User talk:Drow

Welcome!
Hello, Drow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Intelligence and culture
Hi. I respectfully disagree with the deleting of the changes made to the "Intelligence" page regarding cultural interpretations of the topic. Intelligence as a concept is extremely dependent upon the culture that it is being studied, and this point deserves to be made on the Intelligence page as there is no mention of culture yet. This contribution does not fit on the "Human Intelligence" page, as that page discusses the more scientific and theoretical components of intelligence relating to specifically humans. The "Intelligence" page discusses different definitions of the topic on their surface level, and it makes more sense to add this information about cultural contexts here and provide a few examples, which I was going to do within the next couple of days. If you have suggestions on wording or points to make within this topic, I would be happy to hear them. Thank you. 7801CFME (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I've noticed that you're quite fond of the intelligence page as you seem to frequently edit it. However, I disagree with your recent deletions of the additions made to this page by User:7801CFME in regard to cultural interpretations of the topic. Their contribution really does not belong in the article about 'Human' intelligence. In addition, the concept of 'culture' is not specific to humans. In fact, orcas have a very complex culture that varies from pod to pod. (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles with inline citations should not be tagged as having no inline citations but as needing more if that's the case
That seems obvious. I've done that now and removed your tag. By the way, the section you said had none had one. Not enough, but not none. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Merging from cat to cat health
Hello, when you are moving text as a result of a merge discussion, as you did here, please can you follow the steps in WP:MERGE. It has been difficult to figure out what has gone as you didn't comment in the merge discussion, and just removed the merge tags. It would also be helpful if you could put notices on the talk pages of the relevant pages when you move content from page to page, as described here: Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. DferDaisy (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence
Intelligent people may disagree.

The initial sentence of the lede for Intelligence: "Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including as one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving." is more formal English, suitable for an encyclopedia article. However. including as the capacity is a better choice since the article covers human and non-human intelligence. The choice has little to do with "native speaker" English usage. Were the article's focus solely on human intelligence, then I should prefer including as one's capacity (assuming the writer and the audience are of human-level consciousness). The above usage of "one" is as an impersonal pronoun. If you really wish to dig into English usage (two pages on "one"!), I recommend the most current edition of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 4th edition, Oxford University Press. This is a good prose read, with quite a bit of wit. — Neonorange (Phil) 03:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about your revision on Intelligence
Hi. Why did you in the “See also” section of the Intelligence article? Inter qwark talk  contribs 18:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you change the title of a source?
Your reference says Taheri, Sadreddin (2013). "Gopat (Sphinx) and Shirdal (Gryphon) in the Ancient Middle East although the actual source calls it "Gupta and Syrdal in the Near East". Did you read the source? Not the link, the actual article? Because that's what is required. Doug Weller  talk 18:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I forgot. All material needs reliable sources confirming the text. So the similar creatures section needs sources stating that they are similar. Otherwise it's original research which we don't allow. I've tagged the section and said something on the talk page. Doug Weller  talk 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit in Universe Wikipage
Why did you edit the `Universe' Wikipage? Specifically removing the parenthesis (total energy)? It is clarifying, as the number given is not the density of merely (baryonic or otherwise) matter. thedoctar (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * While I do agree that the clarification can be correct and makes sense for someone who is knowledgeable in physics, for the ordinary layman or indeed for everyone who never heard about Relativistic physics, it can only be confusing.
 * I would also leave the plain "average density" because before giving those numbers, physicists actually convert the energy into the equivalent value in mass, so when they say "average density", they indeed mean "average density expressed in mass (matter)", the reference to the energy being disappeared in the intermediate computations. --Drow (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you'd rather change it to 'total mass' then this is fine; but simply removing it is ambiguous. If someone were to get the impression that this density were the density of matter, then they would be very wrong. The word `total' must appear, to convey the sense that the density is simply not just of ordinary matter. thedoctar (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will make a change and you'll say to me if you agree. --Drow (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)