User talk:Paul August/Archive23

Last change
Hi, you may not have noticed, but your recent contributions have changed some parts of the text. If that was not your intention, do not worry, I proceeded to restore the item. I'll note that the change of content must be justified in the talk page of the article and hopefully you have a good intention, otherwise your actions will be considered vandalism. Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Huh? Paul was reverting your removal of content without an edit summary or discussion on the talk page of Classical republic. You might want to be a bit more careful about tossing around the term vandalism and remember to remain logged in when editing: editing the same page from an account and an IP within a matter of minutes, and warning your own IP about its edits, looks a lot like a concerted effort at WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. davidiad.:τ 02:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I would like to talk to you sometime about the subject. (Slurpy121 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC))
 * You may not remove other people's comments from talk pages, as you did to mine here. davidiad.:τ 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Labours of Hercules
Well, I'm always aware of your presence, as I become less vigilant regarding mythology articles when you're around. I don't know what to do about the recent string of infantile but not-quite-vandalistic edits at Labours of Hercules that occurred over the holiday season. There have been several intervening valid edits that may be tedious to reconstruct. When I noticed it last night, I threw up my hands in despair and moved on. Thoughts? Really, the whole article needs an overhaul. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... needs an overhaul ... yes, like many others. But we can't do everything. And I'm an old curmudgeon who only does what he wants ;-) Paul August &#9742; 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

..... and it turns out (apparently) that what I wanted to do was something like this. Not an overhaul but ... Paul August &#9742; 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed
See User talk:Moonriddengirl -some editor here have been involved in some of the articles this editor has left full of copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Doug. I'll see what I can do. Paul August &#9742; 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's now properly organised at Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Factorization Page Changes
Today you justly deleted my edit on the "Factorization" page, but would you put my information back on with proper LATEX? This was my first wikipedia post and I was not sure how to format it, but the math is sound. thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Fragershroom, and welcome. Sorry I had to delete your contribution. I will take a look and see what I can do. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 11:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to let you know that the LaTeX issues are fixed, and you do not need to worry about fixing the page.If you want to check the math, go ahead. Thank you, Fragershroom (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
 * If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@undefinedcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Questia email failure: Will resend codes
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent
Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasit &#124; c 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Paradise Lost edit
The edits to which you are referring look good to me. Happy editing!Jpcohen (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that the edits that you made, removing these article adjectives look good to me. Sorry for the lack of clarity.Jpcohen (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I'll re do my undo. Paul August &#9742; 01:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Gone?
Uncertain access? Does that mean I'll have to pay closer attention to mythology articles? Bleah. I hope you're going somewhere romantically remote and even better tropical (it's -14° C. where I am at the moment). Bon voyage! Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncertain, but not apparently non-existant. As always you need to attend to whatever strikes your fancy. Yes, tropical, romantic and remote. As I seem to have better access than I might have had, I will probably be in and out. See you around. Paul August &#9742; 14:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of Lagrange
Hallo Paul, I reverted again your edit on the Lagrange article. In the manual of style of biographies there is a guideline (WP:OPENPARA) which specifies which nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph of an article. It is quite clear and, in the case of Lagrange, it is also indisputable that his notability was reached when he was in Turin. If you don't agree with the guideline (which of course is not perfect, but in my opinion has the advantage to stop a lot of the nationalistic edit wars which plague wikipedia), please go on the related talk page and discuss there, but please understand that as long as a guideline is there, it should be followed. Talking about my fellow citizens, Fermi, Segrè and Bruno Rossi became 100% Italians, while Giacconi and Viterbi are now 100% Yankees. Of, course, starting with the second paragraph you can write all what you want. :-) Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, ok if you insist, I won't argue (but I don't think I read the guideline quite like you do, and note for example that Britannica describes Lagrange as an "Italian French mathematician"). Paul August &#9742; 12:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The GL says:"...or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." I think that it is clear, and in our case, notability was reached for sure not in France (most of his most important contributions were accomplished while he was in Germany). It is also quite evident for me that Lagrange was an Italian mathematician who later became French (BTW, asking Napoleon to annex its homeland - Piedmont - into the French Empire: so to say, he moved into France bringing his own country :-) ), and we can write it after the first sentence. Alex2006 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but the sentence you quote starts off with "In most modern-day cases this will mean" (italics added for emphasis), and in any case WP:OPENPARA is only a guideline. My view is that Lagrange is considered to be both Italian and French, and Wikipedia should not choose one over the other. Paul August &#9742; 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the end of this thread regarding Enrico Fermi, another famous Italian/something-else scientist (if you have time, you can read the whole thread :-)). About being "only" a guideline, I think that guidelines can be discussed, but as long as they are in force cannot be ignored. Alex2006 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Eros
I may've just done bad things at Eros. I've been working on Cupid, and thought I was going to be working on it tonight because my Valentine was on deadline for a project. Turns out he finished early, and I may not get to finish what I intended. Anyway, when I was reviewing Eros I noticed that the section on his nature as a primordial god was completely missing, and the other background section as well. I don't see anything hideously misleading in those sections, and they're better than nothing, so went back to a version that had them. I did this in haste, but it seemed as if little or no real editing had been done in the meantime … mainly just vandalistic deletion and reversion. Since I know you watch the page, just thought I'd mention it, in case I screwed something up. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edits look good. Paul August &#9742; 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User Rfkjnfjnj
why aren't you letting me spit on Plato's grave? my addition was totally awesome and lots of people think itRfkjnfjnj (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)why dont u find the sources hunty xoxoxoxox <3
 * ? Paul August &#9742; 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Paul August; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Moron
get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.251.254 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Divine Comedy navbox
I see you have been an active editor at Divine Comedy. Would you take a look at Template:Divine Comedy navbox?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok
Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day.

Ok
Since you keep deleting all my edits. Like when i put in that Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon Defeated the titans. You deleted it because your trying to delete all my edits. You must know me some how. Your a stalker. Your harrasing me. Now i will return the favor. Since you like to deltete all my edits. I am do right now delete everything you have ever put in now. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok
another thing i just did. I just delted 5 of your edits on different pages right now. Tomorrow 10 more. I just deleted everything you put in on the Cepheus King of Tegea page. You try to restore it. I will delete again because I can. Stop deleting my edits on the Cyclopes page. Everythiong I put in is fact. Keep deleting my information. I will delete everything you ever put in. Have a good day. Moron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.167 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DarkSleach, I'm sorry that you feel that you've been mistreated. What do you want me to do? Even if I "stop deleting" your edits on the Cyclops page, I can't stop other editor's from doing so. Notice that many of your edits to that page, including your last one, have been undone by several other editors besides me. If you keep doing what you've been doing you will probably end up being blocked or banned see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. There are other ways to try to resolve this problem see WP:DISPUTE. I'm willing to discuss any of this with you. Regards Paul August &#9742; 11:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard)#Second survey
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eagle (Roman military standard). — Sowlos 09:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Leibniz on energy
Hi Paul, concerning the recent edits at Leibniz, the relevant reference seems to be Ariew and Garber. There are two mentions of kinetic energy on the page. The first one is not relevant, as you pointed out in your message summary. The second one seems to bear out the claim on Leibniz and kinetic energy, and provides the reference to Ariew and Garber. Tkuvho (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tkuvho. Thomas Kuhn the famous physicist, historian and philosopher of science wrote an article titled "Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery" in which he lists twelve possible candidates for the title of the discoverer of conservation of energy none of whom were Libnitz (see ). See also Helmholtz and the British scientific elite: From force conservation to energy conservation. I'm curious what Ariew and Garber have to say exactly. Paul August &#9742; 17:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly one is talking about different conservation laws. What you possibly have in mind is the conservation of the sum potential+kinetic.  What Leibniz was referring to was the conservation of total kinetic energy (no gravity) in a system of, say, elastic balls.  Tkuvho (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I followed your link on Kuhn, and then followed their link on "conservation of energy". Their historical section states: "History.  The principle of the conservation of energy has a long and elaborate history, stemming from the 1670s theory of vis viva or “living force” of German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, to debates on the caloric theory, etc."  So in a way this supports the claim on Leibniz.  Tkuvho (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this supports what our articles on Liebnitz and conservation of energy say, but not what the IP wanted our article on Liebnitz to say, namely that Liebnitz was the discoverer of the conservation of energy. Paul August &#9742; 18:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to mention in the introduction that Leibniz discovered the law of conservation of vis viva a.k.a. kinetic energy? The sources seem to be in agreement on this.  Tkuvho (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is no "law of conservation of kinetic energy" (doesn't work for inelastic collisions, as you point out above). So to be accurate you'd have to say something like "Leibniz discovered that for elastic collisions, kinetic energy was conserved". That is probably accurate, but that leaves the question of whether it is important enough to be mentioned in the lead? I don't know. Paul August &#9742; 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion. I just thought such a discussion is a more constructive approach to the issue than the series of mutual reverts at Leibniz.  Would it be OK to copy this thread to the Talk:Leibniz so the IP has a chance to respond? Tkuvho (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, and yes discussion is best. Paul August &#9742; 17:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This could be copied to Talk:Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz rather than the talkpage of the redirect. Tkuvho (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was checking to see if this discussion had ever been copied over, and I mistakenly looked at the wrong talk page and copied it there. But I see that you apparently copied this discussing already so I've simple undone my recent copy. Paul August &#9742; 17:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Xena of Amphipolis
Please refer to the writings of Dasopholios before deselecting the resource link of Xena of Amphipolis as valid? Thanks in advance I will send on my research papers FYI. David Greene PHD @ Harvard. 65.175.179.93 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi David. Thanks for the note. Any source you can provide would be helpful. Who is Dasopholios? I can find nothing on anyone by that name. Paul August &#9742; 11:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Kabeirides
Hi Paul, saw your edit summary at Hephaestus. I agree with your removal, but since you ask who that Kabeirides is ... The Kabeirides are a trio of obscure nymphs who were either the sisters (Pherecydes) or consorts (Acusilaus) of the Kabeiroi—both cited by Strabo 10.3.21. Residue of this info shows up in Stephanus, too. That's the entirety of what antiquity has to say about them.  davidiad { t } 01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My question was mostly rhetorical, but thanks. Paul August &#9742; 10:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. I sure as hell had no idea who they were.  davidiad { t } 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ;-) Paul August &#9742; 12:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * P. S. Perhaps in the same vein, any thoughts on "Xena of Amphipolis" see immediately above and recent edits to Amphipolis. In particular do you know who "Dasopholios" might be? Paul August &#9742; 12:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but didn't want to comment since I'd just have been a jerk to the IP-editor: you're a lot better at assuming good faith than I am. Dasopholios has enough of a veneer of plausibility on it that it could be imagined as a single fragment historian in Mueller or something, but it ain't an actual Greek name.  davidiad { t } 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for improving my Pergamon edits!
I was in the middle of trying to improve Pergamon when I was interrupted by a small person needing tutoring. What a lovely surprise to find that the cites had already been cleaned up while I was busy!Mellsworthy (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Your edits have improved the article. And more could be done. Regards. Paul August &#9742; 10:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cerberus

 * Good catch at Cerberus. I half revert far too often.  davidiad { t } 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I make similar mistakes. Paul August &#9742; 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Message
How can I put a message to you, christian? If we are talking about a God, it should be in capital letter, right? Southamerican (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. In polytheistic contexts "god" and "goddess" are not capitalized. Paul August &#9742; 01:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hi Paul, I just mentioned at 3RRN that I agree with your edits on Mythology. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Paul August &#9742; 00:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pandia
Sorry I disappeared, Paul. Real real world stuff on my end. The article looks great.  davidiad { t } 06:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, and thanks. Paul August &#9742; 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 570595462 by Sluffs (talk) the last edit changed the meaning
You reverted an edit I did on the article: Muslim

I changed: "who begets not nor was begotten" to "who begets but was not begotten"

and you reverted the edit on the basis that it changed the meaning. How does it change the meaning? This is basic "first cause" stuff. Both mean without creation, boundless, eternal - the first cause from which all emanates. Also "not nor" is just not working. It makes the reader pause to think why "not" meaning "in no way" and "nor" meaning "in no way" are together

e.g. I will not fight with other editors or Nor will I fight with other editors.

Look it up in a dictionary. I should say not nor look it up in a dictionary unless you wish to find out.

who begets but was not begotten = he who creates but was not created

begotten is the past participle of beget - beget means "To cause to exist or occur". So change to past participle: "was caused to exist or occur" then add "not" and hey presto:

"was not caused to exist or occur" in other words "he who is the cause of existence but himself was not caused to exist"

I'm going to revert your edit.

Sluffs (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the correct meaning is the one you've changed it to &mdash; what is the source for this? But the meaning of "begets not nor was begotten" is "does not beget and was not begotten". That is of course different than what you've written. Regards Paul August &#9742; 11:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just interested in writing clear articles. Thanks

Sluffs (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you are interested in writing correct articles as well, what is the source for the change in meaning you've made? Paul August &#9742; 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it the confusion may be caused by the mixed tense. Past Perfect (whoops I mean Present Perfect) for the first clause of the sentence and Past Participle for the second clause of the sentence. Who begets = Who causes to exist - do we exist now? - yes - why do we exist? - because we have been created - hold on I was born in the 1990s and I had no existence 30,000 years ago - yes that is true because creation is still going on. That is why the Present Perfect is used - something that started in the past and is (or may be) still going on. Then we have the Past Participle for the second clause - if the creator exists then to even ponder if he was created or not is Past tense.

So the sentence stands. BTW I've given you definitions and tenses so its your responsibility to offer alternative definitions and tenses that justify the inclusion of the words you wish to see in the article. I've gone as far as I can to explain the grammar changes. Justify your sentence - I've justified mine.

Sluffs (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What was written before (perhaps incorrectly) was "begets not" followed by the phrase "nor was begotten". The first phrase "begets not" is the negative of "begets" i.e. "does not beget". you've reversed that meaning to "does beget" No need to talk about tenses. Paul August &#9742; 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My mistake I thought beget was being used in a "caused to exist or occur" sense and that the "not nor" was being applied to the second clause - still unusual to have "in no way in no way" "begets in no way in no way begotten" - oh well. Since this is the translation given on Islamic sites and I thought I was correcting a grammatical mistake not the meaning I humbly apologize for my mistake.

Sluffs (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Paul August &#9742; 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment on the articles Talk Page about the Tafsir al-Jalalayn interpretation. Its a choice of using the Sahih International version as given by Wiqi55 which is a transliteration for English readers or using the more expansive interpretation of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

He neither begot, for no likeness of Him can exist, nor was begotten, since createdness is precluded in His case.

I like the above because of the inclusion of "was". If we reduce it to bring it closer to the Sahih International version: He neither begot nor was begotten. That might be better than "he neither begets nor is born".

The Tafsir al-Jalalayn is from 1459 and is still used. What do you think?

Sluffs (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For flow "nether begets nor was begotten" seems good to me. Perhaps you can find a common published translation of the phrase and use that, with quotes. Paul August &#9742; 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That is good idea - "begets" is Present Perfect and the inflected form "begotten" covers Past Participle. Please note that I did keep saying Past Present - its Present Perfect for something that happened in the past and is (or may be) still be going on.

So "neither begets nor was begotten" may be the one.

Sluffs (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we had better stick with the Tafsir al-Jalalayn version which uses begot and begotten. If Islamic scholars are happy with it - who am I to argue. Anyway it does seem to refute the belief in the Son of God and also that we are created in his likeness. So maybe it is saying "no! God didn't have a son and you were not created in his image" which would require the use of begot as given by the Tafsir al-Jalalayn.

Sluffs (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What a waffle. Yep. Its "neither begets nor was begotten" - which states that no organic or inorganic object can be born or originate from him (Jesus, you, your cat, the images of him at the Sistine Chapel) because he is perfect and transcends representation or divisibility (the trinity is described as three parts of the same being) and that nothing was the cause of him (absolute, alone, one, unique). I'll go and change it now. Sorry about wasting your time while I worked out the "not nor" issue which actually was probably just a missing comma in the correct transliteration.

Sluffs (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Paean (god)
The article redirects from Paeon and specifically has the designation (god) after it, not epithet. The article is titled Paean and yet Paeon is used for the majority of the article, even as the epithet, which you cited as being the primary use of the spelling Paean. The primary citation on the spelling being Paeon is copy/pasted from an article on the princeton.edu domain which recursively cites the Wikipedia article, which ultimately cites this article on the tufts.edu domain where the first word of the article is Παιάν with this word tracker showing they appear the same amount of times but the spelling with the acute emphasized alpha instead of the omega is the user voted favorite. Either way, until a preference can be cited, the article should use the spelling matching the name of the article, as the other spelling redirects to the current spelling. I'm going to roll back the edit and open up a discussion for it on the the talk page

Edit: It seems you up and moved the page without citing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penitence (talk • contribs) 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A discussion on the talk page would be good. I'm the one who wrote most of the article, and when I wrote it the article was called "Peaon (god)", so that's why the spelling "Peaon" was used throughout. The article was, unbeknownst to me, subsequently moved to "Paean (god)" (with no discussion or reason given). My (albeit limited) research at the time I worked on the article seemed to indicate that "Paeon" was the more common name for the god (see for example this Google Books search), while "Paean" is the more common name for the epithet. But I could be wrong ;-) Regards, Paul August &#9742; 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Plans for 30 day effort to get establish a page upgrade for Prometheus
From your revert today of the Goethe section.

May I invite you to the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion for a plan under way for improvements for a page upgrade for the Prometheus page. Also to invite your comments and possible participation. We have been discussing a 30-day plan for September to try to get this wikipage an upgrade status by the end of this month. Your comments are welcome.

The edit which you deleted was a transitional edit only. It was only made for the purpose of establishing the form of upgrade outline needed for the plan to obtain the page upgrade. As a good faith edit, after you visit the Cynwolfe Talk page discussion, if you have comments plus or minus, mark them into discussion. Invite to visit the discussion and participate to get the page upgrade. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Athena - cuts not intended, am fixing
The edit I was working on wrote over yours, sorry. It was not intentional and last night I corrected the image relocation. Right now I am logged in with the intention to reinstate your other edits. No need for you to do it again. I have the history up and will fix it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed they were unintended, but I wanted to make sure before I redid them. Thanks for doing that. Paul August &#9742; 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fermat
You might want to know there is an open edit warring case against the Fermat-solver you just reverted. Regards. Jamesx12345 17:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Paul August &#9742; 18:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2012
Are you planning on creating this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry no. Paul August &#9742; 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Only surviving detailed proof of Fermat
You reverted my edit to the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^2. While you are obviously correct, I think it would be more clear to add that something like "Since any solution of the Fermat equation with exponent 4 gives a solution of the equation also, it follows that Fermat's claim is true for n=4. That is, the equation x^4 − y^4 = z^4 has no non-trivial integer solutions." after the sentence in question.

MeQuerSat (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)