The acting is a part of his overall career. The credits are biographical facts which are important to the article. It paints a more complete picture of Comisar. Omitting (or concealing) this is unfair to the article itself. (see comments on User talk: LjL) Besides IMDB, the GQ article [3] referenced in Comisar also mentions his acting. There are also countless Google links referencing his acting. (Google: Steve Comisar actor) Maybe one of those links can also be used? Are we trying to punish "Steve Comisar" because he is a criminal? If so, what we are actually doing is punishing the article by not giving site users a complete biographical picture of him. If Comisar were a notable college professor that also had acting credits, they would not be omitted. It's okay to use IMDB to reference his acting. It's used regularly as a reference. Revert it back to 22 Nov 2015 and let's see if anyone opposes the revision. I think not. Comisar is a criminal and probably a major scumbag. I find the fact that he is those things and also appeared as an actor in films and TV is extremely interesting. Why exclude it? Please revert.205.115.188.114 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I looked him up on Google and most of the links on the first couple of pages seem to lead back to a couple of press releases, so these aren't good sources; anyone can put out a press release on anything. The GQ article would be better, though.--TheThoughtfulOrc (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar article

Lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur with the inclusion of {acting career} in Commissar because it is pertinent to this article. Reverting to 11/22/2015 using imdb as a source is also appropriate here. Omitting this information does an dis-service to the Wikipedia encycloprdia. 71.254.190.157 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar article

Lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not an editor but I am very curious about something. What's the governing Wikipedia policy that dictates the exclusion of any mention of Comisar as an actor? What was wrong with the January 16 version? I thought it was fair. Is every edit on this article going to be automatically reverted? It seems that is exactly what"s happening now. 71.254.190.157 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC) He is not going in category "actors" as he is not an actor. Having done a tiny bit of acting does not make him an actor. This has been explained before. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Steve's acting career

Lobbying
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't hide Comisar's acting career. I also agree that the Comisar article should mention that he is an actor (because he is) and include all of his acting credits, even if they are sourced by IMDb. Although Comisar is not notable just as an actor, he is known for being the only notable con man who is also an actor. These biographical facts are necessary to the article. Therefore, I ask an experienced editor to revert the article back to 11-22-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)