Talk:Scam

Allen Stanford

The article noted Allen Stanford as a con-artist, but to date, he has only been charged, not convicted of wrongdoing, and according to the sources, maintains his innocence. Therefore the statement that he is a con artist is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. I removed the statement. RemoWilliams (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

what!? has anyone here ever heard of "short-changing"?

the most common form (i would imagine) of confidence tricks is short-changing (a.k.a quick-changing). it seems odd that this is not mentioned here, or that it doesn't have it's own aricle entry. someone listed a very petty version of it in the listed cons, but that is nowhere sufficient. the only idea i can think of is that somebody (administrator perhaps), wouldn't allow this in the article because it would encourage people to try it, because of it's relative ease to commit. anyone? Helio462

I'm so angry I don't have to pay you????

This paragraph is the first under "Other Confidence Tricks" and, in my opinion, comes across very soapbox-y and personal. Certainly, there's no reference offered to this particular "scam." I think it should be removed, but I'm new to this and therefore not sure if I should go ahead and do it or leave it those who have been responsible for editing this page so far. Also, the author seems like the kinda person who I wouldn't want to piss off, even in cyberspace. Please advise. Thanks.----guinevere34

Totse

While Powerzilla does not appear offhand to be a user acct created solely to place advertising, the effect of their 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) contrib was primarily (and without any WP-relevant purpose) to promote either the web site or the movement it presumably exists to serve, for behavior that is both criminal and irresponsibly antisocial. The fact that we occasionally tolerate non-encyclopedic appeals to (i suppose) plant more roses or save a puppy does not protect from removal this outrageous placement of non-WP-purposed material on WP space.
--Jerzy•t 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already covered generally at the TOTSE article. It certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in this detail here. — Lomn 20:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was placing Totse in the See Also section only. Powerzilla (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article about TOTSE is irrelevant to this article. Just because the website may or may not have instructions on how to carry out these scams does not make it relevant. Wikipedia, in fact, has rules against any kind of "how-to" listing. And, quite frankly, you have taken up a lot of space on this talk page with that very long, and unnecessary, list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both Lomn & RepublicanJacobite are spot on. In light of whatever exact wording embodies the "non-WP purpose" principle i stated at the top of the section, we don't need (and in light of CREEP don't have) an explicit policy that WP:ISN'T liberated territory for any revolutionary movement whose infrastructure is plausibly going to be under attack in the next few years, for its illegal and anti-social activities, by any legal system having jurisdiction where our servers operate. But that clearly is an implicit policy.
  I have removed the out-of-place material from this talk page on grounds that it serves no WP purpose, just as is routine for a msg on a bio's talk pg that attempts to communicate with the subject of the bio; if there is no compelling objection in the next 7 days, i will go further, by deleting all revisions of this talk page that include the removed material, in order to make it accessible only to admins; i would also add a copy of the relevant portion of the edit history -- i'm pretty confident that that is a permalink for it (well, until those revisions are deleted) even tho [beams with pride] one of them won't exist until i do this save; contact me by starting a section "History permalink" on my talk page, if you want to learn how i got it with a couple of tiny edits to server-generated URLs.
  --Jerzy•t 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  

Too many Rdrs

It may even be the case that the accompanying article is the primary topic for all of

Scam

Confidence Man

Grifter

Big store

but even so, the corresponding collection of HatNote Dab tags is distracting and oppressive. I'm moving the corresponding Dabs to all three of those titles that are Rdrs, and removing the HatNotes.
I've checked the archive, and there has never been any justification offered; if there's explicit discussion leading to consensus that going thru a particular Dab is onerous, and that it's important for one title to have a Dab-bypassing Rdr (and more so than any one or two that by then have HatNotes, and need to be displaced by the new one), the reversing moves can be done.
--Jerzy•t 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The HatNote burden is now dissipated, but i noticed that the big store Dab lk i created (in place of the Rdr) must be removed: there is not the slightest mention, let alone what would satisfy a user who went not to a dict (for a dictdef) but to an encyclopedia. I guess bcz i noticed the phrase "short con" mentioned in passing, i did a Go on "long con", which Rdrs to the accompanying page but gets no mention. Can someone with a more enduring interest in the article do something about these yawning gaps, say before i get around to putting long con on RfD (the only external way of fixing it)? ("Big store" is a quick fix: i'm commenting out the entry, so another Dab-cleaner doesn't throw it away.)
  --Jerzy•t 07:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  

Nigerean bankers

I understood that at least in the Anglophone world there are many cases of Nigereans calling or e-mailing with "interesting business propositions". Is that confirmed? I remember a discussion on Wikipedia about it once, but the files/photos about this were deleted I believe. Mallerd (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Advance-fee fraud, nevermind mates. Mallerd (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)