Talk:Steven Kunes

Article problems

the article is apparently an autobio and suffers from huge sourcing problems. There are many quite grandiose claims, which may well be true and would render this person eminently notable, but they need to be sourced to independent, neutral sources. An article by the subject himself in a local Malibu magazine is definitely not enough to substantiate a non-trivial contribution to Rain Man. I am not sure either that buy.com can be used to source a contribution to Cheers, either. IMDb is not a independent reliable source and cannot be used to source claims in this article. There is a claim of a Pulitzer Prize nomination, but the name "Kunes" does not appear on the page given. CTVA or Moovies don't look very confidence-inspiring, either and may well not be reliable sources either. The NYT, of course, is a good source, but only some minor contributions can be sourced to that link. The references to articles in local newspapers are trivial and do not establish notability in any way. If the subject of the article himself (who is apparently doing most of the editing) cannot find better sources than this, it has to be feared that there are none... --Crusio (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Crusio. As a Wikipedia neophyte I should have studied quite a bit more as to how to go about submitting material and appropriate references. So I will leave it to the pros (you, OrangeMike, etc.) to clean up the mess I may have created. As for Rain Man, I was referenced as an uncredited writer on the front page of Daily Varitey on May 20, 1992. This was in regard to an original screenplay I wrote and sold for $1.2 million that same month. Daily Variety is a reliable trade publication. I am not sure if they have a website or not. Here is one place it was mentioned: http://www.hollywoodlitsales.com/cf/specscript/daily.cfm?StartRow=10521 I will not submit any further information on myself as that could show bias and I only seem to be screwing this up for you guys anyway! Thanks, Crusio! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenkunes (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you really won these prizes, why are you not mentioned on the websites of the prizes in question? When you have a conflict of interest, you can always offer up links and references here on the talk page of the article, as has been suggested several times in the past. See our guidance on best practices for persons with a conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the O Henry and PEN/Faulkner Award claims. Lists of winners of both prizes are easily found, and do not mention this person. There are other dubious claims in the entry. In light of this story, all of the claims in the entry may need going over. Hairhorn (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am starting the process of blanking unsourced claims, which in part meant blanking the entire "awards" section. The claim about receiving an award for "Rain Man" is particularly off, since he is not credited as a writer on this film, and all Google searches for "Valley International Film Festival's Vision Award for Writing," the award he is supposed to have won, lead to user-posted biographies of, you guessed it, Steven Kunes. The "hollywoodlitsales" link posted above establishes nothing; it's a database entry of uncertain reliability that claims that Kunes sold a spec script, summarized as "Sultan makes deposits in sperm bank in case he is assassinated". Doesn't exactly sound like Rain Man to me. Hairhorn (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hairhorn: Pending the court date referenced in the Santa Barbara Independent, it may be unadvisable to edit or remove credits at this time. WilsonBaker (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)WilsonBaker

Why? Nothing in any court case can oblige Wikipedia to retain content that we decide that we don't want. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it either. I already removed the unsourced claims. And I don't see a good reason, court case or no, for putting unsourced content, some of which is demonstrably false, back into the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As a lover of the old World Book encyclopedia and a former research assistant, I am surprised and concerned that the Wiki editors feel this subject is encyclopeda-worthy. Even as an alleged con man, Kunes does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia and deletion of the entire subject should be seriously considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.151.78 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed. Also, if he's not notable, why did you add him to this list of alumni? Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

References

I can't find a citation for a Kunes story in the New Yorker. Is there a pen name involved here? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also unable to locate a Kunes story in The Atlantic. And searching for the "William E. Kelley Award" finds other stories about the subject, but no other award announcements. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Humanitas Prize mentioned here, IMDB has a mini-bio for the subject (clearly related to this page) and a resume that lists Humanitas Awards, Humanitas Prize, 1987 "St. Elsewhere" -- "New Heart" episode. But the Humanitas Prize site lists a 1987 award to Gary David Goldberg & Alan Uger for FAMILY TIES. St. Elsewhere won in 1985, recipients were John Masius & Tom Fontana. It also lists an O'Henry prize in 1978, when the prize was won by Woody Allen for "The Kugelmass Episode” . I can't see how citation [3] in the article supports its citation anchor. Could we be looking at a hoax? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that perhaps the subject has been puffing up his resume, and been caught at it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Variety story

This is trapped behind a paywall, although a short except is convincing enough that there is actually a mention of Kunes. However, not only was this film never made, I can find no mention anywhere of the company that is supposed to have purchased the script, "Westporl Film Partners". So in the broader context of Kunes' background and behaviour, one paywall source for this deal isn't really going to cut it. I have to confess I'm also curious about all the anonymous IP edits now that Kunes is on the lam.... Hairhorn (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the quality if the source, but it seems that something's there. I wish we had a much better source for the Cheers credit. The IP edits? We've got to scrutinize them carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems as if the Wiki editors are out to get this guy and rely solely on reports from two not all that credible local (Santa Barbara) tabloids that may have an ax to grind. Not exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica here. People don't make the front page of Daily Variety without credibility. So the film was never made, not many are. A sale is still a sale. To discount Hollywood's major trade publication in regard to this subject qualifies Wikipedia and an internet farce, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.132.35 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I just think a guy who cons his friends and tried to con People magazine might have tried the same thing with Variety. Note that by editing as an IP you are letting everyone know where you are... Hairhorn (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Kunes has lately managed to get a few sources to falsely call him a Netflix producer (see [1][2], [3], [4], cache of [4] particularly the retraction at the top of the last one), so the fact that a single source mentions a Kunes script sale should be taken not with a grain, but with TONS of salt. Accordingly I have left the mention of the Variety story, but hedged the wording somewhat. Hairhorn (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Opening

The Martha Stewart page does mention her criminal convictions in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC) I will add that it looks like over half the article is about his criminal convictions, thus making it more then appropriate for the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. Not sure why Wikipedia editors seem hell-bent to remove subject's writing credits. He recently published two books and has a ton of movie and TV credits, including a current series on Amazon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.149.66 (talk) — 100.34.149.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps, just maybe, because they did not have any reliable sources attached. At least that is why they said they did in their edit summaries. And considering a) the subject of this article has been caught out editing this article in the past, and b) he has been convicted of numerous crimes that involve deception (you know, lying?) in the past, absolutely any claim of accomplishment is going to require a rock solid reliable source. Wikipedia may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In essence any unsourced material can (and should) be removed. Moreover if RS do not consider his work of note then we do not. Thus until it can be demonstrated he is more notable for his writing then for his criminal dishonesty we cannot give (what RS considered unimportant) it undue prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

threatened vandalism

The following ad at Upwork has just been called to my attention:

I am an author,, screenwriter and playwright. I have a Wikipedia page under my name: Steven Kunes. Although I've been successful as a writer over the past 35 years, I went off the deep end and got myself arrested for cashing bad checks when I got divorced and was down and out. Because of my writing notoriety my legal troubles made all the papers and, of course, Wikipedia. There are a few editors that keep deleting my writing credits and they only leave up references to articles about my arrest. It's very unfair and very embarrassing. Life is a mixed bag of good and bad, and I want my writing credits to appear on my Wikipedia along with my legal troubles. Over the last few days I edited my page and added my writing credits -- and the editors keep taking them down. Finally, an editor blocked my page from being edited for an entire year, unless it's by an authorized Wikipedia editor. I want YOU to look at the last dozen or so entries on my Wikipedia page and restore my scriptwriting credits as well as the two books I recently published. So you really don't have to create anything, per se, just look over the deletions and restore them. It is absolutely NOT FAIR that the editors keep altering my page to feature only negative content. If you're a seasoned Wikipedia editor, you know they do this and you'll be able to quickly see what I'm talking about. My only other option is to contact the legal department at Wikimedia, I suppose. Thank you!!!

I will add a {{undisclosed paid}} edit to the main article page, though I'm not sure this is appropriate if we don't know whether paid edits have already taken place. Happy to be corrected on this point. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure wish someone would do a story about this so it could be added to the article. The "Hollywood hubris" thing never ceases to amaze me. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the words stiryon and huberous. They sound like places Jason and the Argonauts might have visited. EEng 21:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You try typing on a bouncing bus. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This episode seems to have been concluded with the involved editors at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Editing at Steven Kunes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Occupation (infobox)

I see some back and forth in the history but I'm unsure "Conman" is needed there. It's not a job by itself, is it? -- Luk ^talk 11:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? It is for Trump. EEng 11:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No comment! :D -- Luk ^talk 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's probably not right as occupation, perhaps as 'known for'? Melcous (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure it's an occupation. It may not be a job title assigned by an employer, but there are definitely people who make their living by defrauding others of their money. Burglar is an occupation (though I expect it's a side-hustle for many.) Murderer isn't an occupation, but assassin is. Whether it is applicable in this case is another question, and if it is, we might want to use the more formal term confidence trickster, which is what we use on Charles Ponzi. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Listing conman as his occupation implies that he is currently conning people, "Known for" would be better as it avoids the implication that he is still committing crimes. Tornado chaser (talk)

It is not clear to me from the article whether he is still in prison; if he is still serving time for such crimes, still getting his room and board thanks to that con work, that would seem to qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How about saying "convicted conman" Tornado chaser (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Luk ^talk 18:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverse of what the subject wanted ...

I worked on this article a while ago, updating it to match the then latest on his legal history and rewriting the lede.

It seems that we currently have a boomerang situation here. I can't endorse the current "Career" section: it's OR, discussing how far one should trust IMDb and how his IMDb entry compares to another source. And it doesn't mention the Variety source; see discussion further up this page. The Variety source exists. I am unaware of third-party sources that discuss all the shows Kunes has claimed to have written and written for, so that material is simply better omitted, rather than smearing the man by saying he's lied in Wikipedia's voice, based on our own research. Also "conman" in the lede rests on what reliable sources? By my recollection that's an oversimplification. Unless there are recently published sources that sum up his career in these terms, per BLPsources and NPOV, these changes should be largely undone. Attack pieces have no place on Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, you don't appear to have read source 1? I think you will strike some of what you wrote above, after you do. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I do see that that article openly uses the "conman" word, and I was unaware of the changes in law enforcement in Santa Barbara and don't recall seeing earlier that they did not advertise his escape promptly. But the reporter's repeating what's on IMDb doesn't seem useful for our purposes, and the Variety source still exists. All in all—I haven't objected to the "known for" line now in the infobox, and I read the discussion above about the infobox—my opinion of our article's new lede and "Career" section remains unchanged. BLP-violating smear job with gratuitous OR where a straight recitation of sourced facts is sufficient for the reader to amply understand what he has done. Extending AGF that they are no longer so bad as they were when I went to bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Please change:

Steven Kunes (born 1956) is an American conman and former screenwriter. He has been convicted of felony commercial burglary and grand theft by false pretenses.

To:

Steven Kunes is an American screenwriter, author and playwright. He is currently the creator and executive producer of the comedy series “Over My Dead Body” on Amazon Prime.

Reason:

The following is the Amazon Prime listing for “Over My Dead Body”:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B078WYJHJ9/ref=atv_un_2cr_c_OcGi58_brws_2_1

The following is the IMDb listing for “Over My Dead Body”:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6042564/

Note: The BLP Wikipedia page on Steven Kunes is not appropriate and several editors have referred to it as a “smear campaign” and an “attack piece.” Notwithstanding, other editors shut them down and concocted this mess of an article. A complaint was made to Wikimedia Foundation who confirmed, among other writing credits that were removed, the Daily Variety article that was on the page for many years is a verified source and should be restored. Additionally, the Career section created in August 2018 reads like a tabloid. The subject has numerous writing credits, has published books and is currently the creator and executive producer of a comedy series on Amazon Prime. One editor made a comment that “conman” isn’t a career and yet another editor placed it as subject’s occupation and listed subject as a “former screenwriter.” The indication is that subject is a current conman and former screenwriter. Finally, can one be considered a conman for a $2,000 crime? Is this an encyclopedia-worthy subject? If so, then perhaps a neutral, unbiased senior editor can look into this article. This is an attack piece as indicated by the comments of the editors who constructed it. 100.34.135.140 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations, a requested edit can only be completed if the request consists of uncontroversial improvements (which this is clearly not), or is already supported by a clear consensus of editors at the talk page (which I do not see). If there is as serious a BLP issue here as you say, then please post your concerns at the BLP Noticeboard. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The rotating parade of IPs the subject of the article uses has "been there, done that", and not even gotten a t-shirt. This is simply WP:TEND. John from Idegon (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Daily Variety article

An editor has been repeatedly inserting a section headered "Daily Variety Article" Daily Variety reported on June 10, 1992, that Kunes had sold a screenplay entitled First Comes Love for $1.2 million; although no film was produced, this was the highest amount paid for an original screenplay at the time of its sale. , insisting that the article itself is inherently significant because it's on the front page of Daily Variety. We do not have a third-party source telling us that the article is significant, the "front page" portion is a single sentence, and the facts reported, the sale of a screenplay, it is hard to put much significance in; the supposed sale was to "Westport Film Partners", a film production company that Google finds mentioned only on Kunes's IMDb page, his homepage, this article, and a post credited to Kunes himself (and, in books, as a database listing in a book of spec screenplay sales and on the about-the-author page of the book of a script Kunes wrote, which appears to have been a print-on-demand volume now off the market and likely self-published.). So this sale, and this company, seems to have no lasting impact and is trivial. I am again removing the insertion, and it should not be reinserted until there is consensus to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Stop readding the Over My Dead Body credit

Just a note that the OMDB credit should not be re-added. We have sources that contradict his claim, he was literally charged with a probation violation related to fraud because he attempted to bill himself on OMDB. The only place that this is sourced to is iMDb and his own resume, which I'm not inclined to say is a reliable source given the nature of his convictions. The Amazon link does not say anything about him - it just has a REVIEW. CUPIDICAE💕 23:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Further Amazon often pulls data from Wikipedia and iMDb and as such isn't an RS for this claim. CUPIDICAE💕 23:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hadn't realized that the Amazon data on the show might not be correct. Will remove the reference.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456 Given the extensive attempt to whitewash this article by the subject I'm pretty leery of your edit here which removed sourced information that was previously discussed and consensus was for it to remain, so please revert yourself. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 23:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've restored that paragraph to where it was, only changes are now formatting. Left my reorganization/copy editing to the legal troubles section. I can assure you, I have ZERO connection to Kunes, or desire to whitewash this. I found the article from WP:COIN, FWIW. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My issue isn't with the imdb removal, my issue is that you removed the entire controversy about Over My Dead Body which is supported by the source there as well as the entire Variety bit. CUPIDICAE💕 23:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As written, the article implied that he was re-arrested FOR attempting to scam people about OMDB, but as I read the source, he already had the warrant out in CA for probation violation, and it was the article about OMDB that made CA aware of where he was, and led them to having PA police arrest him. Anyway, I've stumbled into deep waters here, so I'm just going to revert the article to its status before I made any edits, and leave well enough alone.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't accusing you of any conflict of interest here, BubbaJoe123456. Rather, another editor but because of his rather...untoward ways, we need to be wary of anything attempting to inflate the article given his convictions. CUPIDICAE💕 23:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

But you've now restored Filmczar's whitewashing edits and addition of non-rs material. CUPIDICAE💕 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Over My Dead Body bit really needs to be fixed. It's a podcast, not a real show and I have some serious doubts about its legitimacy and presenting it like it's anything more than one mans self published diatribes given it also has 0 reviews (the ones that Kunes reviewed himself do not count, which is literally the only review.) CUPIDICAE💕 15:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, it is carried on Prime Video (link here), but Amazon will let just about anyone publish their video to Prime Video (via Prime Video Direct), so the credit is of minimal value. There are 48 reviews at Amazon, but those could certainly be bought. Don't disagree at all with your core message, just thought we should have the facts right, given the BLPN posting. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's a BLP noticeboard discussion started by someone claiming to be the subject at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steven Kunes. They complain of overly negative writing and not noting recent credits - relevant to the above discussion. As with previous discussions above, reliable sources were not presented. We need to be especially careful with veracity with this subject - online sources may be non-independent and we have good reason to not use any self-published sources for this biography. Fences&Windows 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject's ip has been globally blocked. The sources here are sufficient in terms of the convictions and subsequent arrests. What exactly is it that you're disputing, Fences and windows? Is it the writing credits or the negative stuff? Because the bulk of independent sourcing is about the Salinger scam...less so about his writing credits (in fact, there is very little about his actual work.) CUPIDICAE💕 18:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I misread (I see what you were saying about the Over My Dead Body thing.) CUPIDICAE💕 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)−

(edit conflict) Praxidicae, I was too vague. The news sources are mainly fine though the Daily Variety story might have been planted. What I meant we need to be wary of is using the membership bios and other primary sources provided by the subject. SPS allows such use unless unduly self-serving: in this case we have reason to doubt all information from the subject. The sources for the OMDB series were weak, for example, and the description as a YouTube series seemed to be OR. We may want to check the published books too. Fences&Windows 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and that's more or less the point I tried to make before. I don't recall who said it about the WGA bio and implied it was somewhat independent but it's actually submitted by the subject/their management usually and I don't believe organizations like this do much fact checking like an editorial board would. Basically I think anything self-published here should be taken with a grain of salt or attributed if not outright removed. CUPIDICAE💕 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

On another note, Fences and windows I'm not sure how much weight should be given to his being a member of Dramatists Guild, if at all. They don't exactly have meaningful standards. Same for Authors Guild, it's insignificant as it's just a membership and anyone can join. And the same for PEN America anyone can join for a fee, it's a voluntary paid for club and not selective. CUPIDICAE💕 19:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they're not accolades.

I did find sourcing for earlier credits: he co-wrote with Norman Lear a pilot TV episode for NBC in August 1984 called P.O.P. about a "lovable con artist" (!) Vincent Terrace, Encyclopedia of Television Pilots: 2,470 Films Broadcast 1937-2019, 2d ed., p. 195 and he had a writing credit on a one-season show, Marblehead Manor in 1987-88 Bob Leszczak, Single Season Sitcoms of the 1980s: A Complete Guide, p. 96-7. Fences&Windows 19:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also in Lesczak, p. 5, he was a writer on a.k.a. Pablo in 1984 on ABC. Fences&Windows 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Two paragraphs of concern

Two paragraphs that probably should be eliminated:

1. I see the Daily Variety paragraph reappeared at some point. This has the problem that there aren't third party sources indicating that the coverage itself is important, and the content it covers does not seem to be of lasting value (the sale of a script that does not appear to have been produced to a firm that does not appear to have ever produced anything.)
2. The Turner Classic Movies database, which, unlike IMDb is not editable by readers, lists as Kunes' only credit being a writer for Alvin Goes Back to School. -- This paragraph has a couple problems. One is that the link appears to be dead. The other is that even if the description of what the link contained was accurate, as phrased it's being used to imply that Kunes has no other credits and other claims are false. However, whether or not the TCM database is accurate (likely) and complete (less likely), it is only supposed to be a database of credits on produced films, and much of what has been claimed for Kunes are TV credits. While it may be usable as a source for saying that Kunes was a writer on Alvin Goes Back to School, using it to imply anything else is a form of original research.

In the interest of transparency: I have been receiving contact off-wiki from someone representing themselves as the subject of the article. However, I have not responded or engaged in other form, neither of these edits are ones he has requested (and one of them I would be surprised if he were to request), and I have no conflict of interest on the matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You may be right about First Comes Love, though it is mentioned in https://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/02/famous-fraudsters-con-artists-and-scammers.html and Spec Screenplay Sales Directory, Volume 3, Good Company Products, 1991. It doesn't seem that undue as we say relatively little about his career. The TCM part is OR; I'd be wondering the same but forgot to mention it. I found sources (above) to verify some of his writing credits. Fences&Windows 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 30 April 2024

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

My name is Steven Kunes, and I am the subject of this Wikipedia article, which was created in 2011 and has been the subject of arguments from editors for the last 13 years (see talk page.) A group of editors have worked very hard to paint me as a conman and strip me of my writing credits and other accomplishments, past and present. Whenever a brave editor points this out, they are shouted down and threatened with removal of editing privileges. One editor referred to my article as an “attack piece.” Seriously, has any of you ever read a Wikipedia article as mean-spirited as this one?

While I certainly am guilty of financial crimes, and am ashamed of my past actions, like Robert Downey, Jr., I cleaned up my act. Since 2017, I have written and produced a TV series for Amazon, as well as a podcast, and continue to do so. I’ve provided links below.

In 2021, I did a TEDx talk called “Square One at 60” which detailed aspects of my life, including my legal issues, which is certainly noteworthy and current; it was included in the article but was removed by an editor for reasons unknown. The only comment I can see is that it doesn’t reflect my career, yet the talk is all about my career and I was invited as a guest on several podcasts solely because the hosts came across my TEDx talk.

I am kindly and respectfully requesting that you review the below links and add my past and present credits to this article. Certainly a section about my past legal issues is warranted, but I don’t deserve to be known as “An American conman and former screenwriter.” That is simply not true. That opening sentence was added to this article in 2018, a year after I began producing my series, which continues to this day, yet certain Wikipedia editors have ignored my current work so as to keep me branded a criminal.

Many of my writing credits can be found at The Paley Center for Media, The UCLA Television Archive, and the Writers Guild Foundation Archive. All projects catalogued in those places have been well curated; in other words, the shows have been viewed and their credits recorded.

Please consider editing this article to more accurately reflect my life today. What’s fair is fair. I’m not looking to whitewash my past mistakes. However, I am first and foremost a writer, past and certainly present. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Steven Kunes

100.34.228.227 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done. This is a pretty hefty chunk of text, and I'm not entirely sure what about the article is needing updating. Could you please indicate which part(s) of the article require changing, and which reference(s) support that change? That will hopefully make reviewing your request a bit more straight-forward. Feel free to re-open the edit request when you have done this. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I thought the description of my concerns posted above was clear, however, I’m guessing you would like me to suggest specific changes. I am not a Wikipedia editor and feel awkward even suggesting changes to an article about me, but I’ll study the format and try to provide succinct changes that I feel are appropriate. Thank you for your patience. –- Steven Kunes 100.34.228.227 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that much of what you suggest is not sourced to sources we consider reliable (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb), and others are cited to databases which may be considered accurate sources but do not confer that the information is important. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the above, others are cited to databases doesn't mean we can't use that information. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

After posting my request and receiving an almost immediate response from Primefac, I began to write what I believe to be valid revisions to this article. While doing that, I received an e-mail reply from a Wikimedia staff member who, after reviewing the entire article and its history (including the talk page) concluded that any changes made to this article will be reverted if they paint me in a good light, and that the references will be deemed either insufficient or not notable. Sure enough, when I logged back on to check this talk page, another editor made those precise comments. I’ll leave it to fate to see what becomes of this article. As I wrote earlier, there is nothing whatsoever in my request that is unclear; anybody reading it and reviewing this article knows exactly what’s been going on, and from what I was told by Wikimedia, it has become commonplace on Wikipedia. Nobody has had their TEDx talk removed from an article, not ever. In the meantime, the next two episodes of my series, featuring Walter Cronkite and James Stewart, will stream on Amazon Prime later this month, and simultaneously drop on all major podcast platforms. A simple internet search will confirm I have never been a former writer. My last criminal conviction was in 2013. Call me a writer and former crook, is that too much to ask? Thank you again for your help. –- Steven Kunes 100.34.228.227 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would genuinely be curious to read the contents of that email, because it sounds like a scam... we cannot review the references you provide until, well, you provide them, so someone claiming that all of your sources will be invalid just sounds like someone selling something. Please forward that email to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org (which is the email for the oversight team); I highly doubt a staff member of the WMF is going to be emailing you, and I would like to confirm that. Please make mention of this discussion thread when you forward it. Primefac (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. After reading 13 years of arguments over edits on this talk page, I was told it's obvious that a group of editors worked very hard to remove any positive contect about me and to highlight only the negative, and that any dissenting editors (one referred to this article as an attack piece) were shot down. One editor was threatened with termination of his editing privileges. My request and references could not possibly be any clearer. They are listed above for all to see. And it was the oversight team that I e-mailed, as well as one of the editors wo worked on this article, who lives in Toronto. She made the comment I referenced. She told me not to waste another moment suggesting any changes, that would not be made. Her opinion, maybe, but I certainly agree with her. Thank you. 100.34.228.227 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I spent some time this afternoon looking up sources, and came up with not much more than you have provided. There are reliable sources dating from the early 2010s, and all of them related to the legal issues already discussed in the article. Everything else is just IMDb or similar, which are unfortunately not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. I think the best that can be done is have a list of publications based on https://go.authorsguild.org/members/727 because even if it's primary I feel like the Authors Guild would have some measure of fact-checking on their profiles. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But the question is, do Author's Guilds listings indicate import? We do not generally run a full list of credits for writers, if it's more than trivial. (We seem to have slipped in the other direction for acting credits these days.) That was what my note above regarding databases was referring to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There are only a half-dozen original works on that list, I'm pretty sure we can include them. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for spending the time you have on this article. Your explanation makes sense to me. I am aware that IMDb is not an acceptable sourse on Wikipedia, although their editors are indeed pretty good. And oddly enough, Wikipedia is not an accepted source for Wikipedia. My Kate & Allie episode is listed on Wikipedia but that can't be used as a source, it seems. It's also listed in the Paley Center along with other writing credits. And I still can't get over omitting a TEDx talk, which is heavily curated and subject to a content review. Early last year, the WGA requested my permission to be included in their archive, and a list of some of my works is on their website. All of the references were included in my post above. Anyway, once again I appreciate the time and attention you and Nat Gertler have spent on this article. 100.34.228.227 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking at TEDx isn't really something that we mention on articles these days unless it's covered in third-party sources; to be slightly hyperbolic, anyone can give a TED talk these days. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, and for the record, as an oversighter with years of editing experience, do you feel this article is an attack piece? 100.34.228.227 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As an editor, I would not call this an attack piece. I think there are some neutrality issues in the career section but that's nothing that can't be cleaned up with a bit of effort. Primefac (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the FBI’s most wanted conman who was released from federal prison in 2019. Here’s his Wikipedia article heading:

Matthew Bevan "Matt" Cox (born July 2, 1969) is an American former mortgage broker and admitted mortgage fraudster. Cox, also a true crime author, wrote an unpublished manuscript entitled The Associates in which the main character traveled the country to perpetrate a mortgage fraud scheme similar to the one Cox ran. 100.34.228.227 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Cox, the manuscript is notable since it (a) is mentioned in a number of reliable sources, and (b) was written before he committed his crimes - it appears to be something of a roadmap he created. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism material

This recent edit removed certain statements about various claims of credits for the subject. While I can see some merit in removal the IMDb-related material, the other portions of the text -- that he had claimed unsubstantiated credits and had sold plagiarized material -- are of legitimate and appropriate interest in an article about someone we're describing as a writer and a conman, as they live at the intersection of those two careers. My only concern about that material as it existed is that the source -- the Independent -- is not fully third-party in the matter, as they were one of the publications that was part of this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That was my concern; happy to discuss the matter further though, and re-add if my redaction is deemed to be over the line. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The plagiarism is mentioned fully in the second paragraph of legal issues. As stated earlier, editors work very hard to make me look worse than I was. I think I made myself look bad enough without anybody's assistance. 100.34.228.227 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia worthy

Is this subject worthy of an encyclopedia article? 107.77.203.199 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)