Talk:John W. Morgan/Archive 1

SO what about what you THINK?

So you think the Mayor is smart so that should be left in?

How smart do you think he is? IQ 176 smart you think?

Actually I think he is 215 IQ smart. No wait, maybe 546878545 IQ smart. You cannot include what you THINK only what is KNOWN FOR FACT. Is it a fact that Mayor Morgan has an IQ od 176? I dunno, believe it or not IQ is not like being 6'10", you can't just see it or know it or measure it. It takes several tests, most of which are not considered accurate now, and a knowledge of the human compacity (enough so that you can accurately compare the intellgence of one person to the average and get the degree in which one is more clever then another.) Besides several years of school and the battery of tests, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

Do you see the IQ's listed for George Washington, Sir John A. MacDonald or Rodger Cuzner?

-- Hey buddy, have a look at the wikis for Jodie Foster and Geena Davis. They both list IQs as do MANY other wiki articles. I don't think Cuzner's IQ was ever made public, if it was it would be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 03:30, April 27 2007 (UTC)

NO. Because it is not encyclopedic knowledge. It serves no purpose other then to make John look smart. He doesn't need people putting possibly fake information in his WIKIPEDIA article to look smart. He is. AND NO! Putting in John Morgan is smart is not valid encyclopedic knowledge either.

-- It's not encyclopedic? Any information about a person is encyclopedic because it serves the purpose of conveying information. The inference that readers take from it is irrelevant (and there are a number of possible inferences). Mainstream Encyclopedias also commonly reference IQ-related issues, see: http://encarta.msn.com/list_FamousMensaMembers/Famous_Mensa_Members.html http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=smartsIQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 03:30, April 27 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord, please stop people from editing this.--Kirkoconnell 02:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

kirk: See the above comments. IQ is relevant and is commonly referred to in other articles of public people. Since when should we be so picky about what is included in a stub article anyway? This article needs more information added to it, not erased. There are several IPs in agreement that it should be included, only you disagree. The whole point of having the article listed as having unsourced info is to warn people the info is not 100% verifiable. If all wiki articles required everything to be verified in print the database would be 1/10th the size it is now. Thousands of other wiki articles in their infancy began the same way. This information is widely known to the community anyway. It's no big secret and was known even prior to the 2000 election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 03:30, April 27 2007 (UTC)

This is a dead issue, I am correct, you are grasping at straws.

IQ's of Jodie Foster and Geena Davis are listed because people feel it important to include it, same with Sharon Stone and I'm sure a 100 other actresses to show little girls all pretty girls aren't dumb.

It is NOT common pratice to include it. IQ is NOT a generally known statistic. I didn't want to say this because of bias but I actually know John Morgan quite well. Besides being from his old neighbourhood, I was the orignally webmaster for his first campaign and put up more signs and made more calls for the man then anyone ever should be allowed to legally.

Hell, I'm working with him right now trying to get the Council's recommandation of a Status quo sized council thrown out and a scientific study/plebicite done. I'm on a first name basis with the guy.

I'm not doing this for ANY reason other then it is not valid to have in the article.

as for "-- It's not encyclopedic? Any information about a person is encyclopedic because it serves the purpose of conveying information. The inference that readers take from it is irrelevant (and there are a number of possible inferences). Mainstream Encyclopedias also commonly reference IQ-related issues, "

Encyclopedia's make lists. There is a list of countries when you look at countries too. The issue is IN THE ARTICLE FOR THE PEOPLE, does it state IQ?

Let us look, USING THE PAGE YOU QUOTE: (http://encarta.msn.com/list_FamousMensaMembers/Famous_Mensa_Members.html)

Oates_Joyce_Carol: IQ NOT LISTED http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565197/Oates_Joyce_Carol.html

Schwarzkopf_H_Norman_Jr: IQ NOT LISTED http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579582/Schwarzkopf_H_Norman_Jr.html

Fuller_R(ichard)_Buckminster: IQ NOT LISTED http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578157/Fuller_R(ichard)_Buckminster.html

Asimov_Isaac: IQ NOT LISTED http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569812/Asimov_Isaac.html

In fact I spent 10 minutes TRYING to find an article WITH an IQ listed on the Encyclopedia Encarta, and guess what, DIDN'T FIND ONE. Not saying it isn't there, but it is not encyclopedic to include IQ's. Isaac Asimov was known for being one of teh smartest Men of the 20th century, but Opps, they failed to include his arbitrary IQ number, EGADS!

AGAIN, IQ is not general public knowledge. You cannot measure that. Saying Will Smith is African-American, sure. Saying John Morgan is of European decent.. sure. IQ? No!

As for the movement information, AGAIN, I believe John has stated "Keep up the fight. There are many people who agree with you including me."http://www.provinceofcapebreton.com/index.html Given the agruement is that Cape Breton should be treated more fairly and Mayor Morgan sued the province for fairness, they agree in prinicpal. I do not ever recall John telling me or anyone nor it is common knowledge here in Glace Bay that Johnny Morgan wants Cape Breton to separate completely from Nova Scotia. The statement is true in parts but as a whole, misleading. I removed it because it too, is not a verfiable or generally known attributation.

Next time please add a comment, do not edit comments. That is not normal wikipedia discussion practise as it removes comments from context. --Kirkoconnell 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I'll let WIKIPEDIA tell you to leave it removed.

AS per living bio policy, which is actually at the top of this discussion page:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Also it is clearly stated in the Wikipedia policy "Biographies of living persons" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

Verifiability

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

No original research"

The information is not Verifiabile. IT goes. It is not NPOV (clearly designed to show Mayor Morgan in a non-neutral light). And both go to Original research. Thats 3 for 3 right there. STOP EDITTING THE DAMM ARTICLE. ---Kirkoconnell 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirk:

You obviously have a personal vandetta here, but the object is not to debate the value of IQ tests. Many people with statistically rare IQs have their IQs listed on here. Moreover, articles like Jodie Foster don't have a verified source for it. I suppose even if there was a verifiable source, you would still challenge it because you don't believe IQ to be "important". Despite your -opinion-, this is relevant info.

Posting the wiki policy does not add any support to your argument. IQ is not considered controversial on wiki. This is PROVEN by the 100s of articles referencing the IQs of living persons (many unsourced). There is a clear precedent on this issue and it is NOT in your favour. It is NPOV, it's a raw fact. There is NO OPINION in listing a raw fact, thus there is no "point of view". If it said "Morgan is smart because he has a 176 IQ" then it would fail the NPOV test, but it doesn't. You're just way off base here and you need only to look to the precedents of other articles to see that

As evident by your language, you are highly biased on this matter and are motivated by personal opinion regarding the "worth" of high IQs. That simply is not a justification for removing it.

"AGAIN, IQ is not general public knowledge." --> By the way, do you even know what public knowledge means? It means information in the public domain. It has nothing to do with the -type- of info, but its level of circulation. In this case, since Morgan's IQ has been brought up numerous times by political competitors and was even in the 2000 debates, it is public knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 04:34, April 27 2007 (UTC)

---

1) "You obviously have a personal vandetta here" -> You obviously missed my point with the IQ agrument. I was using the fact that there is dispute about IQ obtaining methods to show this is a controviousal point. But virtue of that, in the stated policy of Wikipedia, it is to be removed.

2) "Many people with statistically rare IQs have their IQs listed on here" -> Where? I already went through the articles YOU directed me to on ANOTHER encyclopedia site, in which NONE listed IQ's. Am I blind? Did I miss that?

3) "There is a clear precedent on this issue and it is NOT in your favour." Actually, precedent and policy of Wikipedia states that any and all information not directly verifiable should be deleted. That is exaclty IN my favour and I quite frankly do not receive any point you have made yet.

4) "There is NO OPINION in listing a raw fact" The fact that John Morgan has an IQ of 176 is raw fact? I would think, by defination, the raw fact is John Morgan is a smart guy. The exact fact would be his IQ. To quote an exact fact, one, through Wikipedia policy, needs verifiable sources. The fact that John Morgan is a smart guy is not truly verifiable, let alone he exact IQ score.

5) "If it said "Morgan is smart because he has a 176 IQ" then it would fail the NPOV test, but it doesn't." Actually, that would be a conclusion. IT could still be NPOV, but saying someone is something followed by the score of a test to verify that, that would be a conclusion. Example: Donovan Bailey was one of the world's fastest men in 1996 because he won the gold medal in the 100m that year. Although up for dispute, winning a gold medal does justifies the claim of one of the world's fastest men. I'm not aguring the conclusion, I'm agruing the premise. It uses unverifiable information.

6) "You're just way off base here and you need only to look to the precedents of other articles to see that" -> Give me one. One article that lists the precedent. I'd like to see one policitical article that quotes IQ as a tangable statisic. Once you do that, then talk to me.

7) "As evident by your language, you are highly biased on this matter and are motivated by personal opinion regarding the "worth" of high IQs. That simply is not a justification for removing it." ->Again, you missed the point.

8) "By the way, do you even know what public knowledge means? It means information in the public domain." No. DO you even know what Public Domain means? Public Knowledge is information generally accepted by the public at large. Public Domain is anything that is freely accessable to the public. I.E. I have a website with an article on it. The article is public domain. It is not public knowledge because only a few people know my website. Don't try to be smart and correct someone unless you KNOW what you are talking about.

9) "It has nothing to do with the -type- of info, but its level of circulation. In this case, since Morgan's IQ has been brought up numerous times by political competitors and was even in the 2000 debates, it is public knowledge." -> Actually yes it does matter about type of info. Knowning John Morgan exact IQ is like knowing his exact suit size. Only an expert in teh field could know for sure and the public at large can only estimate or speculate. And I certainly hope you don't expect that if something is brought up in a debate, 8 years later it will be considered public knowledge. If so, I want to here Stockwell Day's defence plan without you looking it up. What? No idea? Wow! I guess that is not public knowledge huh? If you want to reference the debate transcripts as well as the test or expert, fine, enter the IQ number. I don't know if you realize or not, a lot of those actresses you quoted have Mensa claiming their IQ score. Mensa is the expert that evaluated them. Let the expert that evaluated John Morgan come forward and quote the test.

I am quite frankly annoyed at this bickering now. It seems that I am hell-bent to apply Wikipedia policy, and you are hell-bent to think of some silly, often ridiclous and non-sensical reason as to why it should be included. I'm not trying to sound rude or mean but you either defeat your own point on inspection or you claim that something verifies your position when in fact and practise it verifies mine. I am feeling embarassed for you. --Kirkoconnell 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am from WP:3O. Unless citation that meets WP:V and WP:RS supports the claim if IQ, it cannot be here. The burden of citation is on the person wishing to include information, not the person removing it. 24, you say that this information is out there, just provide a citation and that is all that is needed. Please note Kirkoconnell that WP:3RR has an exception for BLP issues, see WP:3RR#Exceptions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- The article no longer states Morgan to have a specific IQ, but instead points to attacks that were used against him in the 2000 Mayorality debate held at UCCB (shown and archived through Eastlink television). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 13:58, April 27 2007 (UTC)

-Refering people to review archived debate footage that may or maynot contain information, is or is not verifable and may or may not be avaialable for review is grasping at best. Please give this up. You are clearly violating policy. A third knowledgable party has said so. If you wish to edit Wikipedia I would suggest that you follow/read the guidelines and provide sourced info in the discussion page first and see if it is agreeable if there is debate on it.--Kirkoconnell 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-- The article no longer asserts any facts about Morgan's IQ. It merely refers to an attack used against him in a televised debate (that is archived and verified). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 14:16, April 27 2007 (UTC)

-- How is it archived and verified? You do not see this is the world's silliest attempt at a work around? Link the "archived and verified" footage then at the citiation. I can claim that in an interview John Morgan ate babies in south africa, it is archived and verified in BBC 7 acrhives, doesn't make it true.--Kirkoconnell 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Because anyone can go to Eastlink and request to see the tape (or ask someone who watched it). It's not asserting a fact about his IQ anymore anyway, it is merely stating that a statement was made. John Morgan is not someone who would have a lot of internet articles anyway because he is a local politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 (talk • contribs) 14:49, April 27 2007 (UTC)

-- That is still not the main point. Are people going view the tape in order to make sure this is verified? I haven't seen it. It is not a valid point. Refering to attacks in a debate, if it were true, is not a reliable source of information. The thing you are not understanding is that if I did not oppose this, you could put this kind of "sourced" information up. But I do because of the implications and the fact it is quotes attacks in a debate as facts or at least is designed to mislead. You are not even a user. I have a record of keeping articles honest. And I KNOW JOHN MORGAN. I just want a fair article and you just want a reference to John's IQ somewhere. If you cannot understand why that should not be in the article, you should not be editing articles.--Kirkoconnell 15:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a political opponent is not a reliable source, and likely to be bias. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, third opinion is not a ruling, it is an opinion, so please don't quote me as some sort of justification either way. Me being an admin plays no role in a content dispute, other than my intention of enforcing policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, I am trying to explain that it is policy issue and I wish for policy to be enforced. I appreicate your time on the matter. --Kirkoconnell 15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

If the edit warring on this page continues I will start handing out WP:3RR blocks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are both well past 3RR, next one who reverts gets a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I subject myself to your opinion on teh subject. I am a wiki user with a track record for making articles honest. I know John personally and campaigned for him, it is likely to his benefit to have a high IQ listed but I want to keep inline with wikipedia policy. The other editer does not even have a wikipedia account and is constaintly reverting my edits with less and less creditable information.

I think this article should be blocked to non-wikipedia member editing. --Kirkoconnell 15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And the other user just reverted after you explicity stating not to do so. I don't know what to do, I can only ask for policy to be enforced. --Kirkoconnell 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking anonymouse contributors is only done when there is a long term problem from multiple ips, this IP has been blocked for 3RR violations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that our friend has decided to change IPs and come back I have semi-protected the page for 24 hours. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion (1)

I followed a link here from the Third Opinion article, so these are my two cents

Personally, I do not see any reason to reference the IQ of John Morgan in the article. I also do not believe it falls under what is allowed by Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, as it is apparently controversial (based on discussions going on at this moment). Moreover, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons states

"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

I believe what is said about IQ here is questionable at best, as it also appears that there is no solid confirmation as to what exactly his IQ is. It may also be worth noting that, as per the IQ article on Wikipedia, IQ is highly criticized. P3net 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Thank you for that. --Kirkoconnell 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to just end this discussion.

Who are you to "I decided to end this discussion" or any discussion - This is the internets not Nazi Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk • contribs) 03:09, May 13 2007 (UTC)

All of the people out there who want to edit this article, I want you to read this and see why I am montioring this.

I've seen the crazyest not true stuff on here and so yeah I montior it. IQ is not important. And not only that, it should not be even considered my people how do not have accounts. Get an account, THEN argue you point on here. Why? Look at these posts from before:

Mr 142.68.13.196 posted:

Morgan is reported by the Cape Breton Post (December 14, 2001) to speak six languages and have an IQ of 190. (Chronicle Herald June 22 1999)

Six languages, wow. John doesn't speak 6 languages.

142.68.13.196->

Morgan is reported by the Cape Breton Post (December 14, 2001) to speak four languages and have an IQ of 173 (Chronicle Herald June 22 1999).

Less languages and lower IQ, I guess Johnny is just getting dumber.

142.68.13.196->

Morgan, a lawyer by profession, also received a Masters Degree in Business Administration and is reported by the Cape Breton Post (December 14, 2001) to speak three languages, is a Rhodes Scholar and has an IQ of 173 (Chronicle Herald June 22 1999).

Rhodes Scholar? jesus. That Johnny just got smarter right there. Note "Chronicle Herald June 22 1999" Before he ran for Mayor.

Mr. 24.222.89.53 posts:

Morgan, a lawyer by profession, also received a Masters Degree in Business Administration and is reported by the Cape Breton Post (December 14, 2001) to speak three languages and have an IQ of 173 (Chronicle Herald June 22 1999).

Opps not a Rhodes scholor.

Mr. 142.176.13.178 posts:

Morgan, a student of ancient history and a lawyer by profession, holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Dalhousie University and is reported by History Magazine (December 14, 2001) to be one of only five scholars in the modern world fluent in both the anciant Egyptian and Greek languages. He is reported to have an IQ of 173 (Cape Bretoner Magazine, June 22 1999).

Cape Bretoner Magazine, June 22 1999, interesting date no? And by the way, no such Cape Bretoner Magizine. 1 of 5 world scholars fluent in both, BOTH anciant (sic) Egyptian and Greek. Sweet holy jesus. Johnny smart again.

Thats when I started looking after the article. I know John studied Chemistry at St. FX not Anciant languages. So I know the article is wrong in fact and started watching it.

He got a 3 year degree at St. FX, got the LLB/MBA at Dal. It was the combined program. Has a wife and a daugther as far as I know no more then that. I made his first campaign website and I was active in his first campaign.

So why does this matter what his IQ is? obviously there is debate on the number, 190, 173, 176? Second, the sources change from Chorcile Herald, to "Cape Bretoner Mag" to nothing, no source.

Unless you can find one, don't put it in. It makes no sense and I have YET to have ONE example of a political figure in Canada having an IQ listed given to me. ONE.

Hell, even in regular encyclopedic articles, I cannot find those that list IQ par ce. The best I can find is people being listed as belonging to a group that is noted for requiring an IQ, like Mensa and THAT group tested them and is sourced.

John Morgan is a smart guy, he has three degrees. But don't bias his article with IQ information to try to make him look smart. He doesn't need you to do that. --Kirkoconnell

People with IPs are just are welcome to edit here as people who make accounts. And they are held to the same rules. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My over all point here is that random people have been making very random edits therefore I am strict in regards to the information in this. Adding something as orbitrary and unsourceable as IQ when it cannot be sourced and this article has a history of ridiculous claims, is only fair to the article. --Kirkoconnell

___

I looked at this and I think the IQ should stay. It was an issue in the campaigns and it seems that the only person arguing against it is that kirkconnel guy. A lot of people have been messing with the article (talking about languages and stuff) as a joke, but the IQ thing is actually legitimate (and likely what sparked the humorous). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 14:39, May 15 2007 (UTC)

While it may seem public knowledge, this Kirk O'Connell guy lives in the public and many people I have personally asked do not know the IQ of Mayor Morgan. In addition to this, IQ is not a commoningly quoted thing in wikipedia articles. I have an open challage to find an article with an unsourced listed IQ.

This IQ business seems to be that it is an attempt by a few Morgan supporters, to which I am one, to make Mayor Morgan sound intellgent which is biased and is not encyclopedic. I am reverting this latest piece under the BLP which states that any unsourced information that is disputed is to be removed. Please address the issues at hand if you wish to include it, namely that unsource IQ is not a common piece of information in Canadian Political articles and that it is supposed community knowledge when I cannot find a single person who knows it.

--Kirkoconnell 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a democratic site. Kirk you are the only person changing this. Everyone else disagrees with you. There are other wikis with unsourced IQs like Jodie Foster. The mod was clear that he had no opinion and that it was up to the people on here to come to a consensus. You are alone in your attempts to remove this well known information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.53 (talk • contribs) 23:03, May 15 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe it is very clear that I alone amacting solely on Wikipedia policy. If most peple vote that I have a PhD it does not mean I have one, therefore wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense you mean. By the way, I went to Jodie Foster wiki artcile, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodie_Foster, and I CANNOT FIND AN IQ LISTED. IQ is not encyclopedic. My challage is STILL on going. Find me examples of IQ in articles particularly for Canadian political figures, source the IQ information to a creditable source, THEN you can add it. My challage is simple and has not changed and NO ONE has been able to produce an example to support them so I remove it. And AGAIN it is unsourced so unsourced information is to be removed if contested as per BLP policy, and I contest it. Also, I am the ONLY wikipedia user, a.k.a. not an IP address, to have a say in on this. And while some would treat all Wiki users equal, I have a track record of keeping articles honest and encyclopedic whereas others are changing this article left, right and center to include sillyness. Before you edit, please address my challage, I think it is fair to do so in order to include the information. And again, I live in the area and personally know and love John Morgan so this is not a vendetta as some would say. This is pure following policy to ensure the best articles. If you do not like my mindset, maybe Wikipedia should not be your source of information. Also, I have YET to run into a SINGLE person in the Glace Bay area, John's home town, who can quote his IQ. So I am not satisfied it is public knowledge agruement yet either. Just because I am the only one stating this arugment does not make me wrong. --Kirkoconnell 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

IQ is relevant when someone's score is as statistically rare as Morgan's is. Maybe we shouldn't state his IQ to be a specific number, but information regarding his alledged IQ being a publicly debated issue ought to remain in the article. I will change the wording to reflect our uncertainly regarding the actual score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 02:21, May 17 2007 (UTC)

I am going to break my oppostion to the re-wording into simple agruments. 1) It is a re-wording of facts, hardly a different take on the subject. 2) I am from the community and I would say that besides wikipedia I have never heard of this being a topic of discussion amongst people and while it may have been brought up in a debate (as well as the fact he has a MBA but never truly worked in business) I think it is easily agruable that attacks in a debate are hardly encyclopedic and are often meant to characterize a person in a certain way for political points (which serves no purpose on Wikipedia). 3) I cannot find a "Mega High IQ Society" I found a Mega Society for people with rather high IQs and I cannot find a Canadian branch. Given john has never lived extended periods outside of Canada, I would think it easy to conclude that unless sourced, any suspected membership in an American Society be excluded from a BLP article. 4) If we include because of statements like "IQ is relevant when someone's score is as statistically rare as Morgan's is" to be encyclopedic we have to treat all article in the same manner. Again I would ask for an example of that in ANY article then in a Canadain polictian's article. But in addition to do, do we then conversely include statistically rare but low IQ's of Canadian Polictians? While Robert Borden was a prime minster, he was in fact a functioning retarded person due to his low IQ? I think everyone is just doing or thinking of whatever way they can to say Hey look at John Morgan, he is a genuis. I think everyone, besides admins, fails to see my point and think because I don't want to add unsource IQ that is supposedly being talked about in teh community although I live in the community and never hear about it i have some kind of vendetta against john or IQ scores. I don't. IT is jsut not encyclopedic and wikipedia/John morgan deserves better then that. Before you "Change/re-word" the EXACT SAME CONOTATION, please address my challage. Find an article where this is listed, without dispute. I will even drop the Canadian policiatan requirement. Any time it is listed it is usually sourced by an IQ society, not some Mega High IQ society, and THEY back up the number with the test and offered membership. Lets have the Mega High IQ society press release saying one of their own is mayor of CBRM then source it then add it four times in teh article and change his picture to include an arrow pointing at his forehead saying "170 IQ wha?" for all I care. BUT FOLLOW THE POLICIES. Hopefully this non-sense will end.--Kirkoconnell 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is unsourced info. I think it's better to phrase it in a way that doesn't state definitively what his IQ is, but instead mentions the tald surrounding it. I'm pretty sure the mega society doesn't discriminate by nationality. Hell, you need a 1 in 5 million IQ to join it.. it's internationally based. Have a look at the Geena Davis wiki.. they have her IQ listed there. I'm sure there are many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 04:39, May 17 2007 (UTC)

Okay, FINALLY, someone tried to answer my challage. Her score was listed and sourced to Amercian Mensa, I believe the page of the book it was listed. I have said this before, ANY IQ YOU WILL FIND WILL BE LISTED AND BACKED BY AN ORGANIZATION THAT ACCEPTED THE IQ TEST. Where is that standard here? Is MEga High IQ Society backing John Morgan? And if it is the Mega Society to which you refer, it is 1 in a million. And as far as I can tell, it is American based. Mensa, another IQ soceity, has country level sub organizations. Saying "I'm sure there are many more" really isn't answering my challage. AGAIN I ask, find unsourced IQ information in an article that is not up for debate. This is sourced. And she is an actress, they usually highlight those things to be inspriational to young girls, look shes pretty and smart. I think Sharon Stone is a member of Mensa too. Other then hollywood women, I cannot find an IQ listed. At all. And I have checked. Also, to re-phrase or re-word the same is not acceptable. While some information needs to be said in an unbiased light, we are dealing with completely unsourced supposed public knowledge that the public doesn't know, outside of a few wikipedia editors as far as I can tell. And no, the article is not completely unsourced and I believe there were actually a few more sources but they were removed randomly when people were adding John was a Rhode Scholar and was one of 5 people who knew anicent Greek.--Kirkoconnell 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that oconnel is using the internets to carry out a vendetta against people with high IQs like Morgan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 00:58, May 18 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats it. You got me pegged. I just sit around all day, wasting my time carrying out my various vendettas. I mean, I give reasons and quote policy but thats just rubbish, really I hate people with high IQs. I am rated with an IQ of over 145 classifing me as a "Super genius" causing me to hate all others in the same rating. I am the Dexter of High- IQ'ers. That is the SIMPLEST explaination isn't it?--Kirkoconnell 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk: No The simplest explanation is that you dislike IQ because you are not satisified with your own. Some people have high IQs. Just get over it. By the way, as for unsourced IQs see Dan Barker. Aren't you embarrased having your REAL NAME on here and being so obsessed with not having this wiki refer to IQ? It looks terrible man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 02:45, May 18 2007 (UTC)

I am not embarrased. That is why I use my real name. I believe attacking my character is very out of line in this agruement, especially when you don't have the courage to idenify yourself. I live in Glace Bay. This IQ business is supposed to be public knowledge. I cannot find a single person who knows it in John's Home town. Not one. Really. I asked. It is unsourced. It is clearly meant to be biased in John's favour. John is a great Mayor and does not need this information to prove that, it does him a disservice to use unsourced supposed information in his wikipedia article. I worked on John's campaign and made his website when he first ran, I know John on a first name basis. I have no hate for John Morgan and I don't care about IQs. I have hate for biased information in Wikipedia articles and with people who choose not to follow policy. This is an encyclopedia, it needs to be encycopedic. And great choice with Dan Barker, really. What a well known person you picked. Not a Canadain polictian and the information IS SOURCED, which is the exact opposite of my challage, but hey, closer then most Mr. ... Whoever you are. Also, the IQ inclusion was up for debate, and notice, they do not list a number but a percentile that the society quoted him as belonging to. If you want to source the supposed Mega IQ Soicety article for John Morgan, then I could including it as being relivent but I would still disagree with including IQ given that no encyclopedia includes it, that I can find. I am directing this to a 3rd party AGAIN --Kirkoconnell

Kirk: Why are you so angry about this? The entire article is unsourced.. it's a stub article in its infancy stages. Someone like Morgan is not going to have a lot of linkable sources (because he's only known in cape breton). Several posters are trying to add to and improve this article. IQ is an issue that has relevance to this article because it is commonly talked about in the community (and has been for years). Statistically speaking, very few Canadian politicians would have a high-genius level IQ, but IQ has been talked about for those known to have extraordinarily high ones like Trudeau and Nixon. Even Hillary Clinton's 140 is talked about. An IQ above 175 is extremely rare and while you personally don't think it's relevant, everyone else does. You're the only person who is fighting this. We can discuss whether a specific number ought to be referred to, but to simply erase anything that mentions IQ at all is wrong.

By erasing remarks that say "Morgan was accused of being a member of a high IQ society" you are simply proving how unreasonable you are since such a statement doesn't even assert that he has a high IQ (but that he was accused of it, which most people know)! Nobody agrees with you. Just let it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.238.59 (talk • contribs) 17:43, May 18 2007 (UTC)

I will freely admit, anonymous users as a whole seem to disagree with me. I am trying to be fair to the article. It is not entirely unsourced, there is information linked from the CBRM website, lets make that clear. My problem is with the agrument "Everyone knows it". I live in Glace Bay, John's home town. I've asked me thinking I was some kind of idoit for now knowing John's IQ score. Apparently every person I ask is also an idoit. It seems clearly placed to bias John as a smart guy because everyone knows he is to an extend. Any accusation, be it accused of being a member of a high IQ society or being accused or taking long walks on the beach is not encyclopedic, espeically if it is policitical and biased. For example, what if someone accuses John of being a bigot, do we include that to? What about if they accuse me of hating poor people? No because while it is fact he was accused, anyone can accuse anyone of anything just to have it included in an article. In fact, I accuse John of eatting Africian babies. There, now it should be added under your logic. I checked Trudeau, Nixon and Hillary Clinton I CANNOT find an IQ or a High IQ society listed. AGAIN, my challage is still open. By the way, while statsically rare, the amount of people who become policiatins is low as well. I am not trying to be be stubburn, I have a simple test I am employing a simple test that is not being met here. Also, it is not encyclopedic, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. If you cannot understand that I am following Wikipedia policy or disagree with Wikipedia policy, you should not edit Wikipedia. Again I have asked for a third opinion on the subject. --Kirkoconnell 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion (2)

This came to my attention, Kirk, when your second request for a third opinion was de-listed because your first request about the same issue was so recent.

I am not anonymous. I don't agree with you, either. It looks like you have ownership of articles issues which impel you to disruptive and tendentious editing (cf. WP:TIGERS). — Athaenara ✉ 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this "IQ" issue, but I think it should stay because it has been talked about quite a bit through the past election campaigns. Morgan himself was asked on this issue and it has been brought up in Cape Breton Post editorials. Perhaps it's not the most important characteristic, but it is certainly unique and worthy of mention in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.195.248 (talk • contribs) 20:52, May 18 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I am being somewhat strong on my position on this issue but I am certain that policy states this should not be included. I suppose my objections arise because IQ is not encyclopedic. I have done research and searched hard to find it, exact number mind you, and am unable to do so. I search every article for every person listed here and exactly zero percent of those people are unsourced mentions of IQ if they mention it at all. All IQ listings are listed as percentiles according to a certain group that deals with IQ and the Monthly issue to which they were listed is quoted. I actually live in the area that this is supposed knowledge and I actually ask people and no one knows it. I think I have pragmatically approached this and devoted time into this arguement presenting a simple challage to those who wish to revert and when that is not meet, I revert. I have allowed changes, note the addition of a few lines and change in structure. I just remove references to an exact IQ. I just don't think that is a) Important b) public knowledge as it is stated c) encyclopedic and d) able to be included unless sourced. Some information is not fit to be included in articles if it is unsourced. Saying someone IQ as if it was fact is not like saying their haircolour, it is unprovable through convential means. So do I oppose putting in an unproved, unsourced information about a guy I support very much so polictically? Yes. Because it is not fair to wikipedia or to John. People could read the fact his IQ is listed as a way for him showing off his intellegence and decide to hate him or conversely have people attached to him because he is intellegent. Because there is no universal effect of this unsourced information besides stating "John Morgan is smart", it's use seems to be against the BLP as far as I read it. I do not think it is too much to request that if you are going to add unsourced information you should have a precendence you can go to to show why this information should be included. If you fail that test, which offers far more latitude then the current policy which states any disputed unsourced information get removed right away, I do not think you can complain when I remove on the grounds it is below policy. I loev wikipedia and editing policy is kinda like civil rights. If you let someone get away with breaking either of them you lose the point of having them.--Kirkoconnell 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk: You've erased all edits re. IQ. You've even erased those saying that he was accused of being a member of the Mega Society. You say "I just remove references to an exact IQ", but a simple check of the history clearly proves otherwise. So either you're mistaken about your own edits, or you're lying. Either way, this matter is settled. Morgan's IQ has been public knowledge for years. Please stop harping on this issue because it's time we move on and work to grow the article. The Admin has spoken, the people have spoken, please just leave it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.195.248 (talk • contribs) 21:22, May 18 2007 (UTC)

To Kirkoconnell: you have become over-invested in reverting every single edit with which you disagree. You must stop doing that. It might help to read Wikipedia:Etiquette guideline, and you must realise that an "I live here and I don't hear anyone talking about it" line of reasoning is not encyclopedic.

To every editor who is interested in this issue: we should use this article talk page for its intended purpose, which is to discuss the content proposed to improve the article. The noteworthiness of the Mayor's IQ is that it is higher than average, not that it is a specific number, and we need references for it. If they exist, we can find them. — Athaenara ✉ 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ownership"

"…I have pragmatically approached this and devoted time into this arguement [sic] presenting a simple challage[sic] to those who wish to revert and when that is not meet,[sic] I revert." Kirkoconnell 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk, please compare this to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Ownership examples, including the image caption: "Like the Sphinx guardians of Greek mythology, Wikipedia "owners" pose a riddle to all who dare edit their article." You've got the wrong end of the stick here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

One, I have to take various expections here. As far as I know Athaenara is offering a 3rd opinion, he is not an admin. I had already gotten a 3rd opinion, actually from an admin at that, previously which had ruled in my favour yet the same one or two people kept reverting the article, regardless of the 3rd opinion. Two, I will admit freely "I live here and I don't hear anyone talking about it" is not encyclopedic. That is not why I said it. I asked people because it was stated that everyone, but me apparently, knows that the IQ is 176. To test that theory, i asked everyone. Well most people THOUGHT John was smarter I seriously could not FIND anyone who said the IQ number or that it was higher or lower then average, although one assumes that it is higher if he is smart. Third, as per the aritcle quoted to me, I do not believe I have taken owership of the article. I have not prevented any update, only removed unsourced information in regards to IQ and the various vandalism that has happened to the article over the last few months before this arguement. Four, is anyone going to address my challange? I think I have been more then fair which this. Unsourced information in any article can be removed if disputed, even by one person. That is policy. Instead I set a simple argument, show me one case, just one, where the same is quoted then we can debate from there. Right now I actually did not see this as a debate, it is unsourced biased information in an article added by non-users to Wikipedia. The only thing that separates this from normal vandalism is a curse word isn't involved. As for "So either you're mistaken about your own edits, or you're lying.", this I take great offense. I have been more then honest and for someone who doesn't even have a wikipedia account, that is a loaded statement. You come on here, insult me then revert for reasons that I have countered time and time again without actually addressing my challange for presedents. Second, when you say things like "Tested IQ" you are referening to an exact number and making the conotation that there is actually a test you can reference, when in fact if there where you would have, I think. And this sillyness with re-wording it "Morgan's tested IQ is reportedly considerably higher than average" is besides vague, clearly meant to bias the actually worse then if an IQ was mentioned. Maybe someone does not know 176 is high or dedates intellegence but if it is "reportedly considerably higher than average" well, that is it right there. I am removing that sentence, this is way. 1) the word tested, tested is fact driven and we have no proof besides the "everyone knows" argument. 2) the word reportedly, if it is reportedly higher then average, then who reported it and what is there source. These are simple questions that could be answered if in fact this information is so true. I do not believe I am applying an unfair standard nor am I expecting considerably much for an addition such as this.--Kirkoconnell 00:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You left out a crucial detail. What was actually added:

"Morgan's tested IQ is reportedly considerably higher than average.^{[citation needed]}"

Such {{fact}} tags actually serve as magnets for references. The fact that you were unable to leave it unmolested for even a few minutes illustrates the problem here, as do your many extremely long and repetitive posts on this page during the past month. — Athaenara ✉ 00:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you list a citiation needed on something does not make it free from dispute, per policy if it is disputed it is removed. This should not be added then referenced, but referenced when added given the nature and conotation. Furthermore, I would claim the fact that others are far more willing to include unsourced information that is removed per policy are the problem here. And isn't it funny that I can post the EXACT same thing over and over, no one address it and still have to post the EXACT same points again. Its like Chappelle funny.--Kirkoconnell 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

KirkOcconnel You are one messed up puppy. You are obviously obsessed with harming this man who you falsely claim to support. Get on with your life. No-one wants to read your rambling nonsence.

Harming? How is not displying unsourced information harming? Falsely? That is just non-sense. I am on a frist name basis. We are both members of VOTE, Voices of the electorate, and we are both trying, together, to reduce council. I support John completely. If you are not going to address my simple challange of finding presedent to support including unsourced IQ's you know I will revert. If you wish me banned or have more to say i suggest stop attacking my character, cowboy up and get an account, and address the issue.--Kirkoconnell 02:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

kirkoconnels -- Nobody supports your opinion but yourself. You have proven yourself a liar by saying that you only delete specific references to IQ when in fact you've deleted things that only mention that some have suggested Morgan to be a member of a high IQ society. You've typed out long, emotionally driven diatribes against IQ, yet claim to have no opinion on IQ. At this point, you have absolutely no credibility. The MOD disagreed with you. All the users disagree with you. At what point do you let this rest and stop wasting everyone's time?

I did and do have support from previous other places and when I first went to 3PO and I get support from some other Wikipedia members. Again I admit my support umong non-wikipedia members is low. And again, I am applying policy of BOLP, Wikipedia policy. They are fairly emotionally when I have to defned myself against personal attacks as opposed to countering agruments in a debate. I am not against IQ, I am against including it in Wikipedia/encyclopedia articles, yes I will admit. Why? I cannot find a presedent to include it. It is also unsourced in this article. I have offered a simple challange to use in order to have me stop removing it. No one has been able to answer it. I am directly following Wikipedia policy and I have an account at Wikipedia with a record of keeping articles honest. I believe that gives me more creditibility then someone who comes on here, without an account and calls me a liar, which I do take great offense and expection to, especally given I have justified my actions. I've been agreed with and disagreed with on the point but not the policy of Wikipedia. I had the suggestion of high IQ socitey because it was listed as Mega High IQ society, to which I could find no existence and I could not find a canadain chapter of the Mega Society, the socitey that I think the person was trying to say. People keep asking me to give it up, I ask you to read the policies I am quoting instead of calling me names and a liar. Attack the message not the messager. I'll also note that most people didn't want to let women vote either, didn't mean they were wrong. --Kirkoconnell 04:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To Everyone who wants me banned, fine, Go ask an Admin to do that

I will need to be banned to stop reverting unsourced, unreferenced IQ information from this article. I would suggest that if you think I should get banned for enforcing BOLP Policy, ask an admin to do so. I would think it hard to find one that will, especially given it is non-users that ask for the ban, but I see this discussion not going much further as few choose to participate in actually discussion or addressing my very simple challange of finding a presedent for including unsourced IQ information in an artcile in an encyclopedia setting but hey, what do I know.

This is not even a debate right now. The information should not be included as is. Once it is sourced we can talk about the benefits of and of not including IQ in articles. Until then, any unsourced unreferenced information of a disputed nature or from a disputed source just isn't included. Not my rule, I just enforce it strongly.

--Kirkoconnell 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard response

If there is a reliable source for the IQ information, it is the responsibility of the editors wishing to include that information to attribute it properly with a citation, per WP:BLP. Otherwise, it can (and should) be removed by any editor with no WP:3RR restrictions. Editors who continuously reinsert unsourced information are vulnerable to a block. - Crockspot 05:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank for weighing in. I appreicate it. --Kirkoconnell 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Specific IQ

The article no longer states Morgan to have a specific IQ but instead informs that this has been an ongoing issue with Morgan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.195.248 (talk • contribs).

This is not an alternative, as there are no sources mentioned to back that up. If there's a source stating that this is an ongoing issue, it should be mentioned here, if there isn't any, it should simply not be mentioned in the article. --JoanneB 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Okay. I've added a verifiable source for this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.195.248 (talk • contribs).

Those television debates are not a source for the 'public debate' that might make this relevant. As it is now, it's just some piece of trivia that should not be in this article. Also, pointing to something that was aired 7 years ago, is not sufficient sourcing for biographies of living people. Finally, please sign your posts, thanks!--JoanneB 14:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

- Well then we should remove the comment about the public debate since the debates themselves are not a source for that statement. Wiki policy is clear however in stating that the required verifiability of a source is dependent on the significance of the claim being made. Here, all the article is now saying is that the issue was brought up in a debate. How can you say the debate itself is not a good enough source for such a statement? Anyone can request to see the debate as well because Eastlink makes these publicly available to those who request to see the tape. The tapes are also kept by the local library so anyone can easily watch them today. It's no different than sourcing something said in a book. -24.224.195.248

Didn't they tell Arthur Dent the exact same thing about his house? --Kirkoconnell 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume many things were brought up in that debate, but for some reason you are very insistent on inserting this IQ issue, which to me as an outsider, seems very odd. A claim is either significant, and should thus be thoroughly sourced, or it's not all that significant, in which case it should most likely not be in the article if it's contested. --JoanneB 18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be included because it's a big deal here in Sydney. Morgan took a lot of heat for being involved in the high IQ community and it's relevant information since it was such a well known issue. There are many other things that I would also like to add as well. If you think I'm insistent, have a look at what kirkconnell has been doing for the past 2 months. He is trying to assert ownership over this article and is highly emotionally involved (just look at his long tirades in the discussion). Kirk also seems to be lying because if he knew Morgan so well like he claims, he would have discovered there to be truth to this. I'm also not the only poster who thinks this should be included here, there are several. kirk is the only person fighting this. It's his motivations that should be suspect.

I have been emotional involved because I've been accused of a lot when editting this article when I am only trying to apply policy. "Morgan has a tested IQ of at least 176 and was active in the ultra high IQ community prior to being elected as CBRM mayor." This sentence needs to be sourced. Because 1) Who test his IQ? If it is tested it should be able to be sourced. 2) If he was active in the "ultra high IQ community" shouldn't that also be sourceable? I mean it is actually mind blowing that I have to repeat my points over and over.--Kirkoconnell 14:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

All it says now was that this issue was brought up in a debate (which is easily verifiable since it's achived footage). It doesn't even say he has a specific IQ and such a reference is reasonable given what it now says. The problem is that you fail to be able to differentiate between this type of information and others that state he has a tested specific IQ. Read what it actually says.. there is nothing contraversial about pointing to a controversy. The debate tape is easy to find (and it's 2004, not 2000 like some other poster mentioned) at either eastlink, the library, or even perhaps CBRM. Dan Frasier was the one who brought this up when he was accusing morgan of being aloof or whatnot. This is where the issue originated.

It was discussed by another person that refering to archived footage is simply not up to standard. Like I had mentioned, you arguemnet is basically its true just ask/see this without having it noted. I would direct again to the various disagrees with including political attacks in an article. It seem highly against BLO and quite frankly non-encyclopedic in the least. This exact wording was already reverted, by someone else and it will be done again.--Kirkoconnell 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not up to standard? That's funny, I don't remember seeing any policy that states that archived footage of a public debate isn't standard. Besides, the article NOW SAYS just that he was acccused of them, nothing more. It's like any other reference, you have to choose to see it. If a book is reference, you have to find the book. If a website, you have to visit the site. If a tape, you see the tape. It's a very simple concept. You seem to have an enormous amount of free time on your hands, why don't you just simply check the tape?

I thought I would settle this debate, for good!

Hello there,

People have accused me of a lot, just hating people with high IQ, John Morgan himself and being an out right liar. That hurt, you know, I am a sensitive guy.

So I decided well what could be the one thing that could solve all of this.. why I guess I could just speak to John right? I mean I say I am some kinda "Fan of his" and I "talk to him often". So I was sick at lunch today, sure you don't want to know all the details, but I did have a meeting planned with John and a few others so I decided, hey, I'll ask John.

I know I know, its hard to believe right, with me hating John and everything... but wait, I have proof!

That is John Morgan about... 5 hours ago. But wait, how can **I** prove I was talking to him today.

Sweet Holy ghost, why thats me, next to the mayor.. holding todays paper. Egad!

So I was talking to John about this, who by the way does not know wikipedia exists, and he tells me that the IQ thing was brought up because of a mention by a former teacher. The teacher meant to comment that John was a bright student but it was taking the wrong why, picked up and used in the debate. He confirms he is not or has not been a member of any IQ socitey. While he was non specific in terms of where or not he ever took an IQ test, given IQ changes with age, he does not know his current range nor does he believe any policitian would want an IQ listed as I have previously stated, it looks good on them to some and can be preceived as glotting to others.

So, I hope this puts it to rest. The IQ is out, it is not correct and John himself doesn't think it is important to include (for a policitian I should add).--Kirkoconnell 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Too funny. - Crockspot 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Oconnell - FIRST of all, this is 100% ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is NOT allowed on Wikipedia. You are breaking the rules by even trying to use this hearsay to support your view. SECONDLY, what you've reported makes it pretty clear that Morgan's high IQ has been the subject of debate, which is exactly what poster after poster have been attempting to say. If anything, your original research reporting supports what most of the posters have been saying all along: that Morgan's high IQ has been the subject of debate and used against him politically. By the way, IQ does not change significantly with age. In fact, mental age is factored into calculating all IQ scores (this further demonstrates your lack of awareness of this issue).

I think you need to sit back and think about this some more (and brush up on your understanding of wikipedia's rules/policies).

Give me a second to get over the irony of someone trying to lecture me on wikipedia policy when they try to include unsourced information on a regular basis. I will admit that the information listed in the talk page is completely and utterly original research and possibly hearsay. The fact is, I did not include it in the article because of that. Wikipedia, as far as I know, has no requirement that information used in the discussion form be non-original just articles. I don't know if you actually read the IQ article or know what IQ is but it is intelligence quotient. Quotient being the result of a division. What is the division you ask. Well it is Mental age/actual age. So say a 5 year old is as smart as a 7 year old he would have an IQ of 140. If that same kid at 9 was as smart as a 9 year old, both numbers increased, so he didn't get "stupidier" he just developed differently and his IQ is 100. IQ changes with age by defination. If you have an IQ of 150 at 20, it means you are as smart as a 30 year old. If you are 30 and as smart as a 42 year old, you've actually got a "dumber" even though your mental and actually age difference is greater, the intelligence quotient is 140, 10 points down. People generally keep it in a range, which is why the scale is broken out -80, 80-100, 100-120-120-140,140+ Below 80 you are considered handicapped. 80 100, slow but normal. 100-120, fast but normal, 120-140, genuis, 140+ super genius (I didn't make the scale or the terms and it is subject to change, different organizations use different limits and some go by percentile). As for changing, I would like to source the following reference in my discussion [[1]]. The last paragraph clearly states they do change usually by a short percentage.

Now I have to take issue with this: "If anything, your original research reporting supports what most of the posters have been saying all along: that Morgan's high IQ has been the subject of debate and used against him politically." You currently have in the artcile "with a tested IQ of 176". How does that state it is a subject of debate? You state a tested IQ of 176. A tested IQ is hardly debatable. What you then do is insert something along the lines of well it was brought up in the debate as an attack. I say policital attacks are hardly noteworthly in and of themselves in an article unless the article is about the 2004 debate, in which case, all of the accusations, not just IQ should be mentioned and it should be sourced. You then come back, re-word it to try to state is as a fact and then source the video that may or may not be available at your nearest library, if you live in Cape Breton. I do not think you realise this is global. If you are trying to insert something, it has to be sourceable to something most people can actually see. You cannot source the 10 libraries and one cable station on the Island of Cape Breton, does that not seem like a reach? Well I have no worries. Like I said, John tells me he wants it removed for the same reasons I do and well everyone seems to think I hate John so maybe I'll leave it in just to spite him!

Naw I'll remove it :) ---Kirkoconnell 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm new to this debate, but I think the previous user is a bit confused about IQ. The mental age is used to compute IQs for people prior to maturity. It merely alters the statistical norm to reflect for an undeveloped mind (thus keeping the average iq at 100). This is only relevant in calculating the IQs of those under 20 (approx).

More importantly, if we look at the comments Kirk O attributes to the Mayor they seem to coroberate what many of the posters have been saying. Kirk O says: "he tells me that the IQ thing was brought up because of a mention by a former teacher. The teacher meant to comment that John was a bright student but it was taking the wrong why, picked up and used in the debate". This essentially verifies exactly what the article said before Kirk O deleted it. It said that opponents accused him of being a member of the Mega Society. If what Kirk is reporting is believed, this is in fact a true statement.

I think we ought to revert back to the original statement regarding the public attention and political attacks regarding the Mega Society.

It is a biased policital attack in the debate. Morgan had several attacks, none of which are listed and all of which are not encyclopedic. Until someone can get a actual source and until someone has an actual debate on the information I am just going to revert this IQ inserting and re-wording. Please people it's over. I'm surprized I haven't been accused of lying about that really being John morgan and I still hate him and want it removed. I think it is clearly an attempt to have some kind of IQ number floating around to bias Morgan and you will just try to re-word and re-unsource the information is a forever loop not addressing the various challanges set forth or addressing the fact that it is unsourced and as such should be removed. AND JOHN TOLD ME HE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO BIASED TO INCLUDE TOO. I think I will need Jesus Christ, Tiger Woods and Rodney Dangerfield to agree with me before you will stop editting this piece. And you people say I am obessed with this. --Kirkoconnell 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the people who think KirkO is loonie and repeating himself and boring us - therefore I will ask an Administrator to ban him for life. I notice he uses really long boring repetitive sentences to make sure no one reads what he is saying. I read part of one of his comments which made me very sleepy. I notice he repeats himself and uses really long boring repetitive sentences to make sure no one reads what he is saying.

Okay, so IP 14..... thinks I should get banned for following policy and reverting this crazy issue. I have to put long boring sentences because you are apparently not reading the short ones that say this is pretty much over, why are you still reverting? You have yet to post a reasonable answer or reply to my simple challange. Only one person I can find with an account on Wikipedia agrees with you. I can quote the like 5 policies I am refering to, you tell me not to quote original research in discussion forms and call me a liar who hates John Morgan. I can see the torture in John's eyes as I talk to him... *Shakes head* P.S. By Most People you of course mean anoymous users. And do they even ban for life? --Kirkoconnell 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk just because you took a picture with a guy who probably takes 15 pictures with people everyday doesn't make you right about whether we ought to include info about a community debate. The IQ thing has been a source of wonder in the community for years and people on here have been sayign it for months. You demonstrated your lack of knowledge by insisting it wasn't true. Now, you are admitting that it was in fact true that this was an issue. We we've established that the accusations/attacks/debate did in fact happen. It's now just a matter of whether we ought to include it. You obviously think not, but noone else shares your view. Since even you now know this is a true fact, why not just let majority rule as to the judgment call of leaving it in the article?

No I guess not taking a picture of John in causal clothes and having him take a picture with me, holding that days paper to prove it was recent, does not prove I know John but seriously... its a good arguement no? In fact I do know John and I am the first guy who approached council in regards to statistical issues for the boundry review comminttee. I am also a member, with John of VOTE for the URBNS appeal, mostly to do with my statistical background. So yeah I know, work with and support John. I am sorry that I cannot prove that but I think picture is worth a 1000 words.

AS for the IQ thing. I HAVE NEVER SAID IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I stated that it is not encyclopedic to include supposed political attacks, in particular, to JUST include those that focused on IQ. All of the lack of leadership, Bullheaded-ness, stubburnness attacks have been excluded. If you want to include attacks, they should be a) sourced and b) complete. You cannot cherry pick attacks. I mean, lets face it, being accused of (falsely) being a member if a high IQ soictey is not a totally bad thing, thats like saying you soemtimes work too hard in an interview, bad but meant to be a positive. You cannot have this information in the article. It is not encyclopedic and it is clearly an attempt to include an IQ number in the article, which is itself not encyclopedia. I mean how many times does one have to explain what is and what is not encyclopedic and what is and what is not accepted as sourced in a Wikipedia article. Also I like to note that the phrase "The goal was" is leading. I would say the goal of including an unsourcable, known to be false, polictical attack which includes an IQ number that was never stated as much as I can find or John told me himself, is to bias John as a smart guy. John is a smart guy sure, he is a lawyer and second term Mayor of CBRM. But if you cannot realize that it is biased to include because of its conotation, lack of encyclopedic value and unsourcefulness then I am sorry but you have proven yourself unable to edit Wikipedia.--Kirkoconnell 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirk: I would LOVE to see more info about other issues and attacks against Morgan be added, but you've kept people preoccupied by mindlessly reverting and obsessing over the IQ debate issue. You've taken this to extremes by actually going to Morgan himself about it (who simply verified what everyone on here has been saying) and taking pictures. With you, it's "your way or the highway" as you try to assert pure OWNERSHIP of the article.

Morgan is a person who there is limited information available about and that's why community debate/issues are relevant to his bio. For a mayor of a 100k pop city, these are issues that define his career and are relevant. You continue to say "it's not encyclopedic", but the fact is that many wiki articles reference IQs and even if we agree that it's not, this particular article now ONLY references the debate surrounding it.

Other issues that define his compaign should be added. The IQ controvery is one, but there are others. Hopefully you will accept that noone agrees with you and back off allowing the community to focus on growing the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.233.160 (talk • contribs)

Uh, hello? I guess you can just call me "no one". BTW, please have the courtesy to sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It's really very easy to do. - Crockspot 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify a misconception, the above would only be considered Original Research if he TRIED TO INSERT IT IN THE ARTICLE. Once again, there are no reliable sources that can be cited that have anything to do with the IQ of the subject, so unless and until such reliable sources appear, I'm not sure why people are wasting time and energy arguing about this. Stop beating a long dead horse, and move on. - Crockspot 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot = The article DOES NOT SAY HE HAS A SPECIFIC IQ. It says the issue was referred to in a debate, which it was, and it REFERENCES the readily available archived footage of the debate. The IQ of the subject is irrelevant as it is the controversy surrounding it that is being referred to in the article. You're simply not reading what the article currently says. kirkoconnell is out of control on this issue and many of the third parties/admins he's brought here DISAGREE with him (see comments by Athaenara). Other editors have reformed former posts to be consistent with the previous issues, but kirk (and apparently you are having the same problem) is not able to objectively read what the article is trying to assert. I'll say it again: It doesn't say he has ANY specific IQ (or even a high one), it just says he was accused of it in a debate and references that debate. 142.167.233.160 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)142.167.233.160

• I'm presuming that the source cited is merely a verbatim reproduction of the debate? If so, then to draw out any conclusion about IQ (or anything else) actually IS original research. If you can find a reliable secondary source that actually mentions some sort of issue about his IQ, then you might have some sort of argument here. And just to be clear before you publicly state doubts about my good faith again, this article was brought to my attention through a notice on the BLP noticeboard. - Crockspot 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, several problems I'm seeing. First, the entire section violates WP:UNDUE. If you can't find a secondary news source that talks about this "issue" or "controversy", then obviously no one cares about this, and you are giving undue weight to the matter. Second, the source is poorly cited, can someone fix that up better? I also removed some original research, and a very pov-leaning part of a sentence.

Well why then are we putting in IQ information if it is not meant to be biased? I re-iterate that the IQ question was put to rest by John, saying it was only a polictial attack. If we put in one attack, why not them all? I suppose that is because this is the only one that puts him in a positive light. I would like to note that I have NOT removed any information other then this dead issue. In fact, I went and corrected information that was reverted out by people over-zealiously reverting back three or four versions. Also, the person to whom you refer has not chimed in on the current develops, but I get support from various people, including the first third point of view I got, which none of you respected. I got the second one and then I got the board of BLP to look into it because of the accusations of the second 3POV. You are arguing with experienced wikipedia users of what is valid content and references. If you are unwilling to accept our opinion/interpreation of policy, I believe you to be unprepared enough to edit approperately and should refrain from doing so. I hate to tell someone that but it is clear you have proven yourself unwilling to learn the practises of wikipedia. Furthermore, I insist, if it will make you feel better, try to get me banned for enforcing wikipedia policy. I am getting a fair amount of support and I believe I have done a good job monitoring this article to ensure fairness to both John and wikipedia.--Kirkoconnell 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the section should come out completely, based upon WP:UNDUE, which makes it a BLP violation. I was just trying not to be too heavy handed by only removing the obvious pov and or issues. I also looked up at Athie's comments above, and I see that she had a concern about possible ownership issues. That is not the same thing as agreeing with the others on this issue. I happen to disagree with her assessment, as I see this as someone passionately defending a BLP article against people repeatedly inserting unsourced or poorly sourced information that is POV, of dubious relevance, and original research. That is the kind of "ownership" that we need to see more of, in my opinion. - Crockspot 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crock that is just dumb. The Wiki does not need any self appointed know it all deciding they own a site and camping on the site until they impose their will on the rest of us. You should not be encouraging these wackos. Pretty soon they will be trying to take over GOOGLE and then Microsoft and then all of us. We will have to watch Billboards with Kirko's photo everywhere. No It has to end here. The majority have spoken and the reference stays - that is the end of the debate.

Excuse me? I don't know who you are if you don't sign your posts, so don't expect a reply. And in BLP articles, majority does not rule. I've warned you on your talk page, try inserting that crap one more time in the next day, and you will find yourself blocked. - Crockspot 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way could you guys shorten up the comments a little bit and just get right to the point with no rambling BLA BLA BLA type stuff.

I got a short one for you, start making some damm sense before you edit.--Kirkoconnell 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IP 142.176.13.178, I just noticed that it was you who included the following edit: "Morgan, a student of ancient history and a lawyer by profession, holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Dalhousie University and is reported by the History Magazine (December 14, 2001) to be one of only five scholars in the modern world fluent in both the anciant Egyptian and Greek languages. He is reported to have an IQ of 173 (Cape Bretoner Magazine, June 22 1999). " John, of course, speaks only english, is not a student of ancient history and there is no such thing as the "Cape Bretoner Magazine". I mean its edits like that that got my attention and got me cleaning up the article. So before you start calling so and so dumb and say that people are taking the place over, look at your record of Wikipedia "editing" ie. "Vandalism" and remember you are agruing with people who correct non-sense like that on a regular basis and follow policy doing it. "Don't hate the playa, hate the game." --Kirkoconnell 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Crock and Kirk are still missing the point. The article doesn't say he has a specific IQ. It merely says he was said to have one. We shouldn't be so picky. We ought to grow the article. Kirk I agree we should have more attacks listed (like the tea party issue for one). Just because we started with the IQ one doesn't mean we shouldn't add more.

It currently states "Morgan is said to have a tested IQ of 176." That is as specific as one can get. I do not believe polictical attacks should be in articles as it is not encyclopedic, but this one is based on a passed rumour that has yet to be confirmed and denied by morgan himself, albeit to me. But it only stregthens my resolve to include only as accurate information as we can get. I'd like to note this article has actually expanded by at least two pagraphs since I started looking at this. Also, given the other grandoise claims, such as being a Rhodes scholar and being one of only 5 people who speak an anicent langauge among them, I have to remove this unsoucred until it can prove it is THIS John Morgan. John Morgan is a rather popular name so I believe it to have been confused.

KirkO doesn't add anything to the article. He just deletes stuff for no reason like he owns the internets, adds rambling incomprehensible discussion that makes zero sence and then tries to take credit for other people who are making real additions to the article like discovering Morgan is a graphic artist. Can't KirkO be banned for being nuts.

If what you're saying is true, please just bring a source for it and nobody will have a problem with it being added to the article. Yonatan ^talk 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirkoconnell, would it be possible for you to upload the highest resolution version of that photo? Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done so, name "Mayormorgan.jpg" and I edited the front page to include it. And I think you need to tone down your talk IP 14.... You are attacking me instead of the issue, over and over again, which is not productive at all. Also I have reported you for 3RR violations. I suppose you could report me to an admin with "KirkO Is nuts ban him" and see how far that goes.-p.s.: I don;t think my picture is any better then the one that was used before from the Mayors website, maybe we can weight in on that to see which one is better for use on the website-Kirkoconnell 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) The picture that was being used before was a fair use picture and since yours is a free one, it's better. Yonatan ^talk 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I meant better as in a better picture. I am not a photographer, I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of takes bad pictures of the Mayor because I hate him and I want to eat his family and set the CBRM on fire. It is actually getting to that point.--Kirkoconnell 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should be banned for being obsessed with someone and trying to dominate a the site like you own it when you havent added one thing to improve it except a bad picture of the man. Why are you spending all you time parked on this site, not improving it and uploading bad pictures of the man you claim to support.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk • contribs)

Let's see, here is Kirk's contribution history, and here is your contribution history. I don't think Kirk is the one who is obsessed with one particular article. - Crockspot 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

More on IQ "source"

The vague citation that is now being included with this info is not really a valid citation. It's a vague "go find it yourself" cite that I don't even know how one would go about verifying. Furthermore, I am assuming that this "cite" refers to a televised debate where one of the debaters "accused" Morgan of something. This seems more like a primary source to me, and if no secondary source (like a newspaper column or tv talking head) made any comments or observations about this "accusation", then obviously they did not find it notable enough to report on, and it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to include it anyway. It's like if the camera caught Morgan scratching his ass during the debate, but no one ever made mention of it in the media, it would not be something we could report on here. "Being reported on" means a secondary source talked about it, not that it appeared in a debate. So unless someone comes up with a reliable secondary source, editors should stop inserting it. One IP editor has already been blocked for 31 hours, and is now on a further 48 hour block because of these insertions. Any editor continuously inserting this, or any other unsourced or poorly sourced information, is going to find themself in the same position. - Crockspot 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Case reopened on BLP Noticeboard

I have reopened this article's case on the BLP Noticeboard, along with evidence of a probable abusive sockpuppet, or abusive meatpuppet team of as many as three editors working this article. - Crockspot 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Morgan got rid a that Business occupancy tax so he did reduce property tasxes, Occonnel is just nuts so he reverts everything like he owns the internets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Cite a reliable source if that is so. - Crockspot 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things to keep in mind here. This person has vanadlised this account with my picture. He/she knows that it is me and purposefully vandalised it. Therefore their opinion on what is or is not truth is highly suspect. Also, Business Occupancy tax reduction would be assoicated with businesses, whereas property taxes generally refer to regular persons, whom as far as I am aware have not seen a reduction and or signifcate increase. I am trying to be FAIR in the matter. Morgan, and myself, also wish to tax the properties of Nova Scotia power, which are currently not tax as per nova Scotia government order. Do we say Morgan wants to raise protery taxes because he wants to tax NS power's property? I do not believe that to be a fair assessment. So if Business Occupancy tax was reduced to a signifcant level, it should be a sourceable fact. -Kirkoconnell 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen Nutcase, Business Occupancy Taxes are property taxes so if he eliminated them (which you can know if you read the local newspaper), he has reduced property taxes. You are obsessed with your power to delete and you have added zero to this site; you just blindly delete. If you are so concerned with the man why don't you research the issues before you delete or try to add something useful yourself to the site. Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot

I think you should stop supporting KO if you want to get that admmin designation. KO is known locally to be mad as a hatter so you should not be tying yourself to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Do not address me as nutcase. Besides the fact I am following the policy of the website to which you are using, you are doing so under the cloak of the anonymous. Addresses such as that should be directed to people by people, not IPs.

2) You also have the "Power to delete" and choose to use it regularly, also you seem to be dripping from your power to vanadalise purposefully. I impore you to find one example where I "vandalised", i.e. changed with malice. I always edited with the best intention and not purposely vandalised. Adding pictures of me in place of John Morgan is nothing but purposeful vandalism and no justifacation can be issued.

3) The onus of research is on your. If you produce tangeable evidence I am willing to consider it. That one measure you have yet to do.

4) I think it is you who, anonymously, vandalises articiles pushing an agenda of some sort who needs to get a life. I am simply and solely following procedures in this matter. Also, the general knowledge that "KO is known locally to be mad as a hatter so you should not be tying yourself to him" is alien to me, then again were as I mad as you would suggest and it were well know, please produce some research in order to side your argument Mr. 142.176.13.178. I am certain if I am as crazy as you say it will be published in various locations, even the CB Post online, which I regularly read. Thank you. -Kirkoconnell 13:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, IP nonnie? I am really getting tired of people who cannot follow the simplest and clearest policies of Wikipedia having the arrogance to tell me what I should or should not be doing if I "ever want to be an admin". I'm also getting tired of constantly cleaning up after you Nova Scotia juveniles, who could not cite a reliable source if your precious lives depended on it. Grow up, and start following our core policies, or I will stop warning you, and just have you blocked on sight from now on. You obviously have absolutely no desire to write a verifiable encyclopedia entry. You just want to masturbate publicly. As for KO, he has been doing an excellent job of keeping the horseshit in this article at bay, and he has been putting up with a lot of harassment from you guys. - Crockspot 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Thanks, lol-Kirkoconnell 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just a guy who happened on to the page and seen all the garbage that was going on. I left a message on Kirk's talk page telling him that if I noticed any edits by this idiot, I would revert them. Now take a look at the three edits that were made before the last revert. The first one was made by the idiot, I reverted it, which was the second edit, and he reverted it back which was the last edit before Crockspot did his revert in which he claimed those three edits were vandalism. I don't appreciate being called a vandal when all I did was revert that idiots post in which he mentioned IQ and took away the photo of Mayor Morgan. I'm sorry for trying to help you guys out by reverting that idiots post but I guess that makes me a vandal. Next time I see this garbage, I'll just leave it there if I'm only going to be called a vandal.142.167.255.165 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is calling anyone a "vandal". Usually it is clear who did and who did not vandalise the artcile purposely. Don't stop editing because your revert was revert. Usually Crockspot and I revert to each other edits. I can't speak for him, but I review all of the edits in the interim and decide is all of them are vandalism or not. If between my undo and the previous valid post there is information that should be include it, I revert and include that information. If you are interested in editing Wikipedia make a username and sign in and work on articles, we like to have productive people working on here. -Kirkoconnell 14:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he did call you a vandal. I was just saying that Crockspot has a better chance of becoming an Administrator if he stops supporting KO because KO is crazy and has not added one useful thing to this site. He simply parks on the site and vandalizes all efforts to build it. Name one thing KO has actually put in this site. Secondly, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for calling all Nova Scotians "juveniles" and for discussing masterbation on this site. None of you will be administrators if you continue to insult people and use nasty language.

On what bases are you deleting the property tax item other than your bias against my edits. Also stop calling each other vandals this is also not appropriate language on the internets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.134 (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One, what creditablity do you have? You have a record of purposely vandalising articles. So regardless of my contributions, I have never purposely vandalised an article. Two, I explained my property tax assessment. You are welcome to read it if you like. It is an ambiguous and disingenious statement meant to show John Morgan in a good light. An encyclopedia is meant to show people in a neutral light. John, and myself, both agree that Nova Scotia power should pay taxes on their properties. Does this article say John Morgan wants to raise business taxes? No, because thats not fair to the article nor is it saying he reduced property taxes. I'm not going to comment on the other things you are mentioning but I have never responed harshly to anyone who was not equally or moreso harsh to me. -Kirkoconnell 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirk, any idea if Mayor Morgan will be holding a book signing for the new release? Just picked it up today, and I would love to get my copy autographed by the man himself. BayBoyBlues 03:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting just too silly. I don't understand why people do this stuff. Apparently having a site where people can get information for free is an idea that should be screwed with by childish people. Why? -Kirkoconnell 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that is just rude. Why do you guys think you are smarter than everyone else. Wiki works by majority opinion and we all agree on these facts so who do you think you are to try to revert without evidence of the facts you say are true. - based on one persons opinion with a grudge You ban people without reason based on one crazy person's opinion. You have been wrong about everything so far so please let us work on this site without harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No. It is the responiblity of this site to report factual information, i.e. information that is true and verifable. None of the information you add meets that. Also, why should we even entertain your word? You have included things that no only are ridiculous, but are insanely so. (knows 5 ancient languages? thats just silly. He studied at St Fx and DAL, not Harvard or the Oxford school of language studies.)So here are the following points, in point form so even you, the resident idoit, can understand. A) we do not all agree on the, quote unquote, facts. B) You need to prove something should be included, not that something should be removed, espeically if it is an incredible claim like EVERYTHING you have typed. C) No opinions are being expressed with the removals, it is policy that is being expressed. If you do not like the expression of policy, there are other online encyclopedias for you to use. D) I have yet to be proven wrong. I have gone so far as to speak to the Mayor himself on the issue. Given I think we could all agree that the Mayor would be the resident expert on himself, I feel safe to conclude that he told me the truth. Remember to brush your teeth. -Kirkoconnell 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So why is it you alone who is right and the other ten people who don't agree with you are wrong? Who do you think you are? I am glad you are starting to show the editors what a nutcase you are with the toothbrush comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.12.214 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not alone. Facts are not concluded by majority. Get me those ten people who believe that John is one of only 5 people who speak an ancient language? Most of the people who agreed with you ONLY agree on an IQ score, taht cannot be verifed and is quite frankly not encyclopedic and denied by the man himself. I am done tolerating you guys and pretending like you give a damm about Wikipedia. You guys are just pissing on this and getting a big chuckle with a hard one in front of the screen, getting your jollies watching us honest Wikipedians keep articles clean for the rest of the world. Look, get a girlfriend, find a job. Do something else. Stop f&^king with this s&*t you anonymous a-holes. You obvisouly know me and are just dicking around with me and you are not even man enough to do it honestly. You are silly, pathetic and I am just not putting up with it. I told you not to forget your toothbrush because I assume you are an idoit, given you have yet to stop editing. I wouldn't want your teeth to suffer because you are a flaming moron. Kirkoconnell 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kirk is right on this one, its gone too far, its just childish so Kirk, just ban me. I will point out however that I am not only person doing this. There is one other person for sure because I have read some of the edits and didn't post them myself. Who knows there could be more than one but I really don't know. The others should take my lead and just give up on it. These people are busy and shouldn't have to waste time reverting the stupid edits we made. BayBoyBlues 05:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BBB except for the stuff about agreeing with KO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.13.178 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

OK, do we semiprotect this article, and most of Cape Breton, or do we block their ISP (142.167.0.0 / 16 , or perhaps only that end of the island at 142.167.224.0 / 22) ? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We may have to do something like that to stop the vandalism. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy requires consensus on Talk before the direct edits which KO is doing. KO is a lone voice forcing his opinion on the whole Wiki. KO should try to win his arguement here and only then try to edit the site; not the other way around. Crockspot was kicked off editing this and all Wiki sites for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.146 (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not against "whole wiki" I'm against at MAX three people, all of whom do not make positive edits, in fact most edits are unsourced and they are anons, who, even after going through the various resolution processes (and losing) still believe they should have their point put forward, without evidence, simply because they believe the information should be in there. They take the fact that Wikipedia uses a concensus policy for the MOST part. I think it is ironic that people who choose not to follow just about every other policy of wikipedia try to use the one policy they think is in your favour, and still fail at that. *sigh* And Crockspot was kicked off editing, he left for personal reasons. His discussion page wouldn't be up if he was banned. Get your facts straight and stop making them up.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

KO is one person trying to control the internet. He should be banned just like Crockspot was. It is too bad Crockspot flipped his lid but that's the way KO will go as well. It would be better if the Great Wiki bans KO sooner than later so he doesn't end up eating KFC out of trash cans like Crockspot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.14.83 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I think the previous statement speaks for itself.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)