Talk:Mary Prankster/Archive 1

Samantha Johnston?

Does someone have proof that Samantha Johnston is the same person as Mary Prankster? -Joltman (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not hard proof. If you follow the link to the voiceover site given in the references and listen to the first audio sample it's clearly her. The picture there used to be done in the same style as those on maryprankster.com and was obviously the same subject. But since that link was put up the drawing has been changed and the only link to Mary in the new picture is the tattoo on her thigh. CortJstr (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it'd be excluded under WP:OR. Just because you think it's "clearly" her doesn't mean it actually is. DS (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is proof. If you look at the student bios for American Studies students at Rutgers, the Samantha Johnston there is clearly her, based on official pictures on the Mary Prankster website and also the details of the bio. Nsarwark (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Aha, that’s a wallpaper word, thought William. When people say 'clearly' something, that means there’s a huge crack in their argument and they know things aren’t clear at all." - The Truth (novel) DS (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The original argument may not have been sound, but they were 100% correct. Samantha Johnston's bio fits Mary Prankster exactly, and they look identical: http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/prospective/cwe2/profiles/sjohnston.cfm - still think this is a coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.25.200 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"What's our proof? Some dude online says that, look look, the photo exactly matches! The bio exactly matches! How do we know they exactly match? The dude online says so!" Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research. DS (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from knowing her personally? Does that qualify as "original research"?192.231.215.4 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, but anyone can say they know her personally. Prove it. DS (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.bizapedia.com/md/MARY-PRANKSTER-INC.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.213.85 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, still counts as original research. DS (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with original research? If it's backed up by evidence and the research is replicable that would certainly be preferable than re-citing a second-hand source of dubious veracity.

It goes against one of our central policies. You say "it's clearly her", someone else says "I don't think so". You say "that's obviously her voice", someone else says "doesn't sound like it to me". Why is your argument better than the other person's? No original research allowed. None. DS (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)