Jump to content

Talk:Steve Comisar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ttonyb1 (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 16 July 2011 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Additional references

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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" is a threat of legal action and as such should be dealt with according to Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Comisar&oldid=439712768"