Talk:Scam/Archive 1

message: The Pigeon Drop section in this article does not match up with the separate article (Pigeon drop); which one is correct? --Nibble 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pigeon drop inconsistency 

message: I run a website and recently we played along with the "Stolen Cheque" guys after they bombarded our email server with their spam.  We wanted to see how it worked.  Upon receiving the cheques, we notified the affected businesses, providing all the details we had (bank accounts, phone numbers, etc) and returned the cheques.  Both companies, AT&T and Toronto Dominion Insurance (TDI) told us this is very common, and usually results form cheques actually issued, such as to pay a corporate utility bill, and stolen at the point of delivery, in the case of the AT&T cheque it was stolen from the Ontario Hydro mail room.  The total of the 2 cheques was over $60,000.00. Mattwilkins 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Stolen Cheques" due to personal experience 

message: "You can't cheat an honest man" is a good principle. Another relevant aphorism, regarding poker, but perhaps with relevance to this topic, is: "Look around the table, and try to spot the sucker. If you can't, it's you." (Of course, some scams exploit even this, by providing a confederate who appears to the mark to be the sucker.) -- The Anome 13:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another aphorism 

message: This article redirects from Travel Scam but I see no mention of it. Sophistifunk 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travel Scam? 

message: The space in front of the line starting "Finding  a con artist is relatively hard" makes it run all on one line and be inside a box.  Is it intended to be that way?  Bubba73 (talk), 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  line 

message: Flim flam links to this article, but Flim flam is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  If flim flam is another name for confidence trick, I think it should be mentioned near the top. Bubba73 (talk), 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flim flam 

message: I am of the opinion that it would be better to trim this list down to only fictional works primarily about con-men, if we are to keep it at all.  Also, the items missing abstracts should have them.  Are others of accord?  —Casey J. Morris 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie, books, et cetera lists 

message: "Coin collecting scamis a scam that preys on unexperianced coin collecters. The con man convinses the mark that a low priced collection of jewlery is worth a greater amount. The coin collecter, that is clearly unexperianced at coin collecting buys the jewlery thinking its valuable when its really not."
I do not understand this paragraph?  Is the coin collector buying jewlery, or coins?  Why would a coin collector buy jewlery? Soapy 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coin collecting scam 

message: This section should be either rewritten or removed entirely.
:I think it was written as a joke.  Even if you over-looking the spelling, it is not logical.  Why would someone use a credit card to buy a magazine?  The author said the swindler is "long gone," indicating that he leaves.  Would it not make better sense to to hold on file, while the computer is being "fixed," then taking off with the computer as well?  Soapy 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit card theft by computer proxy 

message: Terry Pratchett uses it in his book "Going Postal"... there's also a movie written by W.C. Fields, entitled "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man". Dunno how to add a citation, otherwise I would do so. --AnitraSmith 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for "You can't cheat an honest man" 

message: I have tried to add, to the examples:  "In California, many police departments send out computer-generated red light camera "tickets" that have not been filed with the Superior Court, thus have no legal weight and can be ignored.   The intent is to bluff the registered owner into contacting a website, or writing back, and revealing the name, address and driver's license number of the person who was driving the car.  The website will even let you pay the ticket via credit card.  Fake ticket"
It has been removed twice, by WRS and McKay.  If they, or anyone else here would like to participate in a discussion of the suitability of the entry, please join in, in the discussion section of "Phishing," under the heading "Phishing by the Police."--Einsteininmyownmind 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add:  Confidence Trick by Police 

message: The biggest scams I have heard of involve property and real estate and land. It would be great to highlight some of these in the article. Buying property off plan can net fraudster property developers millions of dollars in one hit without much legal recourse. New world areas seem to be ripe with these type of scams - places like Morocco, Brazil and Thailand. This is because non scamming real estate developers can make fantastic returns in these areas. I have linked in a site which warns users of the latest scams doing the rounds at *Totally Property. I look forward to proposing some more changes to this article soon.
This is interesting stuff. BUT do you not think that publicising these types of scams gives confidence tricksters ideas??? I wonder how many con men check wikipedia for a new scam?
**There are no "new" scams, just new versions of the old ones...writing about these scams helps possible victims as well.  Soapy 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Property Scams 

message: While the information on grapefruit seed extract might usefully form part of an article on alternative medicine, it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with confidence tricks. Would anybody miss this section if it were removed?
NegativeCharlie 10:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I would remove it.  People seem to add things to this article that they consider ripoffs, but that aren't really cons at all. --Galaxiaad 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... alright. Anyways, it is still a consumer fraud and a ripoff. --Pillar Of Coolness 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapefruit Seed Extract - is this really a confidence trick? 

message: The introduction before the TOC seems to be very long.  I know I've seen a tag for this, but I don't know it off hand. Ghostwo 06:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Introduction? 

message: This is a really bad article.  It should be stricken in its entirety and another article written, by someone who knows confidence tricks and knows how to write logically and grammatically.
^^^My thoughts exactly.  Whoever wrote the bulk of this article needs to go back to 4th grade and pick up where they left off learning English.  (Also---Ocean's 11, The Italian Job, etc. are not about con games.  A robbery is not a con game.)
:If this article is not redone, at least fix this sentence: "The victim is then urged to forward the apparent value of the check to the trickster as cash, which they may do before discovering the cheque bounces."  The spelling of the word "check" should probably not change in the same sentence.  Also, this sentence does not seem to be grammatically correct. 209.189.245.114 05:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Really Bad Article 

message: auction fraud ,
porn scams ,
Job scams,
spyware,
phony sob stories,
gift card scam,
re-shipping goods (bought with stolen credit cards),
skimming,
telemarking scam,
modeling scam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by STPgroup (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  someone needs to write about these topics below 

message: *Rosenhan experiment
Do the cons listed have to be all harmful or criminal? The Rosenhan expirement was a con on psychiatrists, they were tricked into believing they were getting fake patients when they were not given any. They still found what they were looking for. Why is this not listed as a con?--Mark v1.0 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who pulled my entry of Rosenhan? Terabandit 

message: While browsing, I came upon this section:
"Religious systems & organizations - Several systems and organizations based upon belief in the supernatural are being used as vehicles for performing confidence tricks,[4] or are alleged to be confidence scams in itself, example Glam-Televangelism or Scientology."
There is some sort of defamation with this, no matter how negative it may seem, this is implying a thought that should not be made. Thanks, Daily Rubbings 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about protecting yourself from con artists would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, because truly, who is better known in this country for giving Americans the chance to protect themselves from criminals and fight back than America's Most Wanted? The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=46 please consider it.
Jrosenfe 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a link 

message: Hello, I'll be your mediator for this case.  I'd prefer to keep discussion over at MedCab to avoid cluttering the talk page while we work through this issue.  I'm available at any time to discuss your concerns, please see my contact page for additional ways to get a hold of me. Shell babelfish 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MedCab Case 

message: From doctor who is a con men right?
--80.200.45.192 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Harkness 

message: I removed Characteristics of Confidence tricks, because the source given requires registration, the information contained in the list was redundant, and often vague enough that it could apply to perfectly legitimate activities.--RemoWilliams 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times, and many media sources require registration. I can understand removing something for vagueness and all that, but removal for requiring registration is not by itself an adequite reason. --Pleasantville 11:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. The other two reasons were plenty good enough, IMO. In fact the "Trick for investment scams" section is similarly poor.--RemoWilliams 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 

message: Just a suggestion, but many of the examples listed don't have anything to do with "confidence," per se.  They are just scams or frauds or almost pickpocketing.  They Spanish Prisoner is the prototypical confidence game.  Use that as  a yardstick.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.51.82 (talk • contribs).
I don't think that Ringeres's cut of the list dated 00:02, 26 July 2007 was very productive. The true audience for this entry is people who have been scammed or are in process, and removing material because it's a little vague is a mistake in my opinion. For them, this stuff is vital information. --Pleasantville 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anybody here skilled and educated enough to do that? I've revised 3 sections but the lists of con tricks are quite tricky without spending a lot of time in the library.--Svetovid 17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cut down on the list 

message: I know not all confidence tricks are bad. The method to fool someone for gain can be used for good or evil. There have been good uses of the confidence trick. Unless you call it something else.--Mark v1.0 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'good' and 'evil' depend on your point of view in the first place.--Svetovid 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had added the second part of the [Rosenhan_experiment] as a con, but a good con, and it was removed by an angry person who felt that con was an insult to Rosenhan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Confidence tricks are bad? 

message: This is perhaps the most well written sentence I have ever come across on Wikipedia. Well done, authors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.214.66 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get-rich-quick schemes are so varied they nearly defy description. 

message: In this, you go to a excellent 5 star resteraunt, order a $400.00 meal, eat that, then you place dead bugs, rat shit in your meal's remains, then bellow LOUDLY that you'll sue the damn place because the place has vermin, worse in it. The staff offer YOU the $400.00 meal for FREE, since a lawsuit will destroy the place's reputation. This is a REAL scam, easily pulled off. Also Totse should be listed, since it tells HOW to pull off these scams. I placed this about the food scam, only someone said it reeks of vandalisim. This IS a scam. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food scam 

message: The Totse info should be placed, since it tells people HOW to initiate different scams, such as some used to bilk Wal*Mart, often called "Wally Mart", "Wally World" on Totse. 65.163.112.114 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totse 

message: The charity "tricks" described aren't confidence tricks, they are just beggars' lies. Their success doesn't depend on the "mark" being fooled, because it doesn't matter whether the person really is disabled, has children, is out of gas, etc. It only matters that the "mark" is sympathetic. There's a guy in San Francisco who has been showing people a foot-long bloody peeled-off scab on his arm for years now, asking for cab fare to the hospital, pretending it just happened (bike accident or something). Yes, he's really bleeding. No, it's not a confidence trick. No, he's not taking a cab to the hospital with your $25. It's just a lie, not a trick, and certainly not a confidence trick. Even less, the beggar with her kids. 99.129.197.47 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If its a scam, it belongs here. 65.173.105.114 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your example correctly this guy is using a confidence trick.  The mark mistakes the use to which the con artist intends to put the money and it is this misunderstanding that evokes the charitable response.  It may not "matter whether the person really is disabled...," etc, but it does depend on deceiving the mark in some way (or else, presumably they would tell the "beggar," to sod off. Grubel (usurped) (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity "tricks" don't belong here. 

message: Awake (2007) is a recent movie involving con artists and should be listed.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0211933/
192.160.131.13 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the movie examples 

message: This section, aside from being poorly written, is unsourced and possibly not notable.  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day may also apply. I'm going to remove it. 207.108.142.61 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Nestorius (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in slang 

message: I browsed the page below:
http://www.online-literature.com/melville/confidence-man/13
and I wanted to get some information on it here, but it redirected me here. why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.170.108 (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article redirection 

message: I'm thinking it, or a similar word means, the crowning 'Sting' - 'the best one I've ever done'.  Please let me know asap.  Thank you.
:The only similar expression that comes to mind is Coup de grâce, though the meaning doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know the spelling of 'Coup de grau' 

message: I think that the list of movies and books should be split off to it's own list page. However, the remaining article needs to be expanded. To me, it only gives limited information about confidence tricks. Even a very simple con, the shell and pea game, isn't even mentioned or explained. Shinerunner (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list of movies and books should be split off, as it has more-or-less taken over the article.  The body of the article used to be much more detailed and informative.  Perhaps some of the old article could be restored after the split. Plazak (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps converting the see also listing of types of scams into a section of prose would be another way to make things better. Wongm (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Wongm. The list of movies/books can be split or removed, but the article itself about CT should stay. We66er (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the list of movies and books would make a very good article on it's own, but definitely the list needs to be trimmed if kept in this article. How about making a category, say, or something similar, putting the films there, and then keeping a short list of notable films in which the confidence trick is central to the plot? --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I still don't see how such a long list servers any purpose. It seems like an attempt to list all con artist movies. Wouldn't it be more helpfull to just have a couple very representative examples, and a link to the category containing the films as a link in the see also section? --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Split it off. The list has turned into an overlong and trivial compilation of every movie or TV show remotely related to con men.  Plazak (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: "Persons of any level of intelligence are vulnerable to deception by experienced con artists." This statement is misleading at best. Stupid people are far more vulnerable to scams and confidence tricks. If a proper source is not cited within a week, I'm going to modify this statement. Pygmypony (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was placing Totse in the See Also section only. Powerzilla (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  [[Totse]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many Rdrs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allen Stanford 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nigerean bankers 

message: I just removed the split template that has been sitting at the top of this article for more than two years---originally added on 10 May 2007, and receiving only scant discussion a month later.  This is a truly pathetic commentary on this article and the editors who have been working on it, myself included.  Given the dearth of discussion, the template should have been removed back in the summer of '07.  Certainly, something should have been done before two years passed.  What's worse is that it is probably a good idea, more so now than it was then. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The list of con artists lacks one of the most notorious, namely Peter Foster: check out his wiki bio for some details, but he has a very colorful and extensive history and several convictions.  It's very surprising that he is not on this list, and I'm kind of curious as to why. Shakeyourbooty (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Peter Foster, Australian con artist? 

message: It redirects from "Conmen" to "Confidence trick", but the word "Conmen" is not defined in "Confidence trick" page. Please add its definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph says: "The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist..."--GenericBob (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "conmen" 

message: The quote used in the "Vulnerability to confidence tricks" section is from a personal website, not from an authoritative source and is solely the opinion of the owner of the personal website from which it was taken. 
I do not believe that there is any reason this quote should remain as is, being used as a statement of fact.
Jbpayton (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote in Vulnerability to confidence tricks 

message: List of confidence tricks is logically a core part of confidence trick but is sidelined as a separate article and i think tends to get neglected. It is rather like having the "Types of lie" section in lie moved to a separate article. It undermines the value of the base article. The bulk of the existing confidence trick covers a list of con artists which is less fundamentally relevant than a list of confidence tricks. --Penbat (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have no idea what you are talking about. This is just one half of a two part process. Once the con artists material is moved to a separate new article, (i have a sandbox version in preparation here - User:Penbat/con artists) there would be almost nothing left in confidence tricks so the resultant merge wouldnt be significantly any bigger than list of confidence tricks. It is logically bizarre to find the essential part of one article in a separate article and instead find something else in the original article. --Penbat (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge [[list of confidence tricks]] 

message: I think the con artist material should be in a separate article from confidence trick and it should have a separate template.--Penbat (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Con Artists 

message: You will have no difficulty obtaining cites to support the claim that:
:Confidence men or women exploit human characteristics such as greed and dishonesty
because it is indeed a widely made claim -- but it originates with con artists themselves, to justify their crimes. Fact is that while some cons may rely on these moral failings in the victims, it is easy to find many examples that do not. The most obvious is the one that gave the name to "con tricks": what William Thompson exploited in the people who gave him their watches was trust.
This is done a little better in a later section where the list is expanded to:
:greed, dishonesty, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility and naïveté.
But even that list is far from complete. Currently, the most common con in my district is for a man dressed as a tradesman to come to the house of a frail, elderly person and claim to have noticed a serious structural defect in the roof whilst working on an adjoining house. Since he is in the area, he can fix it straight away for a discount price, but if the victim delays, he may not be able to come back for several weeks (during which time it is likely to rain.) If paid, he then climbs up on the roof, loosens some roofing and fastens it back down. Of course in reality no work was required and no real work was done. The principle thing the con man exploits here is simply the frail victim's inability to inspect his or her own roof. It could be argued that the victim is credulous in accepting an unsolicited opinion from a stranger, but really, what choice do most people have in trusting the professional opinion of a tradesman? Only trust one you find in the trade listings or yellow pages? -- but that's how the "lock out service" scam works!! (And if we accept the article's claim that The common factor is that the mark relies on the good faith of the con artist, what are we to make of the shell game or the Spanish Prisoner? In both of these it is assumed the victim will realise that player is a crook, but misunderstand how it works.) The only devious part in the roof repair scam is adding the time pressure, which prevents the victim from seeking a second opinion. Yet it is very plausible, because at present it really is quite difficult to obtain the services of most tradesmen, and urgent jobs like loose roofing can easily cost five times the normal rate.
 
Time pressure is indeed a common feature of scams (and high pressure sales!), but it, too, is not present in all of them; a long con is the exact opposite of time pressure, luring the victim into a false sense of security by doing things very slowly. In fact the only thing that all scams have in common is that they exploit some defect of human psychology that causes us to make erroneous decisions. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims aren't just dishonest or greedy 

message: ...is not explained here. I hate it when that happens... -- megA (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Long Con" redirects here, but... 

message: Recently
:Clear TV - I did a search by adding the word review to the product name. Not one review was even luke warm, not one satisfied review. url for this search:  http://www.highya.com/clear-tv-reviews  
No longer being hawked on TV
:Hair in an aerosol can for people with bald spots.1archie99 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not a list of the absolutely useless items hawked on tv especially on infomercials 

message: In the leading paragraph we currently read "A confidence artist (or con artist) is an individual, operating alone or in concert with others, who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, or greed." I think that needs to have something appended to it that indicates the motive of the exploitation. As it stands, the sentence applies to too many people, including politicians, marketeers, and probably most parents!
Can we add "... in order to defraud them."? Or can you suggest a better wording?
 Matthew C. Clarke  22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the definition of "confidence artist" 

message: Why is so much space devoted to this con? Shouldn't it be in the 'list of confidence tricks' page? Czolgolz (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazarene

message: hey guys, i was reading the introduction and i`m a bit confused by that sentence. 
"Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed."
confidence tricks exploit dishonesty? doesn`t realy make sence to me. greetings johny  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.180.141 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because anyone responding to an anonymous email request for help smuggling $50 million of unknown provenance into the U.S. (et al.) in exchange for a percentage of the amount smuggled is clearly a paragon of honesty  2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction sentence 

message: I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't check, but nearly all of the Stages of the con section is enclosed in doublequotes and written with a different tone than the rest of the article (and in the first person!). This makes it seem to me like it's a verbatim copy of the book referenced at the end of the section.
— BlacklightShining (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the whole text (the introduction and the six-point list) appeared as written in a 1920 collection of The Police Journal, so yes, this should be cut. I'll replace it with a summary of Smith's list. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The “Stages of the con” section may be copypasta 

message: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/grandparent-scam-explained-by-former-scammer-what-you-need-to-know/
The task is too complicated for me.
Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please describe the grandson/grandparent scam 

message: Add this link https://wiki-kompromat.ru/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2 Thanks. Irbmn (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: There seems to be a confusion about the name of the original confidence man. In this article he's referred to as Samuel Thompson but he has is own article as William Thompson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson_(confidence_man)128.189.195.222 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: William or Samuel Thompson

message: Somebody mentioned "Matchstick Men" in the "In Fiction" section.
For once I'd just like to thank ya'll. That's an excellent reference, which I was about to add till the rest of the editorship proved to be ahead of me. After all, the whole movie is about confidence men, even double-conning each other. Whoever you are, mate (not gonna doxx), that's proper work right here. Decoy (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I'm thinking The Producers. Does a scam rise to the level of a confidence trick?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F20:4110:8800:7782:AC12:8063 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional movies? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Job scam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Job scam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also bundled Employment scam and Employment scams in the same discussion. Jay 💬 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Job scam" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]