Talk:Strip search phone call scam

message: Should something be put in the article that this scenario was used in a resent episode of law in order SVU?--Blood Panther (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. F (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Law and Order

message: Hello, I have a problem with the following quote: "If Stewart was indeed the caller, his occupation as a correctional officer would seem to confirm the conclusions of the notorious Stanford prison experiment.". Considering the fact that i dont see a citation and that wikipedia does critisize the Stanford prison experiment, wouldnt it be better to say that it supports (and not confirms) the Milgram experiment. Personaly i dont see how this incident would in any way support the Stanford prison experiment (other than correctional officers being sadistic), if anything it supports the Milgram experiment which shortly states that people will put their consciousness aside when authority figures tell them so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidaslundell (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 January 2007
:I agree. -Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.229.13 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 January 2007
:* Detention guards reveal their sadistic side.
:* Even in absence of real constraint, victims easily become very submissive.
:
:--Nnemo (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: The picture of the woman being sexually abused should be removed. This is a real person, who is really being raped. I partially disagree. I feel that it should be kept on the article, as it is VERY relevant to the article, and provides a visualization of what went on.
However, I wouldn't not object to hiding it behind a "click here for picture" link. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. --99.199.42.152 (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wikipedia is not censored, since this is after all 2006. The picture is censored, her name is censored.  68.0.20.56 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Picture

message: The following is a quote from a cited source: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities -- areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
This is a bullet in the article, not indicated as a quote of any kind: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities — areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
Furthermore, the source cited for the 'quote' appears to have itself taken the quote from the source I am talking about, 2 years later, with minimal attribution. It's not a better source than the original, so if quoting without indicating that it's a quote is valid, the citation should still be changed to the original source of the quote, rather than somebody that is quoting the original source. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005510090392 , the second is here: http://hitsusa.com/blog/163/mcdonalds-strip-search-video/
It seems likely that there is more in that list, but I'm tired, which is why I didn't check everything and quote as necessary-- but really, who wants a list of quotes instead of 'original' content?Scorchsaber (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: This article is not a humorous article and does not belong in this category.  Please stop adding it.  KiTA (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed this category again.  KiTA (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ. There is a great deal of comedic value in the suffering and humiliation of others. Haven't you ever seen America's Funniest Home Videos? Uncle Dick (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Due to issues with an abusive sockpuppet account, adding that category results in an immediate indef block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:American comedy and humor

message: Strangely the article has contained an assertion that Summers, the woman who forced the young girl to strip in the Mt. Washington McDonalds case, was awarded over a million US dollars as part of the victim's lawsuit.  I removed it .  --C S (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim that Summers was awarded over a million

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem removed

message: David R. Stewart, none of the sources say what the R. stands for? Tyciol (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not important.  I'd like to ask that you kindly drop this line of inquiry at once.  I'm sure that you have much better things to do than this. 24.23.32.249 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, don't think you'd find "david+r.+stewart"+david+stewart+mcdonalds many results outside name search databases. Nevard (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle name

message: This page is way too long, and has way too much detail. 203.24.135.66 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is “too much”, for example ? --Nnemo (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: Why exactly are we seemingly protecting the name of the victim? Does Wikipedia have any policy on that? It's on every reference website!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.24.156 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rape and sexual assault victims are typically not identified by name to protect them. Do you think the article would be improved by including her name? (Wikipedia isn't censored, so technically it could be included - I'm not sure what good it would do.) Buspar (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's in the sources; not so important here. Cool Hand Luke 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the article I noticed the victim was not named. I vaguely assumed the name might have been suppressed in the hearing (and reasonably so), so was surprised that one of the linked-to references gives the name up front. I agree that having the name itself really does not add much, but its omission here is noticeable. Format (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it is not. However, there are steps taken to preserve the privacy of individuals. This sounds like one of those cases. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of victim 

message: How DARE any one write "A quick-thinking employee dialed *69" if Summers or any other of the three morons dialed it. Overall the article has a disgraceful apologetic tune in it as if it was written by Summers lawyer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.68.194 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "quick-thinking"  

message: I've upgraded the assessment on the article from Start-class to C-class. It would take very little for the article to be upgraded to B-Class, mostly more inline citations. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: The description of the 26/01/03 incident could be more appropriately worded. While the other examples in the "prior" section clearly show that the recipients of the calls (wrongly) believed they were doing the right thing, the Applebee's example seems to imply that the assistant manager was simply taking advantage of the situation. The only real evidence for that viewpoint seems to come from the fact that the he had received a memo warning about hoax calls a month earlier. Perhaps the current description is accurate, but the single paragraph about it in the citation is ambiguous. 222.153.51.127 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applebee's Example 

message: "I got a phone call telling me to take the clothes off a customer so I did it". Never heard anything so stupid in my life.
Yes, it seems many McDonald's employees are incredibly stupid.
:What about the customer? Excuse me miss, but there is a police officer on the phone and he says you need to take your clothes off..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.163.16 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah right 

message: The name is wrong.  This is either a scam or a prank. It cannot be both.  If the calls were part of a plot to defraud McDonald's (i.e. the "victims" were in on it) it would be a scam.  If the calls were made by one or more persons to unwitting (and witless) staff, and relying on the incredible stupidity of McDonald's employees, then it would be a prank.  Obviously it is the latter only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily I think you could rightly call anything where you pretended to be something you weren't a scam with or without personal gain involved.  Conversely one could easily argue that this wasn't a prank since one generally assumes a prank to be done for amusement and this seems more likely some sort of sexual gratification or power trip.
However at the very least I think call should be pluralized since obviously there was more then one call.--99.61.24.92 (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Wholly agree, Modern Primate. Note: see  at en.wiktionary. "Scam" redirects to Confidence trick. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The calls were pranks, or false, but not "fraudulent". The word fraudulent does not belong in this article at all.Royalcourtier (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudulent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617042937/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200516425.pdf to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200516425.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304062757/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071006/mc_lawsuit_071006 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071006/mc_lawsuit_071006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608064530/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/15/State/Supermarket_superviso.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/15/State/Supermarket_superviso.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 26 January 2003, an Applebee's assistant manager subjected a waitress to a 90-minute strip search ...
:Can that possibly be correct? How can you spend that long searching one person? (Granted, there are some people I wouldn't mind spending that long searching, given their consent, but this seems beyond the scope of this Talk section.) – AndyFielding (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does one look after a while? 

message: Specifically: "Speaking with her boss, Summers discovered that she had been sleeping and had not spoken to any police officer."
As she was not actually sleeping, I guess this means sleeping in the sense of "sleeping on"? A bit informal. 2604:3D09:867B:9830:DC4D:9DD8:67A2:B8D1 (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of slang in article 

message: Is it me or does every single person seem like they don't know their rights or the law, period. Seems a bit sketchy to me. I mean, I guess that's just what I think. No discrimination or hard feelings towards anyone. A little advice to anyone- get educated (with the law, in this case.) 67.55.202.1 (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic & Reasoning says genius