Talk:Steve Comisar

Blocked from editing

Since Steve Comisar is blocked from newbie editing can an experienced editor please add podcast info into the article?

Host of Scam Junkie a true crime podcast on Spotify.

The podcast should also have its own article. Google: Scam Junkie podcast. Carlspackler75 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

I think the podcast should be edited into the Steve Comisar article because its reputably sourced. Scam Junkie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29041405/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

....and podcaster. Comisar is host of the true crime podcast Scam Junkie Scam Junkie on Spotify, Carlspackler75 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Carlspackler75 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The podcast is already mentioned in the article. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Podcast was mentioned in the article but then someone deleted it. Since the article is blocked from newbie editors can the editor who added the podcasting edit it back in the article or can another experienced editor add it back in. I wonder why it was removed. Google: Scam Junkie Podcast and you will find dozens of sources to the podcast. I'm new here but the atmosphere seems hostile and unfair. Explain why Steve Comisar can have criminal, con man, extortionist, but not actor or podcaster? The podcast is real. Why can't it have its own page? Or at least part of the Steve Comisar article? Why wouldn't the Wikipedia encyclopedia want the public to know he was a podcaster and had several acting roles? Why hide it? The article is better when it does not leave these important things out. How many con men can also say they host a popular podcast on Spotify? And also did some acting? Doesn't that make the article better. I never thought Wikipedia had individuals who decided what stayed in articles and what got removed. Carlspackler75 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Every thing about particular subject needs proof and it must meet source criteria on wikipedia,the podcast was linked and mentioned in career ;without valid proof., you can't add any web or links you see on google or some engines... []

Spbvj (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Content sourced to en.kinorium.com

A lot of links to en.kinorium.com have been added recently. Kinorium does not appear to be a reliable source. It's an anonymous enthusiast site. ("Who are we? We are geeks who are determined to create the best movie website") And it allows users to change information. ("Soon all this data, as usual, will be editable by the users of the Kinorium.") Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There are many other sites that list the exact same credits for this person. A lot of articles still use IMDb even though it's not reliable. And then there's these sites for example; Rotten Tomatoes, T.V. Guide, The Moviebase,Moviefone, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, AllMovie, iSpot.TV etc… The point is I just picked kinorium at random because it was pretty accurate and just used for the external filmography. Since the same credits were on five other sites, and they were all for very small acting roles, I was convinced the credits were real. I wouldn't use those sites directly in an article but I thought it was safe here. If it's strictly forbidden just tell me and I'll remove the entire section. Carlspackler75 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It isn't reliable and has been deleted from this per WP:BLP. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Content moved from article

He also pursued an acting career and was cast in several motion pictures including Tough Luck starring Armand Assante and Norman Reedus.

The above content has been moved here. A link to a PDF on the journalist's website is provided... I assume that's acceptable although it's a GQ article, but the main issue is no page numbers are included in the source. The WP:BURDEN to establish verifiability lies with those wishing to include the content. When page numbers can be provided this can go back into the article.

I also note that I've removed a lot of stuff soured to press releases, which are not independent sources (certainly not acceptable for a BLP) and most of the acting career stuff. It's mostly puffery and only one of the sources was both reliable and verifiable. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 17:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You made several serious mistakes. Are you man enough to admit them and go back and revert the article the way editors with a combined one hundred years of editing experience took the time to help me make it a fair and balanced, neutral informative article?

First off, as an experienced editor pointed out to you here, the GQ article did contain the page numbers. To say the reference omitted it was careless and vindictive editing.

Then changed the article to state Comisar wrote his book and did all the TV appearances etc… after his release from prison in 2018. All completely wrong. You suck as an editor.

Are you saying because the guy was a criminal his career attributes as an author, podcaster, and actor should not be mentioned in the article? Can someone please revert the article back to the way we had it and block this bully from editing this article again.

The article sucks the way you reverted it to. Compare it to the Grokipedia article and see what a fair and balanced article looks like. You might learn something. Can I get everyone that agrees with me to fix this ? https://grokipedia.com/page/Steve_Comisar

Carlspackler75 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Sabrina Rudin Erdely. "The Creep with the Golden Tongue" (PDF). GQ. August 2003: 126–131, 155–156. Retrieved November 28, 2025 – via www.sabrinaerdely.com.

It's all right there in the PDF, including obvious numbering on each one of the pages. I have no opinion on the content, this just seemed like a ridiculously easy fix to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The page numbers are on the PDF. But the page numbers which contain the CONTENT THAT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED were not in the citation. It isn't up to me to read the whole article to try and verify what it is meant to verify. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

(outdent) In keeping with established consensus, his bit parts in a handful of films doesn't make him notable as an actor and presenting it here would be WP:UNDUE. - The literary leader of the age ✉

It is up to you, actually, if you're going to claim that the citation doesn't verify the content when it clearly does. It's on page 156, someone else pointed this out along with the specific quote from the source almost 10 years ago, and that comment is still visible on this page. Removing content that can't be verified is fine; removing content because you couldn't be bothered to verify it is a different thing entirely. Removing it because of established consensus to exclude it would have been a much better reason than making things up about the source that are easily disproven. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is now completely separate from the issue of whether it not it should be included. I have no idea why you're casting aspersions, but I didn't "make things up" about the source. As a longstanding editor I'm sure you're familiar with WP:BURDEN, which states The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead.... So no, it is not my job to perform verification for someone else. If you like doing that then bully for you. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 20:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)