User talk:SamanthaG

Drop mom a message.

Congratulations! Squeezeweasel 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Infant edit
I reverted your most recent edit to Infant, as I don't think you can say for certain that a baby stops being an infant as soon as it becomes a toddler. "Child" is usually defined as between birth and puberty, although "with child" seems to contradict this. Some definitions of "infant" do specify walking as the cutoff, but others say around 2 years as this is the age that children tend to start speaking. Legally an infant is one who hasn't reached the age of majority. In other words, unless there's a set definition it's best to leave it open and clarify later. Ciotog 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule

please be aware that you have reverted the Oprah article 3 times, which is against the wikipedia 3 revert rule. Sennen goroshi 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oprah
are you trying to say that because she is female, that she deserves to have that in her intro, if world changers such as FDR, Bill Gates and Gandhi don't have it, then why should she? at the end of the day, what some magazine says about her should be/and is much further down the article. It is not as if she won a Nobel peace prize or anything, to have such a positive statement in the intro is hardly NPOV.

oh and regarding the 3rr rule, it is 3, not more than 3 - but unfortunately we both made 3 reverts, not just me..so lets leave the article alone, at least until the 24hrs is up, there is no need for either of us to get a ban over this.Sennen goroshi 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

also she might be important to someone living in the States, but for the majority of the world, she is just another chatshow host, she is rich, so are madonna and michael jackson - they are hardly important, they dont change the world. time magazine concentrates on US issues, and while her being on their list is worthy of an entry, it certainly isnt worthy of a mention in the intro.Sennen goroshi 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * im not saying you are wrong, but could you show me where Time magazine said she was the most important woman in the world, i saw some shit about her being one of the top 100, and she managed to get that in 2 centuries..the most important woman in the world, seems to have been missed by me.

I would be more than happy if what some magazine etc says about someone is removed from their intro....unless they won an oscar or a nobel peace prize, then I dont see any award being NPOV, when mentioned so early on in an article. I have no issue with it being in the article, its just a little biased to start an article with something along the lines of "so and so says that the above person is awesome" let people read the article, find that detail later, once they have learnt a little about the person. The intro should be free of opinion, even if its a fact that some magazine did say something, its them giving an opinion, rather than the magazine stating a fact.Sennen goroshi 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone this talks about what I was trying to say above. what you wish to be in the intro are facts, i dont deny that, but they are facts that set the tone of the whole article, awards etc do not belong in an intro, if there are other articles that have them, unless that article is mainly about the awards that someone won, they should not be there either.Sennen goroshi 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not going to waste my time or yours on a silly edit war, you have been polite, despite my slightly aggresive attitude, however if I can be bothered, I might get a 3rd opinion, because I still stand by what I based my edits on - I assume if there is a strong consensus or other valid reason for my edit to stand, you will not object - this is nothing personal, and I have no issue whatsoever if consensus shows me to be wrong, and the edit stays in the way that you wish it to.Sennen goroshi 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping improve the lead in the Oprah article, it's looking a lot more like a featured article now Shii (tock) 08:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was simply reverting your edit because while you did add some content, you removed several important references. I have now added back the references you removed in addition to the content you added, which I edited for clarity and tone.  SamanthaG (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The history of American height
A tag has been placed on The history of American height requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Waterden (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat
An article that you have been involved in editing, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat. Thank you. It is a fun article however. :-) Borock (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for keeping Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat
Don't thank me; I only interpreted consensus of the community. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat
Hello, SamanthaG. I have proposed that Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat be merged into Rod Blagojevich controversies or Rod Blagojevich. Please see the talk page to discuss the issue. Thank you. The above is not a templated message and was personally written by me.  Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Senate seat discussion
I don't know if you're into these or not (I know some people hate them) but I just wanted to give you a bit of recognition. The award above seemed appropriate. Thanks for the interesting discussion. --IvoShandor (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I actually take quite a bit of pride in being civil so it's great to be recognized for this, and the award makes it feel so official. :-)SamanthaG (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Well earned. I can be kinda abrasive at times.--IvoShandor (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Oprah
Samantha, next time do not revert the image without discussing it on the talk page first, it can violate the 3RR rule. Just becuase you like the image doesn't make it final for you to revert it. According to your editing history you have been warned of this before. Thank you. -- A3RO (mailbox)  01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oprah's name
If you read the actual source regarding her birth name, you'll see that it clearly says (in her own words) "On the birth certificate it is Orpah". That makes it her birth name. The part about the midwife supposedly changing it is not backed up by the sources linked. In fact, there's no mention of it at all in the sources. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to comment? Erzsébet Báthory(talk 13:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. SamanthaG (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oprah intro link
Hi SamG, welcome back! The new source you added to the intro doesn't work. I tried to reconstruct it by looking at the URL, but couldn't manage to get anywhere. Could you recheck the link? Cheers, Ashmoo (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick action on that. I hate to be a pain, but the source doesn't seem to support the assertion in the article. The source just says that she is the US favourite TV personality, but doesn't give any indication as to why. Sorry, but we really need to stick to reporting what the sources say. Ashmoo (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there are 2 sources. The first showing she is generally admired (favourite TV personality), the second explaining why she is admired (Time magazine profile states why she is an "inspiration"). That seems sufficient for a fairly obvious general assertion (that even you said is probably true) SamanthaG (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've re-nominated the Blago/Oprah article for deletion
Discussion is here if you'd like to participate: Articles for deletion/Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat (2nd nomination) Propaniac (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oprah
Hi SamanthaG, Thanks for your message. All the contents of my edits are in the edit summaries. Most of the sourcing for the article seems pretty great - books and news sources. My understanding was that Biography.com is not a solid source re WP:CITE. Apologies if this was in error. In answer to your Q, I try to work in small edit chunks so others can clearly see what edits I have made. I find it hard to track on the page if a lot has changed. I also find it's easier if you can undo smaller changes rather than having to lose and then redo lots of work, should anything need to be redone and avoids co-edit conflicts on busy articles like Oprah (or which I have had many today) :-)  You are doing a great job with the article. There's a hugh amount of infomation gathered. It seems like a great resource. Best wishes for the weekend. Spanglej (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Span (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

oprah: citing sources correctly, neutral point of view, no conflict of interest
hi SamanthaG, thank you so much for your 4 years work on the Oprah Winfrey article! imo oprah is such a great person, that her article deserves to be highest quality. a high quality article makes sure that references are cited correctly, and the article has a neutral point of view. please also make sure that Conflict_of_interest does not apply to you. you might consider editing other articles than oprah's as well. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * H ThurnerRupert! I appreciate your concerns and I assure you that I have no conflict of interest and I, like you, share the goal of neutral point of view and and accurate reference citing.  I have also worked on a number of different articles and even created an entire article that documented the history of height in America.  If you look at the edit I made, I used a different reference from yours and actually cited the fact that Winfrey was the first black to rank among America's top 50 philanthropists.  The purpose of my edit was simply to highlight the most notable points (first black in the top 50; top 50 from 2004 to 2010) without getting cluttered by all the minutia, such as where she ranked in each specific subcategories (which change every year anyway) and which magazine ranked her where (which is cited in the reference anyway, making it redundant to cite in the main text).  But I really appreciate your commitment to accurate references and I thank you very much for sharing your concerns with me in such a polite and respectful way.SamanthaG (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Congoid
Can I please trouble you to check the sources, easily available online, before getting into an edit war? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of "congoid" by Coon in the exact cited work:
 * Equivalence of the term with "negroid", by the same author:
 * But I cited a source showing he did not consider the terms equivalent in 1962. Readers have the right to know about the historical distinction between these two terms.  For you to simply remove my reference and categorically assert equivalency is POV pushing. SamanthaG (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed that by mistake - sorry. It's a useful quote and I have reinstated it. However, that does not change the fact that the categories were synonymous or mutually inclusive at one point; that Coon refined his classification later on does not make that invalid. We are documenting historical use, not one person's intent. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-instating it. Like a lot of terms, Negroid has both a broad and narrow definition.  Broadly speaking it includes not just congoids, but also capoids and sometimes australoids.  This was the original definition under the 3-race model.  Narrowly speaking, negroid refers only to congoids.  SamanthaG (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, the more I look at that and try to come up with a short parenthetical description of the relationship of terms (partial synonym, or subgroup but then including Capoid and Australoid), the less it seems suitable for a mention in the lede. If you've got to hedge a statement with explanations to this extent, it should be done in the text body. So maybe remove the brackets from the lede after all, and expand the subsection with the sources showing that Coons in some works does use the terms equivalently? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a couple revisions, but if you think I've gone too far, feel free to revert/revise. SamanthaG (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good solution, I think - cheers :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ape" and "monkey" terminology
Good luck with your efforts to clarify the ordinary language use of these terms as opposed to the more recent scientific use. There's a long history of battles over this. However, be careful to present both usages; one argument against presenting only the modern cladistic sense is that it violates WP:NPOV, but presenting only the ordinary language use would also be wrong.

You might find User:Peter coxhead/Info interesting; I've used it in arguments over this topic before, to show that an impeccable supporter of evolution nevertheless uses the ordinary language sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes both terms have more than one meaning but the wikipedia articles (especially the monkey one) in biased towards the less common definition. SamanthaG (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And it's been a constant battle to get anything about the ordinary language use. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do they even have a source for their definition of ape? Inferring definitions from Dawkins's quote is arguably original research. SamanthaG (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be at all possible if you could find a more authoritative source than a dictionary that explicitly states that humans are not apes despite the otherwise irrevocably unequivocal fact that humans are intimately related to apes? Like, say, a published scientific paper or book on human evolution and primate taxonomy?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the ape article talk page. SamanthaG (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Oprah
Hey Samantha, I noticed you reverted my edit to the Oprah Winfrey page. I don't know a lot about the topic but I had a quick look through the talk page archives just in case I was missing anything obvious and noticed you've dealt with Oprah's billionaire status several times over the years. The source currently used to support her being North America's first black billionaire (this Forbes article) makes no mention of that - it only says she's the world's richest African-American. The Robert L. Johnson page also claims he's the US's first black billionaire. So we either need to correct Oprah's page or Johnson's. Do you know of any sources that might clear up the discrepancy? Cheers, and I hope you're having a good day. --Tserton (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What discrepancy? Johnson was the first black American billionaire; Oprah was the first black North American MULTI-billionaire.  There's no contradiction as these are two separate achievements.  SamanthaG (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response! I see what you mean. "Multi-billionaire" sounds a bit clunky to me since it's not a very common word, so it personally strikes me as less notable than being the first woman billionaire, but if that's the consensus wording it doesn't matter. In any case we'll still have to find a source to back up the "first multi-billionaire" stat since the current one doesn't do that. --Tserton (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Check out my latest edit. Instead of North America's first black multi-billionaire, I noted that she was the World's ONLY black billionaire.  This occurred because Johnson lost his billionaire status in an expensive divorce in 2004, leaving Oprah as the only one from 2004 to 2006. SamanthaG (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)