" 

  
 :: One, I have to take various expections here. One, 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. "