User talk:Kotra/Archive 6

prekazi81
Thank you very much for your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prekazi81 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2009


 * No problem. -kotra (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
I must say, thanks for your tireless struggle against linkspammers over on the PDX Wiki so far. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 10:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll bring the problem up at today's meeting, hopefully we can install a CAPTCHA or something. -kotra (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good plan. By the way, I've brought up some ideas over there, and I'd like your input. The point you brought up there is referenced. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 09:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)... PS, happy $\pi$ Day!

Question about refs
Hi, I'm very new to wikipedia and was editing The Portland Alliance page today. I noticed that you had added the citations box at the top. I added a couple of sentences today and included refs for them and was wondering if you think they are OK. Also, I'm wondering if more are needed or if it is OK to remove the box at the top? There are a couple of refs to the portland alliance home page, which may be the problem. I'm actually just curious about when the box should stay or go (I don't care if the box stays or goes on the Portland Alliance page). :) Tdferro (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for expanding the Portland Alliance article. The citations you added are good, exactly what we look for. If we can find a citation that says Dave Mazza himself investigated the story, we can also mention that; until then I've changed it to say the newspaper uncovered the tapes, which is what the KGW citation says.
 * About the refimprove box I added to the top, you're right: mainly I put it there because the Portland Alliance website is probably not independent enough to be the sole source for some of the statements, only a backing source. I'll make that more clear on the talk page (where I should have explained when I placed the box to begin with). -kotra (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thank you.  I was wondering about things like circulation data.  That isn't the type of thing that will be reported (or known) by any other source, but the paper itself.  Should that just not be cited?  Tdferro (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So other interested editors can see this discussion and give their input, I'll be responding to this at Talk:Portland Alliance, hope you don't mind. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your "RFA"
Kotra, your RFA on that other wiki has been approved unanimously and enthusiastically. Congratulations, and may you wield the anti-vandal sword with valor and glory! Thank you for your service good sir. -Pete (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am humbled and honored by the overwhelming result, 1/0/0. I thank every single one of the supporters, and will seek to gain the trust of the opposers by directly addressing their criticisms. Thank you, and may God bless the wiki. (in all seriousness, though, if you have a minute from time to time, I'd be appreciative if you check in on my actions there occasionally and let me know if I make any mistakes) -kotra (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ~*Hands you a bouquet of roses.*~ :) The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I promised myself I wouldn't cry... oh good, I kept that promise. -kotra (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Andry Rajoelina
I have been keeping a close eye on the Andry Rajoelina page and others associated with current events in Madagascar. I noticed that you reverted an edit based on the source - I couldn't tell but the site appeared to be a racist site. Was this the case? (If so, good catch.) CopaceticThought (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally reverted it because the article was attributed to "Lone Wolf, AfricanCrisis Volunteer", which didn't strike me as a reliable source. Since then I found the added content was a direct copy-paste, bad grammar/spelling and all, from that article, thereby constituting a copyright violation. The text could be paraphrased and made more presentable, but I'm still not any more inclined to trust a volunteer who goes by "Lone Wolf" as I am inclined to trust a volunteer who goes by "kotra" (which is to say, not enough to cite him on Wikipedia). That said, some of the embassy stuff could be re-added if a source like BBC is cited instead (the bottom of that BBC article mentions it). -kotra (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation! CopaceticThought (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland
Portland's a wonderful town. I used to live in John's Landing, with frequent journeys to the Bagdad and the Mission. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a wonderful town. Interestingly, I'm two blocks away from the Bagdad right now... I could see it if I leaned out the window. Good times spent there! -kotra (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback
You should not have used rollback on this edit. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism. It was not vandalism. The proposal has been dormant for more than a month and has effectively been rejected by the community. Soberknight (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit summary was "major pwnage", and the editor, who has only made that single edit, was named "You've been REJECTED!". For those reasons, it seemed like blatant vandalism to me.
 * If the proposal is considered rejected, I'd expect a more established user to make the change, after discussing on the talk page or at least supplying a reason in the edit summary. -kotra (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you rejected the edit because it was done with a bad edit summary and a bad username even though the edit is a good edit.
 * I'll have you know that I'm the same guy as "You've been REJECTED!" and I made the same edit and it stuck.
 * You got pwned, man. Soberknight (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I rejected the edit because it looked like vandalism to me. Sorry if I was mistaken, and I'll try to be more cautious in the future. However, "pwning" each other is not what we do here. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not play a MMORPG. You would find your edits would be taken more seriously if they weren't about trying to pwn people (or proposals). -kotra (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Spartel etc
Thanks. I was planning to do some cleaning up but got called away by real life unexpectedly. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, no problem! -kotra (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re:Barnstar
Thanks! I originally thought "oh this won't take very much time, I'll work on this for a few days then start on some other article..." KellenT 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha! Such is the trap of Wikipedia... -kotra (talk)

Hide and show
Hi Kotra. Regarding your comment here, I was wondering if you would please add a clarification. Does this mean that you would prefer to add the image without hide and show but would support hide and show for the time being, or does it instead mean that you would prefer to add the image without hide and show and would not support hide and show for the time being?

I think that using hide and show would eventually lead to full inclusion of the image, whereas not using hide and show would lead to permanent exclusion of the image. If you could clarify at the article talk page, that would be great. Right now it kind of sounds like you're totally against hide and show, and if that's really your opinion then please say so. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not being clear. I've left a comment there to clarify, let me know if it's not sufficient. -kotra (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you at WikiWednesday
And thanks for adding the citation needed template to the PPTP article (though, of course, I could have done it just as easily myself, but might have left off the date= parameter, causing some work for a bot to do). I could use a PPTP client for a Palm and don't see one on my Palm install disc, even though I have a WiFi-equipped Palm TX (I don't know about other WiFi-equipped models).

Also, I like the humorous things on your user page, like the Mars pano caption, about being a human and the Flagged Revisions link. (I've made a page of my views about the latter). Lastly, I just want to note that after seeing what Google finds, I don't think the Reggina user name is offensive, though it could be to some people. Jason McHuff (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jason! I'd have deleted that statement entirely but I thought that facting it would give more knowledgeable editors a chance to add a citation if there is one. I really have no clue about PPTP (or Palm PDAs, for that matter)!
 * Thanks! Yeah, the Flagged Revisions thing is a joke (a parody of the "NO" and "YES" versions I've seen around), but I really am indecisive about it. For example, the "instant gratification" you aptly described on your page isn't just attractive to vandals... I think it's a huge part of what makes Wikipedia so appealing to edit, for everyone, vandals and constructive editors alike. Take that instant gratification away, either by pre-screening all edits, or shunting them off to a "draft" page nobody ever reads, and I think we'd see Wikipedia lose everything that makes it great (well, other than being free): its timeliness, huge broadness of content, and quick correction of errors. It just wouldn't be fun to edit Wikipedia if we had to wait days for our edits to be approved, and if it's not fun, only the most altruistic/masochistic would edit.
 * That said, we do have a really worrying problem with vandalism (particularly with biographies of living persons), and something needs to be done about it. I think all we need is strict adherence to WP:BLP and WP:V, but there are too many who don't know/care about policy and too few who enforce it....
 * So. Maybe! -kotra (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot to mention: yeah, "Reggina" isn't offensive to me either (even if I didn't believe they were talking about the football club), but I probably am not the only one to make that mistake; so I mentioned to them that an explanation on their userpage might be a good idea. It's pretty trivial though. -kotra (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Zoo Fari  22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vacation
Have a great vacation Kotra! -Pete (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had a good time. -kotra (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for your help. My information was not a hoax, just probably poorly referenced. See the talk page of Christopher Howard Wolf for a correction on which Internet Movie Database page was used. It seems you looked at (I) instead of (III) and the IMDB has the wrong info on (I). More info can be found by following the link on the talk page there, to CrystalAcids.com which carries the correct information. Anyway, thank you very much for your help. I'm not sure but I think the Dawson's Creek reference won't work because it's probably unattributed so I'm not contesting that or anything. In fact I'm not really contesting either, just providing some more information on the voice acting in the hopes that it could be re-added or at least I'll be cleared of attempting to commit a hoax. Thank you. -- Taffypuller (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(responded at User talk:Taffypuller) -kotra (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I notice you edited the DragonSpires article long ago. Was your username Kotra then? If not, maybe we met? -- Taffypuller (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, that kotra was me. I've never actually played the game, though: all I know about it is gleaned from what Maloy and Wolf wrote about it, the screenshots I've seen, and various mentions online. -kotra (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thanks for your note. I admit the tone was unnecessarily hostile, and I suppose it's a good thing you reverted me, because otherwise I'd have been too lazy to add the citation to the intro. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm glad it's resolved. -kotra (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA
Left another note on my talk page. You can reply there if need be. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  00:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added myself as conominator on your yet-to-be RfA. Good luck! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That means a lot to me. I have a couple questions about the co-nomination: did you mean to make your first link an "edit this section" link? Here's a link to the section if you find it better: User talk:Kotra. Also, instead of 14 diffs, would it be better to just have one link to the section, or did you want to have individual diffs for their edit summaries or another reason? Regardless, thanks for your kind words and support! -kotra (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added myself as conominator when I saw that it is premature to cast a Support vote. I shall adjust the first link as you suggest. However I prefer to keep the chain of diffs. They show your editing stamina! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! I see now. Thanks again for your unsolicited co-nom and wish of good luck! -kotra (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (oh, also: the last two diffs are the same) -kotra (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kotra. I'm considering adding these two questions to your RfA, if you feel comfortable answering them. If not, I won't post, as I think unanswered questions are unfair to the RfA, and they are optional anyway.
 * 7. Expanding on Stifle's question above (#6), what about fair use images per WP:FAIR, WP:NFCC, and WP:IUP?


 * 8. Considering the strong policy prohibitions against BLP violations, do you think there can be community consensus in borderline cases, or in cases with content open to interpretation, whether that specific content does, or does not violate BLP, and should that consensus guide admin enforcement?

They are kinda based on the Files for deletion/2009 May 7 IfD and the Talk:Richard Gere RfC brouhahas. I will be supporting your RfA shortly as I believe your answers will be fine, especially considering your comments already. Consider me a co-nominator, although it's a bit too late to add myself, I think. — Becksguy (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Certainly feel free to add the questions. I will answer them as best I can. -kotra (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Good luck, not that I really think you will need it. — Becksguy (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA Q response
Yes. ooooops. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll answer it soon. -kotra (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are taking time to consider Question 9e at your RfA so FWIW here is my input. The question supposes that a case could arise where WP:BLP and WP:ATHLETE come in conflict. This is a non-question because the WP:BIO guideline clearly states what are the basic criteria for notability. It also specifies several additional criteria that may establish notability, of which WP:ATHLETE is just one, but it says that failure to meet these criteria is not proof that a subject should not be included. The proper test of notability that should be applied case-by-case is whether the topic is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I skipped 9e yesterday and went straight to 10 because it seemed more directly relevant to me. Then I got off Wikipedia for the rest of the evening. But I still am going to answer it when I get some time to compose my answer.


 * I pretty much agree with your answer here and thank you for your help, but I'd rather not have any assistance in answering questions (after all, they are evaluating me, not me with other people helping). -kotra (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gender
Hi Kotra! I like that caption on the Mars photo. :-) The main reason I'm visiting with you this morning is kind of trivial, but.... Sometimes, if I don't know someone's gender, I refer to that person as a "she" instead of a "he".  I do this on kind of a random basis, and if the person prefers I use one or the other then I thenceforth do so, regardless of whether the person tells me her gender.  So, to make a long story longer, please let me know if you'd prefer if I use male pronouns with reference to yourself.  Phew.  :-)  And good luck with the RFA!Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. The only reason I'm asking this is because someone raised the issue at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking! It doesn't make a difference to me what pronoun you use. I'm male, but I'm not offended by "she" or "they" or "s/he" or "sie" or whatever else you might use. Other people might take offense to being called "she" or "he" when their gender happens to be the other, however... so I'd be careful. I tend to use "they" when in doubt, but that's just me. Anyway, thanks again for asking! -kotra (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We can all refer to you as "It"...just for laughs. ^_^ The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that would out my true identity. Or am I someone else? So mysterious... -kotra (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. I had no idea so many people like to call themselves It. o_O The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cousin It? (or Itt) Sorry, but my mind is full of this stuff. — Becksguy (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a cousin! How did you know? -kotra (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Kotra - you're an administrator. Excellent work, and happy editing. Cheers &mdash; Dan | talk 02:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Kotra! Enjoy the bit. :D   Flying  Toaster  02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What they said! tedder (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Congratulations. Knowing your temperament and judgment, I trust you and know you will do the promotion honor. What else you need to know, you will learn. Best. — — Becksguy (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * YAY! ^_^ The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all. I'll do my best to use the tools responsibly, as promised. -kotra (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whee! - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The first day in your life as an admin is Monday Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it just turns out that way! -kotra (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Glad to have you aboard the crazy ride that is Wikipedia adminship. Steven Walling (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -kotra (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Felicitations. Please have a read at User:AGK/Advice for new Administrators if you get a moment. Use your tools sensibly. Best, AGK 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, and I will. -kotra (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Just remember that a mop can make the floors much harder to walk on than a feather duster. ;-)--Res2216firestar 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wet floor - piso mojado.jpgs! I'll try not to slip on my own moppings. -kotra (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Groundhog question:
Thank you very much for answering my question. Sorry if I posted it in the wrong place. I have never used the site before and am still a little lost as how to converse with others, without editing the article itself. I will be more diligent in the future. Thank you for the links to articles that may help. Also, the little guys are eating, but it looks more like they are trying things for the first time. A bite here, a nibble there, until they find something they like and then they hunker down. I am pretty sure they will do alright on their own, especially if they are at least attempting to eat. But, I will read the articles you sent and see what, if anything I can do to help the little fellows out.

Most Appreciative, S. Turner 68.217.187.187 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, no harm was done. I'm glad to hear they're eating, it sounds like they're doing ok. Best of luck to you, and if you happen to have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to send me a note. -kotra (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email
One sent your way, as well.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty!
 The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

If cuteness could kill. Teehee. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I'm dead! Oh well, it was a good way to die. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Dawn Bard is correct. The original, consensus-based wording is more accurate and intelligible, and your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source."

What I wrote was: Racism is the belief that race determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group and includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones (i.e. unequal rights)[1]

My source write: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955

Racism is an ideology which claims the human species can be divided into a number of discrete biological groupings that determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group. This belief views "races" as natural and fixed subdivisions of humans, each with its distinct and variable cultural characteristics and capacity for developing civilizations. Thus, the biological factors can be used to explain the social and cultural variations of humans. This ideology also includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones.

webster write: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

"determine the behaviour and success" is not same as "determinant of human traits and capacities" as the last include IQ and the first does not.

"uperior races can dominate inferior ones" is not same as "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" as the last include science but not rights and the first include rights and not science

"your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source"

What is the contradiction? Filosofen (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, the Merriam-Webster source is more reliable than the Canadian Encyclopedia source, so your whole discussion of the differences in definitions is pointless. If they conflict, it is preferable to use the M-W source to the CE source, at least for Wikipedia purposes.
 * Prove it's more reliable. Seems opposite to me, and in case of racism I've proved it. In case of conflict one use logical arguments which I did. One does not use "the biggest win" argumentation to reach truth. Anyway I only asked for contradiction here so this is irrelevant.
 * As for the contradiction, it comes from your assertion that since the original wording includes the word "capacities", which you interpreted to include IQ, it is describing science, which cannot be racist. Your basis for this is the IQ studies.
 * IQ is one example only. IQ is a capacity and partly genetical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#The_view_of_the_American_Psychological_Association writes: "They agree that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence." refering to The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force in 1995. It's a fact IQ say a lot more than just "beeing able to sovle IQ tests". There is no intelligent people on entire earth who score low on IQ like 70-80 no matter race. Intelligent people have ability to think logical and this cause the IQ to be above average 100, typical in the range 110+. You can try find a scientist who does a god job with IQ less than 90. Good luck as it does not exist. IQ does not measure intelligence level directly but it proves that if the IQ is low, then the intelligence generally also is low. If IQ is very high like 130+, it does not mean intelligence is relatively better too. The reason is that IQ is genetical and will produce automatic result in the brain of humans no matter intelligence level. Using rational thinking will "override" the genetical "calculator" and produce IQ typical in area 110-120, and never (with no exceptions) in area 70-80. IQ is therefore a very good source of genetical differences and therefore is used in any racism debate. Everybody who tell IQ differences between races is not supported by experts does never refer to any report supporting them as it does not exists. Every scientist on earth who measure IQ differences statistically will end up with huge differences between races where eastern asians (Japanese typically) is on the top and africans are one the bottom. Even if they have been born in same country with same economy and taken same education. The difference is always there and it's a lie that there exists any experts denying this difference. The experts disagree on how big the difference is - not that there is a big difference. The advanced technology of Japan proves how important IQ is. If we compare to african the differecne is pretty obvious. Africa make no technology, no science, no philosophy and are at general very low developed place with low income and a lot violence and fanatic religions.


 * However, I quote from your source (Canadian Encyclopedia): "Racist thinking presumes that differences among groups are innate and not subject to change. Thus, intelligence, attitudes and beliefs are viewed as not affected by ones environment." It then goes on to say, "''Research shows these assumptions to be wrong and largely based on the untenable position that nature (biology)
 * This is not part of the definition and therefore not relevant. I've written this before in the discussion.
 * science says that intelligence (which you seem to equate IQ with) is not solely, or even greatly, caused by race.
 * I've never set intelligence equal to IQ. I'VE NOT USED THIS WORD ONE SINGLE TIME


 * Or so says CE. That's what I meant by your source contradicting your assertion: it says that, when it comes to the causes of intelligence (or IQ), race is greatly superseded by "differences within groups", "social factors", etc.
 * My source does not write IQ. You equals it. I do not.


 * Not only that, but your conclusion that the IQ studies translate to human capacities, is a personal interpretation.
 * Not personal but a fact that is easy to prove. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Capacity writes 3 a: an individual's mental or physical ability. IQ is a mental ability.


 * First of all, the validity of IQ studies are questioned by experts, to say the least; secondly, IQ does not equal actual intelligence,
 * Never said it equals. The studies about IQ differences has been proved by a lot science and never disproved one single place on entire internet.


 * nor is there only one type of intelligence. IQ tests basically only measure how good one is at taking IQ tests, which is very different from intelligence or intelligences.
 * Again I've never used the word intelligence. This is therefore a straw man. IQ is important but intelligence is even more important of course.


 * And if you still disagree with all of this, let me remind you again that it doesn't matter: for a straight definition, a top-tier dictionary is much more useful and reliable for Wikipedia's purposes than an encyclopedia; even a top-tier encyclopedia like Encyclopedia Britannica, but not Canadian Encyclopedia either.
 * Truth doesn't matter?


 * I hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, now you can reply on the main article as short as possible. I've asked the same there. I wrote here first so you got the chance to make a good relevant answer in the main discussion as this has been too long. I'll answer as short as possible in future.Filosofen (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to debate about anything other than whether your definition should be used in Wikipedia. I only provided my explanation as a courtesy to you, even though it has little relevance to the actual Wikipedia article. But Wikipedia is not a forum, so this sort of lengthy, off-topic discussion is not productive.


 * You ask, "Truth doesn't matter?"
 * The answer is no. Not for Wikipedia. As we have told you several times, we value verifiability more than truth. The purpose of this policy is so personal truths, like yours or mine, are not given weight over authoritative, reliably sourced truths. Wikipedia is more elitist than people tend to believe. In this case, the original definition is more reliably verifiable than yours. If you wish to discuss the relative reliability of Merriam-Webster vs. Canadian Encyclopedia for this purpose, I am willing to discuss it. Otherwise, I would prefer to spend my time with more productive tasks. -kotra (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First you have failed to prove any contradiction. Second; Merriam-Webster is not always reliable as it does not explain it's definitions by logical arguments and it never answer email and never debate it's content. Merriam-Webster is nothing more than the sum of very few personal feelings of the people who write it. Language is not a science. One cannot use only one reference in all cases. And you mix truth with personal opinions. "The purpose of this policy is so personal truths" is nonsense. There is nothing like "personal truth". Truth is absolute and equal for everybody. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth write : the state of being the case : fact. When I write truth I mean real word  truth and not the misuse of word truth as wikipedia write about. Filosofen (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You say "Merriam-Webster is nothing more than the sum of very few personal feelings of the people who write it." Without agreeing with that statement, let me ask: how is Canadian Encyclopedia any different in that regard? As for using only one reference, I'm not suggesting that. I'm only saying, when two references conflict, it is preferable to use the more reliable one. Your version uses the less reliable one (Canadian Encyclopedia), and doesn't use M-W at all... so I'm a bit confused why you complain about using only one reference when that is what you're trying to do.
 * As for "personal truths", I mean what is true for you, or true for me. You're correct in that it's different from "Truth", which is often considered absolute and universal. I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of Truth, either. I am here to help build an encyclopedia. -kotra (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)