Talk:Soundboard Prank Call

What the??
Last time I visited this article it was completely different and actually alot more professional sounding than this. It's completely amateurish and doesn't even lend any justice anymore to victims or techniques or anything. Is it possible to revisit the article history and revert it back?

KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh someone added more unverifable original research. I've stubbed it again. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The version I remember it being was very straightforward and while not exactly easily documented reference wise, alot of the information was commonly known to be factual and really wasn't original research. Either way, I'm reverting it back to where it was last in good shape.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, quit reverting the article. The way I had it was pretty detailed and I could've sourced alot of the stuff there had I been given time, or do I need to seek a mediator to resolve this, nevermind the fact that stuff like this is usually done by consensus, for which there was none to change the article so drastically. KirkCliff2 (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hbdragon88, have you ever listened to any soundboard prank calls or even watched anything related on YouTube or are you just trying to ignore Wikipedia's actual guidelines and treat this article like a bureaucracy?

KirkCliff2 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS, WP:V. Just becuase it exists does not make it worthy of inclusion.  V says this: Verifability, not truth.  Yes, I've listened to prank calls before.  I'm a big fan of Ventrilo Harassment, in fact.  But not enough reliable, third party sources have covered it, so we cannot mention it here.  Please note, the WP:BURDEN rests with you to source the material, not for me to justify removing it.  Find some good sources.  Then we can really discuss what to include or exclude. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For starters, the version you have isn't sourced either and could easily be challenged too, thus making your case invalid right there. I do believe it's also part of Wikipedia's policy also that unless your material is better than what is already there, don't make the edit.
 * Furthermore, looking back through the edit history, you made minor edits to the existing material without removing it altogether with some valid points and which I resolved upon restoring the article. If you are so vicariously opposed to the contents of the article, why didn't you re-write the article from the onset? Sounds a bit hypocritical...
 * And for the record, so far you have violated Wikipedia's policies as follows:
 * A. You have not assumed good faith
 * B. You have chosen to go against the consensus (no one else has objected to the article's content).
 * C. In doing so and by creating a pointless edit war you have caused a major conflict of interest.
 * D. In calling someone else's edits "crap" and through other actions, you have been uncivil or perhaps made a blatant personal attack.
 * E. You have clearly, selectively interpreted the rules to your liking, which is not the inherent nature of the rules, and to that extent, you may very well be considered a wikilawyer.
 * F. Lastly, you seem to have further overlooked the concept of ignoring the rules for the sake of making a better article.


 * I could go on if you like or you can cut out the hypocrisy and bureaucracy and try and be cooperative rather than disruptive. Again, if you allowed me some time I could source some of the material, and the rest of it should stand and should not be deleted based solely on your interpretation of the rules. KirkCliff2 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, my version isn't that much better. But at least it removes most of the unsourced information. Personally, I'm all for simply removing the article altogether and not mentioning soundboard prank calls. You seem to equate my stub – which has literally no information – to your version, which has lots and lots of information that needs to be sourced. That's not a fair assessment and it does not justify your re-inclusion of the material.

You have not resolved any of my concerns, most notably with the good, reliable third party sourcing. The only source you offer is literally a Yahoo Answers-like service in which anonymous non-expert people give their two cents. This does not pass WP:SPS or WP:SELFPUB, and definitely does not pass WP:V and WP:RS.

You accuse me of selectively following certain rules but you have not pointed out which ones I have ignored and which I have followed. Nobody has ever discussed the article before, therefore there is not an established "consensus" to go against. If I went to WP:THIRD right now I'm relatively sure that they would agree with me and not with you. Your WP:IAR is an essay, not a rule, and to be quite frank, IAR is not a trump card for ignoring V, RS, NOR, and BURDEN.

You are the one that insists on restoring the article. The solution is simple. Give me good sources, and I will leave it alone. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged
This article should be merged with the Prank call article, as this article contains less information than necessary to be a complete article and is basically a category of prank call. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree --67.224.22.240 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Victim Soundboards
How about mention in the article of the victim soundboards which have become popular in the last year. Popular victims are:

Angry Arab

Angry Black Guy (sometimes Called Other Angry Black Guy)

Angry Elevator Guy (soemtimes called Stuck in the Elevator Guy)

Arnolds Escort

Bait Shop Guy

British Bitch

British Idiot

British Jackarse

Black Guy (sometimes called Angry Black Guy)

Casino Man

Chinaman

Chis the Hacker

Confused Mexican

Crackhead

Crazy Indian Guy

Depressed Guy

Drug and Alcohol Lady

Drunk Guy

Duncan

Epic Crazy Lady

Epic Crazy Lady's Husband

G-Girl

High Redneck

Hotel Jackass

Hotel Spaz

Jackass Plumber

Jeff the Pawn Shop Owner

Massage Lady

Peggy (sometimes called Lady Death)

Philly Thug

Pig Sex Lady

Pissed Off Waitress

Racist Barmaid

Racist Redneck

Sal

Satanic Racist

Springfield Pervert

Telemarketer Lady

Tiesha

Timid Redneck

Tom the Pissed Off Roofer (sometimes called Tom)

Village Idiot

White Thug Girl

Young Redneck