Talk:Prank call/Archive 1

Greek Culture
This section was very vague and made little sense as to why it is there. I looked back through the history and found the initial entry, and I can see why it was pared down. Still, a lot of the naming and terminology needed some explanation, so I went back and stuck some more information from the older edit back in. Wavy G 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring article
As it was, there was little structure to the article. It looked as though it was just a depository of different points, examples, and references that various people popped in willy-nilly. Aside from the "Simpsons", and "Examples" sections, nothing was organized. I took the liberty of reorganizing all the points mentioned into appropriate subsections. No content was removed. Only cleanup, and additional information was added to help clarify many of the points mentioned. Enjoy. Wavy G 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerky Boys
Without a doubt the greatest impact on popular culture has been the Jerky Boys, yet they mentioned only in passing. They had 2 platinum records and a major motion picture made. The entire "Prank Calls in Popular Culture" needs to be expanded. The "Prank Calls and the Internet" section is huge, and mentions callers that few people are familiar with. I am happy to help expact the Popular Culture section. If I don't do it, then someone else needs to Bruegelpie 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Jerky Boys were popular with their albums and films. I'm sure that most people with an interest in prank calls will remember the Jerky Boys, but have never heard of Blackouts Box.

"Typically" paragraph
I personally find the second paragraph to be more than a little bit pointless. I think it should be removed.RSido 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits and vadalism done by user Optigan13
Optigan13 - you have been warned several times by several different users, do NOT delete massive sections of well established articles in order to promote sites you are affiliated with. If you wish to ADD something, then ADD it to the correct section with proper wikipedia policy and guidelines, not by DELETING or replacing sections. I am specifically reffering to your promotion of Zolar and PCU. ManofThoth 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth April 20 2007
 * You need to learn how to read diffs. The column on the left is the older version, and the column on the right is the newer version. So if you look at my edit you will see that I updated a wiki-link, and removed external links from the see also section. See also and external links are two separate sections of any given article, and shouldn't be confused. If you look at the edit after mine you will see that the user following me removed the section you are referring to. The user after me made that edit. Also several warnings by several users, really? Generally two warnings by a single IP user from two months ago(February) over a content dispute do not constitute several warnings, and definitely do not constitute several users. Some other issues to note; "Site" refers to a website, Cite refers to a citation as in WP:CITE or WP:CITET. User warnings are generally used based on approved warning templates liked those based on WP:WARN. Not just keying in something at the end of somebody's talk page. Bearing all of this in mind, and referring to WP:TALK, feel free to re-factor or strike-though any of your comments or warnings. - Optigan13 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why can't everyone just get along? Can't we call prank eachother together? Please, prank call me! I want it! For there is room in wikiprankia for all!


 * comment The above was not me. Yes I read the diffs but had clicked or interpreted wrong and see that the blanker was not you - my bad. It looked like it was because the only information left in the change was the info you added. Anyway getting beyong that, I really feel some other areas: ESPECIALLY the Examples section, needs to be cleaned up. ManofThoth 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)ManofThoth

ShoutCast
I don't see why Wikipedia should put up with constant spam from ShoutCast stations trying to advertise their network, none of them are providing efficient citing sources and ALL of them are deleting things off the page that need not be deleted. If you look in the history of the page, there are several mentions to "Prank Call Underground", which actually cited sources and made perfect sense without advertising. "Prank Call Radio" seem to have taken it upon themselves to delete these sections and replace them with their own advertisements. I feel that we should remove the ShoutCast section completely and if these ShoutCast stations want to make their own article, they should do so providing adequate sources. - JinStewart 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blackout?
Citation to Michael Biggins being the first prank caller to have streaming audio on the web is invalid, the page used as a reference does not show this fact so it is obviously another attempt to advertise the name. Please have an editor look into this before it gets removed - I don't see why this article needs to contain this information if it isn't proven. Jiiin 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

National tv prank calls
What about all the calls National tv channels get? Like live talkback on cnn and stuff? JayKeaton 07:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Crank call word
I'm wondering, is "crank call" originally a typo that later turned into wide spread usage? I often type fast and end up writing "crank call" by mistake, using C for both instead of prank call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yes it originally was a crank call then somebody made a typing mistake and called it a prank call. people thought prank sounded better than crank so everybody in the world uses prank call now! i hope i answered your question! = ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.27 (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stickam and Skype
Would anyone like to put any information about the storm of broadcasted prank call shows on Stickam? I think something can also be put up about the use of such computer programs as Skype. Skype makes it possible to dial a telephone from a computer, and through the Skype encryption, the caller is untraceable. At least that is what I have been told. If anyone would like to elaborate here or on the article, I find this topic to be relevant. Ace Fool (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology
Someone should just remove that section about battle toads. Anti-scientology people always consider themselves and the message they spread to be super-important and a valid excuse to smuggle it into wiki pages all over, but this badly written piece doesn't fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.221.228 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted, in the future you can just remove the material yourself. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

74.72.163.21 edits
I have done a massive cleanup of this article and romoved all the ridiculous unnotable references nounknown prankers. The only ones I left were the Jerky Boys, Crank Yankers, and the Simpsons. All others were unknown nationally and did not contribute in any way to the arfticle. This article has long read like an ad for various prank callers. Also the whole Simpson's section needs to be removed. A small reference is fine we don't need long lists of Simpson's pranks, Put that on a Simpson's page. I will work on that later

- Anon - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.163.21 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't waste your time. Get a consensus before removing large content from articles please. IPavoider (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin prank?
I feel there should be some mention of the notorious prank call to Sarah Palin wherein the pranksters assumed the guise of Nicolas Sarkozy and had her completely fooled. Does anyone agree with me?

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ventrilo Harassment
Would it be a good idea to include this? ~bbglas007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.245.62 (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

India-Pakistan prank phone call row
I've heard about this, but finding sources is hard - anyone else able to confirm?? --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons
Do we really need a description of every single prank call Bart Simpson has ever made? Surely just a handful would suffice. Czolgolz (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are You Afraid of the Dark?
On the episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark called "The Tale of the Phone Police" is all about two boys making prank phone calls and being taken into custody by the phone police for their crimes. Just thought it deserved a mention.Leviathanlover (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

general improvement
This needs work! The Anome

I agree! In the Pop Culture section it goes from explaining Crank Yankers to randomly discussing Fone Jackers. After that, it goes back to talking about Crank Yankers. Then it gives information stating: "As a result of the popular show Crank Yankers, college students from Cal State Los Angeles and Cal State Fullerton created August 14th Southern California Prank Call Day.". Where's the proof of this information? Liamts (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On the internet expansion?
I've added a bit extra to the On the Internet section, but I'm not sure if I can reference to sources as they would not meet wikipedia's policy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.215.171 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I Removed by the way since internet popularity part listing prank call shows on the internet as it is not useful in the discussion of prank calls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.255.88 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Penalty?
What is the penalty for a prank call that is non-threatening, just harmless in Australia? --neoballmon 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Reply: Absolutely nothing. If you happen to annoy the person or not tell them it's a prank call it is up to 2 days of prison or jail and a few months of community service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.211.121 (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable reference - October 2010
I have again removed edits about a non-notable essay. Please see Talk:Jacob M. Appel for discussions of spamming and sockpuppetry and discuss here before trying to readd edits. Flowanda | Talk 03:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Blackout put back in
This page has been vandalized throughout time by every other person claiming to be 'the first' or 'best' or 'largest' or fill in the ______ prank caller on the internet without any notability proof. Blackout (actor Michael Biggins) has long been proven to have been the first person to bring prank calls to the internet in 1995 (no earlier site can be verified by whois) and it would be ridiculous to leave him out of this article. The wikipedia article on him also sites numerous more world wide notability and proof so this is not original research, but has been removed from this article by either vandalism or 'competing' prank callers over and over again. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there sources other than "whois" information? All whois tells us is that a website that was created in 1995 is still in existance - not that he's the first to use the internet to deliver prank calls.  Are there other reliable sources available that state it? --- Barek (talk) - 17:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources sited in this and in Michael Biggins article. Whois shows website creation (site was only ever a prank call site from its creation on. Wayback machine shows and verifies this at least to pre-1998.  Also sited two international printed sources. .NET magazine 1998 article and Harley Hahns internet yellow pages PRINT version. Show me ANY prank website with sources prior to this? This has been argued and verified countless times already.  Why there are tons of random references to little unnotable websites and people and Blackout's contribution to prank calls keeps getting removed / vandalized is ridiculous.  I am not a fanboy - keep the old formatting if you want, but prank callers are known ego trippers who keep removing and adding eachother without any notability. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to prove another was first (I'm not making a claim), it's up to you to provide reliable sources that the one you claim was the first. I reviewed the other article as well as the sources both here and on that article - followed the links for the refs, and those pages simply support that the site exists, not that it's the first.  If you have another source, please discuss it here rather than edit warring over the article content. --- Barek (talk) - 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayback machine shows a page of the site having a prank call up and streamable in 1995 (the first year and first release of real audio 1.0) where audio streaming was first possible. Blackout's Box page is first and only verifiable site to have a streaming prank call up from that time. Wayback machine is down now I shall find the page for you and reference it when it goes back up. I wish not to edit war either but this notability and credibility has been proven already.

This is the page (still up from 1995) I believe that wayback machine references too:

http://www.blackout.com/dogbeaters.htm Also, the real audio 1.0 page correlates the 1995 date - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks

Real audio 1.0 (which is not even a format one could encode in anymore if one wanted to fake it at least not that I know of) was released June 1995 - it was the first way to stream ANY audo - Blackout / Michael Biggins used it for the first streaming prank calls as far as can be verified by any known source - and by the actual codec of the call on that link I just showed you.

74.72.154.158 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that wayback machine and whois do not state that he was the first. They demonstrate that he provided such content in 1995, but to jump from that to conclude that he was the first would be original research.
 * The same can be said of Harley Hahn, which only states that it's a funny site, not the first. Likewise, the Weird Net Tech article scan simply states that airing the material on the net was a natural progression - not that he was the first.  The claim is again mentioned at Michael Biggins; but no additional sources not already listed here to support the claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Barek, I disagree with you. This is not original research. HE himself has stated many times on his show that he was the first prank call site online and there are further sources that prove this that were deleted, such ad direct links to audio from his show, and the sources are there to back that up, including the timeline, the website registry, the webpage from 95 which is still up and I believe dated in the view source page, the real audio site correlating the date. That is factual not original research. Do I need to go and find the audio and advertisements so? There were no 'prank call' sites in 1995 except Blackout's Box. That's what you got when you did a search, and he specifically claimed on the page "the first streaming prank call site on the net". I will see if I can find this page as wayback seems to be limiting me to 1997 now. But I fail to see how the conclusive evidence to support his claim is original research in any sense. There is an interview with him where he states "the day real audio 1.0 came out, the first thing I did was make a streaming prank call, before that, people had to actually download low quality wave files. I will see if I can locate this interview but it is audio. Again others have done this research and been deleted of vandalized by other prank sites and personalities that want to be considered first, bigger or better.  The sources for blackout / michael biggins clearly stand on there own, where as half this page should be removed as useless and poorly sourced, and why is there and endless list of the Simpsons bits?  How does that contribute to the evolution of prank phone calls through time? Or some random radio people who did one or two jokes and stuck themselves at the front of this article with poorly sourced or irrelevant material to the article.  The jump from having to download wave files to streaming prank calls was huge step and notable and important, and blackout / biggins was the first. Give me more time and I will try to locate THAT specific wording if that is what you are moaning on about. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is original research: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources." At no point at any of those sources is there a statement by a third-party reliable source that he was the first.  You are evaluating the data and coming to a conclusion - that is the definition of original research.
 * You should also familiarize yourself with the reliable source guideline, which clarifies that self-published claims and advertisements are not reliable sources. His personal claims and advertisements are irrelevant.  How many times do you see a place advertising "World's best coffee"?  It's the same thing, without third-party reliable sources it's nothing more than a self-promoting unsupported claim.
 * The evidence of the original page being up, the whois, etc are simply evidence that the page has been around sinse 1995 - they do not show he was the first.
 * What is needed are statements by third party reliable sources that substantiate the claim. I'm not saying he wasn't the first, I'm saying there's insufficient third-party reliable sources provided to support such the claim - and as a result, should not be mentioned here. --- Barek (talk) - 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The 8 page New Times Article, a large printed publication in Florida, which had it's own independent fact checking, also verified that he was the first person to stream prank calls on his website in 1995 with rel audio 1.0, and do a prank call radio show on the now defunt lycos talk radio and live365, as well as verifying his piper high school origins. This source is now no longer online, but it WAS and had already been sited as a 3rd party printed source of non original research verifying the information presented here. This debate has already happened and been satisfactorily proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Now that source is no longer online... so I must locate a printed copy of a magazine from 2002 or 2003? When a verifiable reliable 3rd party source is cited and then the online version disappears because the archive sites only keep it online for so long, is the person or article to then suddenly be discredited? That is ridiculous logic and then half of wikipedia's articles should be taken down when the sited source changes web locations or the like. I will go on a hunt for this article but again, this has already been discussed, proven, and hence why it was sourced and left in the Michael Biggins article, but now the New Times article source is nowhere to be found because apparently they only keep back issues online for so long. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have claimed several times that this debate has already taken place and been resolved - where did it take place? I've search this talk page and its history tab, with no past discussion found.  Likewise, I've searched Talk:Michael Biggins and its history tab with no prior discussion found.  Where did it take place?  A link to that discussion would help avoid rehashing past issues.
 * As to the source, you've mentioned it, and made claims of what it says, but the only past use of the source is in the Michael Biggins article where it supports the statement in the critical success section stating "Blackout and his website / radio show was the main focus of an 8 page South Florida's New Times" - it does not seem to have been used to support the claim that he was the first for this streaming content. As that source does not appear to have been used to support that claim in the past, there's no substantiation that I can find as yet to support that it stated what you claim it stated. --- Barek (talk) - 17:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I believe that I located the article at http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2003-07-24/news/blackout-com/ ... and while it provides information about him, it again does not mention he was the first. --- Barek (talk) - 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is one article, and right on the FRONT page it clearly state, "Biganski created the site in 1995 so fans could access recordings of his cranks." So that connects the 1995 date of the site with prank calls in a verified published printed outside source, which verifies what he ha stated on his radio show many times, that immediately the first day of release of real audio 1.0 - he put up two prank calls that were streamable and from then on his site was dedicated to streaming prank calls for several years, and he had the first prank call radio show before shoutcast was invented on lycos... I shall have to find that page reference again as it was deleted by whoever doesn't want this person getting credit. Also, he still has those old original pages up - the dog beaters page shows a date of 1995 and is in real audio 1.0 14.4. I will go on to find some more, but I don't see how all of those things are not enough. If you wish to change the wording to, "as far as can be verified, it appears the first person to stream prank calls is Blackout / Michael Biggins... then so be it, but don't go deleting it. This is verifiable stuff.  I shall also try and find the pass discussions... it may have happened under blackout / michael biggins / blurpinkle and they were all merged. Someone else may have streamed a prank call as well that same year but there is no other verifiable internet site or source before Blackout's Box of streamable prank calls, nor was it even possible before that date. What Blackout states is backed up by all of the referenced material and the dates and stamps on all the articles and web pages, so again I clearly do not see it is 'original' research of any kind.

74.72.154.158 (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, all the source shows is that his site has been used for streaming content sinse 1995 - not that he was the first. Adding weasel words to get around the problem of no source stating he was first is not a solution on Wikipedia.  There's clearly evidence to suggest he was among the first - but nothing shows he was the first; and among the first isn't a reasonable claim to notability to be listed here - although the mention is certainly appropriate within his own article. --- Barek (talk) - 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Streaming PRANK call content. The entire article is focused on the fact that he streamed PRANK call content from 95 on and the means by which he did it. That is relevant to the evolution of prank calls as it was pre-shoutcast days. That is relevant - you are the one who seems to claim it is not. Certainly listing 90 Simpson's prank titles is a useless waste of space on here and contributes nothing. Why don't you delete and clean that up? I will try and locate further sourcing that quote sthe exact words "the first to prank" since that is what you seem to want even though every article proves this through the dates backing up his statements. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are claiming he was the first to stream prank calls, which if true, would be reason to mention him in this article. While you have certainly presented more than enough evidence to show he was doing this in 1995 and was therefor among the first, nothing presented shows he was THE first. --- Barek (talk) - 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming. I am writing what he claimed, and what is backed up by all the sited 3rd party references to support his claim, and I have been on the internet since 300 baud and commodore vic 20s so from being an admirer of some of the work, and logging into the site way back when, I can verify that there were no other sites up at the time streaming prank calls. When you searched for prank calls in 1995 - the only site streaming them was this guy, then many prankers followed suite later such as kdk and ect all the other people who randomly put themselves in this article and delete blackout / biggins. If there were any others who were before him or even the same time - there would be some other references to it on the internet or in print SOMEWHERE, but there is not. All other prank caller references of pranks streaming on the internet are from 97 or later or after shoutcast started. I am fairly certain there are some other references that report this and I am trying to locate them as well. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another site that seems vaguely like wikipedia that has a fuller info and write up that may have even been originally taken from wikipedia then vandalized:

http://tripatlas.com/Prank_call 74.72.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, specifically, the statements:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ... Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles."
 * The sources you have provided thus far support that he was streaming content in 1995, which makes him among the first. No reliable source provided thus far states he was THE first, other than his own site, which is not a reliable third-party source of the info.  All we have is your claims (restating the person's self-promotional claims) and a compilation of original research. --- Barek (talk) - 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources verify the exact dates that correspond with his own statements. He stated that he was tinkering with audio and when he found out real audio beta was being released, he instantly put up two prank calls on that day, one being the Rooksnichien society (spelling is off on that most likely) and the other being the dog beaters.) His site opening and whois registration date is EACTLY the date of real audio 1.0 beta release - so I would say that is pretty verifiable confirmation of his claim. The actual pages are still up from the day he put them up - at least for the dog beaters.  That is the 1995 jul 26th release of that prank in the format of real audio 1.0 - so not only does that full verify the statement that he was the first to stream pranks on the net, it is also impossible for there to be anyone who streamed prank calls before him, because there was no streaming technology existent or available before that date - so it's impossible that someone streamed a prank call before him, and there are no records anywhere of anyone even coming in to a close 2nd. The next pranks I can find on the net date from 96/97 on.

another source of audio history on the net that while it does not mention prank calls, does mention the timeline and history of audio evolution on the internet, and that the first major usage of real audio wasn't till the fall of that year.. but the date of the real audio beta - which Blackout claimed he used on opening day of his website, is exactly the same date. I call that verification not original research, but I am trying to find another article from another source that has this.

http://david.weekly.org/mp3book/ch1.php3

74.72.154.158 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By definition, the sources you provide are original research. If you can't see that fundamental fact, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion.  If you can find additional researches that state the claim, great - I'll even help format the ref to insert it.  But otherwise, all we have are multiple research points that point to a possibility of him being the first; but not one of the sources confirm that he was THE first, only that he was streaming content in 1995, which makes him among the first.
 * As we seem to have hit an impasse, I'm requesting additional input from some neutral third parties per WP:DR. I'll post a general request for comments as well as a request at the subject related WikiProject WP:COMEDY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Do the provided sources verify the claim of being first to stream prank calls on the internet?
In the above discussion at Talk:Prank call, are the provided sources sufficient to verifying the claim of blackout.com (owner Michael Biggins) being the first to stream prank calls on the internet? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In my view it is more than sufficient and does not constitute original research and is an important contribution to the history of prank calls. I also have been around the web since ARPANET and telnet and BBSs and remember Blackout from when he had pranks up and downloadable before he had Blackout.com or BlackoutsBox.com, he had another website, and he talked about real audio 1.0 beta and he was one of the testers, and he promised to have streaming pranks up the day of release, and he did. I contributed to much of the first article but gave up on the constant vandalizing of it. There was another article in a printed publication that sourced this exactly as is stated "Pranker Blackout first to "stream" prank calls without having to wait or download them" was the title or headline, but it does not appear to be up anymore. Perhaps we can have this verified with someone form the realaudio / realplayer company. if they still exist. I vote he stays in and agree, it contributes to the art and history of prank calls. I actually believe blackout called them "crank calls" at the time. In any case I will also try and help find more sources. I may have some printed newspaper article that mentioned it. ManofThoth (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources, that would be great. Incidentally, welcome back after over a three years absence to return less than two-and-a-half hours after an RFC is started on one of the few topics you've ever edited.  Excellent timing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And how am I or anyone else supposed to read into that nasty sarcasm? I'm some special agent for Manoftot or Blackout? You have it right... blackout has me on his 5000 million payroll to take over Wikipedia so he can sell CDs... oh but wait he doesn't even sell them. I watch and contribute to only a only a few articles - I saw this argument come up.. I am here to lend my support. Mano agrees - You wikipedia Nazis need to watch your tone. You are not the gatekeepers of information and I take personal offense to your approach. 74.72.154.158 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it however you want, if you read anything into it, that's your issue. It was an accurate observation of his amazing coincidence of timing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have it set to notify me when this article changes. One of my passions in life is prank calls and I have a collection of the entire history of prank calls. I think it's also an amazing coincidence of timing that you show up to revert and delete useful and relevant information, yet you are not deleting the other tons of crap in this article. Why are you going on a witch hunt trying to remove Blackout? It's people like you who destroy wikipedia. You could be getting rid of the tons of undocumented garbage in this article and helping it to be something good, but instead you harass and negate by just deleting very well written and accurate parts or prank call history that have complete 3rd party documented notability and relevancy. Most likely you are one of those other prank callers under a sock puppet account or friends with someone else, but I don't really care what you think. I will find more needed references but I am voting against you and don't think people like you shouldn't even be allowed to contribute because you do nothing to help advance knowledge, only destroy it in the name of nit picky tedious opinion that YOU don't find these sources accurate. You know dam well Blackout was the first person to stream prank calls and there is tons of evidence and articles supporting it and NOTHING refuting it, but you just want to 'win' now. You disgust me sir. ManofThoth (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep your discussion civil and avoid personal attacks. I made no accusations, and certainly did not direct insults towards you.  I made an accurate observation that is clearly visible from your edit history that despite edits to the article for over three yours, you chose to return so quickly after the RFC started.
 * If you trully believe that I am a sockpuppet, feel free to open a discussion at Sockpuppet investigations. I have no qualms whatsoever about having my account, contribution history, and all tracing records on my edits reviewed in detail.
 * I am sorry that you find following Wikipedia content guidelines and policies to be a problem; but the fact is, the sources do not state what is being claimed. They show he was among the first, but do not state he was THE first.  Any analysis of that data to attempt to reach the conclusion that he was the first is clearly original research.  As to the other content, feel free to clean it up - per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that other stuff also needs cleanup does not negate the fact that the recent additions are based on original research and lack reliable sources to support the claims. --- Barek (talk) - 18:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources don't necessarily reflect Biggins as the first necessarily. They support that his site was registered in 1995 and he was broadcasting at that point. There are no sources that contradict his being on in 1995, and none for anyone claiming to be prior, but I haven't looked in some time. For me it isn't really an outrageous claim, so it didn't really call for more rigorous sources. The language should be changed to reflect the date, and leave readers to understand that no sources assert anything sooner. It also needs some toning down to avoid the overly promotional language. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote in the term something like this "The first person to stream a prank call on the internet (as far as can be researched) is Michael Biggins who is known by his prank caller / radio station host name "Blackout". If that makes it more accurate for you then so be it.  I am sorry I was slightly rude in my last post I had a bad day. There is also a radio interview where another station somewhere in south Florida, I think Fort Lauderdale, is interviewing him, and he clearly tells this story in that interview and how excited he was that he was a tester for the real audio beta software and that now people would not have to download his pranks anymore and they could hear them "instantly" with the real audio software and that made him finally make a website and put a prank call up that very day that it was released.  It used to be up somewhere and I am trying to locate it. ManofThoth (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than having some text in brackets, it may be cleaner to word is something like:
 * The earliest claim of streaming prank calls on the internet is Michael Biggins who is known by his prank caller / radio station host name "Blackout", who began streaming content in 1995
 * I'm not claiming that's the best wording; but as suggested by Optigan13, it both states the year (where the sources that support that much can be listed) as well as clarifies that no other sources assert anything sooner. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one objects to the above proposed wording, should it be implemented? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding I have been busy with holiday things. I am not entirely fond of the wording "The earliest claim"... because it puts the connotation that Biggins/Blackout is trying to claim something, when according to all the reasearch, to my eyes it is true. I understand your wanting more neutral wording perhaps put 'claim' doesn't seem neutral. I am more for "the earliest verifiable" or "earliest as far as can be researched" or "the first known streaming prank call". This leaves the open the option that there might be the possibility that someone did it before him, though I severely doubt it, and there is NO documentation to suggest it. But the wording 'claim' seems trite and as if he is manipulating to 'claim or capture something' which I truly do not believe he is. He DID these things, he did not 'CLAIM' to do them. So if you can perhps come up with some better wording I am open to it. I just really believe this man should be included in the history of pranks. There is now some further documentation on him at imdb.me/blackout  so imdbe has accepted him as both Michael Biggins and the living artist "Blackout" and there is some bio information there which would not go up without being reviewed and researched by the imdb.com team. One can not make real time changes like one can hers - as far as I know imdb check facts everything and it can take two to 3 weeks for any information on media production to go up from when it is submitted, and if they can't verify it they reject it and will not put it up on the public imdb page... even though an actor can write whatever he wants on his "resume" page. ManofThoth (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) ManofThoth (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew my initial suggestion wasn't the best wording, so I'm glad you posted back.
 * How about this wording as a compromise:
 * "The earliest known streaming prank call on the internet was posted by Michael Biggins who is known by his prank caller / radio station host name "Blackout", who began streaming content in 1995."
 * As to imdb.com; it's not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, here's a link to some of the discussions on using it: (link). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That wording seems acceptable to me. ManofThoth (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

duncan construction Frank Garett
this is a very notable person to be mentioned o if we could do so —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxiehoon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not notable, so I've removed the inadequately sourced section. No reliable sources yielded by Google search . In short, it's not enough to merely be popular on Youtube, there has to be significant coverage to support notability. JNW (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He was covered by Fox News twice yew stupid muthafucker- Frank


 * And He's also dead now, July 3, 2011, RIP Frank-Mgokuda (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of the 'Mark Knopfler' tapes?
I can't believe this article makes no mention of the underground tapes by a man purporting to be 'Mark Knopfler' of Dire Straits! The tapes were so hilarious, and they circulated throughout college campuses in the late 80s to early 90s. I'd like some background as to actually made those tapes, hoping to find it here, but nothing appears yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.160.77 (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mark Knopfler prank calls are now available for free download, uncut and uncensored, at http://www.beforethejerkyboys.com 68.98.52.214 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack and Rod clarification
Sal and Richard don't call the "guests" on the Jack and Rod show. It's been mentioned on Stern's broadcast that publicists send solicitations for authors to appear on The Howard Stern Show. Stern said he usually doesn't have authors as guests on his show, thinking his audience would be bored listening to authors plugging their books, and he doesn't intend to prepare for the interview by reading the book. So Sal and Richard arrange for the author to unwittingly appear on the phony Jack and Rod show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.69.247 (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Crank vs. Prank
This article seems to start with the premise that crank calls started recently. It starts by talking about the first internet crank calls. It also, oddly, is under the name "prank call" where crank call is listed as an alternate name. Crank call is the original name, prank is the alternate.

There seems to be no history of crank letters or crank calls in this article, which would help contextualize the practice. Crank calls originate in early radio days. DJ's pretended to be cranks (old people who call in to complain about weird things) and complained about weird stuff. Calling crank calls 'prank calls" is actually very recent. I don't think it's become the mainly used term yet.  I'm only in my 30s and still virtually everyone I know calls them crank calls.  Only very young people use the term prank calls. Where I live, anyway.

Essentially, I'd like some clarification in this article about the history of crank calls, and the origin of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.150.64 (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Friend
Hi why are you talking to my boyfriend 174.247.128.49 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Obscene phone call article
I came to the talk page looking for the discussion about a proposed merger with the Obscene phone call article that User:Mooonswimmer has suggested, but cannot find one. I see an Obscene phone call as one where the caller's intent is to offend the recipient and may be intended to harass, annoy or convey false information. This is often identified as a criminal offence that has distinctly different motivation to a prank call. Prank calls, on the other hand, may simply be a practical joke or even be someone with a legitimate complaint, who has received poor service and so is now "cranky". I think it is desirable that the two articles be kept separate. Though, if they are merged then the name of the article needs to change to a more inclusive and general title, such as Annoying telecommunications which can cover everything from telephone calls to text messages and e-mails that annoy people. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing; uncontested objection, no case and no support; added a distinguish template. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)