User talk:Drow

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)

Hi. Why did you remove four of the entries in the “See also” section of the Intelligence article? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 18:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Thedoctar: 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)

@Thedoctar: I will make a change and you'll say to me if you agree. --Drow (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)