User talk:JohnBlackburne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rockall, a small, isolated rocky islet in the North Atlantic Ocean.


Read it. I won't hesitate to report it Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for any grief that I may have caused you when we had our dispute regarding the mathematical statistics article; in retrospect, I think I acted like a WP:DICK toward you, so for that I'm sorry. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I know that we usually don't apply numbers to hurricanes: for example, we usually don't call Hurricane Irene in 2011 "1109".

But numbers are used not only in Japan but in China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Please look at Digital Typhoon: Typhoon Names (Asian Names).

Annual Report on Activities is an official report by RSMC Tokyo - Typhoon Center. Typhoon numbers are used in this official report.

Therefore, I think information of typhoon numbers is necessary for INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (Wikipedia).--HERB (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If "we usually don't apply numbers to hurricanes" then it doesn't belong on a disambiguation page. They are for navigation, linking pages by a common part of their name. If the page title is different it can and usually should be given, but other details (foreign names, codes, acronyms) should not be, unless they're commonly part of the name.
Add them to the article instead. Or to a list article listing typhoons so all the codes are in one place for easy reference. But not to a disambiguation page.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 15:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmelita Little Turtle‎, it is getting difficult to confirm whether this person passes WP:GNG or not, given that we had far better articles(like that one of Rich Farmbrough) than this one and subject had more than just 'mention'. Have a view? Relisted yesterday. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Republic of China (1912-1949)[edit]

Hi Blackbourne, I saw you reverted my edit and your comment. It seems you are under the impression there is no Republic of China any more, hence your comment "it is not a present day state"? However, I beg to differ. Not only is it mentioned in the article in same paragrah that says the "ROC still maintains rule on Taiwan" (something to that effect), the separate Taiwan article (with Republic of China as a redirect) also shows that the ROC still exists, founded in 1912 and continues on Taiwan. The state never ended, it just has a much smaller territory. These are all facts. Also, even if the ROC or any other state does not exist any more, it would still not be correct to say "Republic of China is an era..." because the ROC is the name of a state (a political entity), not "era" or some time concept. So that's why I revised to a "republic founded..." Yes, the article title is a specification of a period in Republic of China history, so if the opening sentence is describing that, then the bold entry words should be match the article title. My edit gave a brief history and at the end describes the article as a history article rather than an article on the state itself. So let me know if there's anything you do not understand or agree with. I would appreciate you undo my revert. Thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same thing though. There are two problems. First is is so long ago that to identify a government then with that now makes no sense. One might as well write Queen Victoria is the queen of England. But second and more importantly China after 1949 broke up into the ROC and PRC, i.e. Taiwan and China. It's incorrect and POV to say that either is the 1912-1949 state. Of course that is what the ROC wanted people to think after 1949, that it is still the government of all China. Hence it still called itself the ROC, the same name as before 1949. But that was a political ploy that was eventually seen through as China proper, the PRC, reasserted itself. The Republic of China (1912–49) and Taiwan/the ROC today are two completely different things. They share the same name but just for political reasons, it doesn't mean anything.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How is the ROC today and the ROC before completely different things. It continues the use of it's presidential terms, the same constitution, military, laws, governmental structures, flag and anthems and continues to govern an area it that was once a part of the whole of China. The only difference is that it governs a much smaller area. You have an extremely strong POV towards the situation believing that the ROC today is just a joke. Smaller and larger land area means nothing, the ROC today represents a "China" with democracy and true Chinese culture, while the PRC represents the government governing Mainland China. The Republic of China governs Taiwan today is a fact, NOT the PRC nor any other government, what are your problems? If you have problems with my edit, you should go to the "Taiwan" page and delete everything because to you everything in that article is false statement, just like the Communist party sees it. Philipxd (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already replied on the article talk page, it makes more sense to discuss this there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How has the territory size has anything to do with the existence of a country. And my edit DID NOT state anything about it's claim of the Mainland. IT JUST STATES THAT THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNS TAIWAN TODAY. Which is a fact as solid as Washington is the capital of the United States. So STOP, and please, if you have issues with that fact, you should go to the "Taiwan" page and delete everything on there to do with the Republic of China don't just do it on this page where barely anyone ever browses. Philipxd (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen[edit]

Hi JohnBlackburne. Noticed you have been dealing with User:Trust Is All You Need's recent "People's Democratic Republic" crusade over at Talk:China. Wondering if you could give me a hand dealing with him over at Talk:South Yemen? Keep up the good fight. GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page[edit]

Hello there,as you know,we are currently discussing on the fields medalists table on the fields medal page.Though we have not reached a comprehensive consensus, We are really close,and if the ongoing debate on flags resolves, we can publish the table,Yet the user seul1978 constantly vandalize the current table,and despite the fact that invited him/her to participate in the discussion and address hie/her concerns there,he/she does not comply.ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Science fiction[edit]

I am glad that you agreed with my edit on this. As I noted in my edit summary for the original reversion, I have no problem with putting a comment about the run of Dr. Who in the article. I just think is not right to simply negate the discussion about North American programming and longest running series with an out of the blue comment about Dr. Who's run. It should have a separate paragraph or even a separate section. It is a different point. As you note, the run of Dr. Who in North America has been much shorter in time. The article is not limited to the U.S. and so I have no problem with the inclusion of another section about the longest running science fiction shows in other countries. This was out of context where it was inserted. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphing Calculator[edit]

Hi JohnBlackburne. Don't see a reason for removing online graphing calculator link. In my opinion, encyclopedia should bring value. I gave a link, related to a topic: free graphing calculator. Desmos is another online graphing calculator, and it has own page. I don't try to advertise anything, as calculator is free to use and have many additional functions, that another free software doesn't have. So, people can quickly plot what they need without buying costly calulators. Is this bad value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simamura (talkcontribs) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem first is that is not a valuable site. That page in particular is not on graphing calculators as in the article but otherwise it just looks like an advert-heavy blog, not a valuable resource. Second you have been going around adding links to this site and doing nothing else. That is not improving the encyclopaedia; it looks instead like promoting a site you have an interest in, i.e. spamming. That is strictly frowned on here, and editors who persist routinely find their edits reverted and sanctions applied. You should review the advice here: WP:How not to be a spammer, and consider how you can improve the encyclopaedia without being a spammer or giving the impression of being one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can argue about your opinion, that it is not a valuable page. It is free calculator, which is related to Graphing Calculator article. One ad doesn't make it advert-heavy related. Have no clue why you think, that this site is blog. On this page (which I linked to) value is not in words, but in functionality. Find another free resource, that can plot system of inequalities (even linear), which is invaluable resource, for those studying Linear Programming. Find another online resource, where graphs can be customised and saved as images. Value is not just words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simamura (talkcontribs) 22:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


There was a consensus reached at the talk page that first-party, primary sourced produced by the CPC and the Chinese state would be deemed unacceptable for use to define what government type China had. The only thing my edit did was to remove a primary source which was deemed unusable. See talk page, and please revert you're own edit. --TIAYN (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No that wasn't the only thing you did; as you well know you also changed single party state to socialist state in the article body. Now stop edit warring over it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That is, as mentioned in the talk page, that socialist state explains all the features while single-party explains only one of the features.. If one should use of the term socialist is better, since its explains both party, judiciary, government, legislature so on, while single-party only explains single-party.. If its that hard, I can add single-party socialist state everywhere. But I find it worrisome that "Single-party socialist state" is mentioned in the infobox, but the sudden use of socialist is deemed controversial when the article even calls it that................... --TIAYN (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if you had a case (not saying you do), you can't just change the text in the body: it's cited to a particular source, so has to match what it actually says. bridies (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Direction Vector[edit]

John, Direction Vectors have become very important in Computer Science, particularly in spatial apps (graphics, vision, navigation, nanomodeling, robotics) and it is knowledge worth spreading how Direction Vectors are understood and used from a CS perspective.

As far as my Wiki-authoring experience, it is still developing. For instance, I plan to add some illustrations to the Direction Vector page when I get more time to work on it.

Rather than pursue an edit war to suppress content, if you find a section "badly written", have you considered improving it?

If you have questions about the value or relevance of content, or writing style, rather than continue a "revert war", have you thought about using the my Talk page to dialog about your concerns? In keeping with the prohibition on edit wars, I'll wait a week to hear directly from you about Direction Vector, and a more extensive airing of your objections, before moving forward. For instance, why would you object to showing examples of 2D direction vectors (numerically) in an article on this topic? Or, how to go about computing them?

The preference for direction vectors being normalized (unit length) is well established in computation. This feature readies the representation of spatial direction for use in subsequent calculations. For instance, direction vectors are used as a means of specifying coordinate rotations of points (carried out as dot products). If the direction vector is not in standard unit vector length, the dot products used to transform a point will expand (or shrink) the space while rotating it.

The confusing aspect of your header section is that the same verbiage describes ANY vector. You haven't said what is different or special about a direction vector in comparison to the superset of vectors! My introductory sentence, claiming that a direction vector is any vector that is used to represent spatial direction, is uncontroversial. It's the starting point...a specialized use of vectors.

I plan to add some content on

         How to Obtain the Direction going from Point A to Point B?

I agree the the header section is going into too much detail the way I reauthored it, and the article should be refactored to put details in subsections. I'll try to approach it that way in the next revision....but I want to hear your thoughts first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbierre (talkcontribs) 16:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to have any conversation about improving the article on its talk page, so I don't want to go into detail here. But it's the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. This means you can jump in and make changes but don't be surprised or offended if they are reverted. Instead try and work with the editor or editors on the article talk page to improve it. That's usually how articles are improved to the satisfaction of all editors involved.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on the Tau (disambiguation) page[edit]

Please provide a reference to the Wikipedia policy etc. that supports your reversion of my edit on the Tau (disambiguation) page. I will defer to your judgement if you can provide a documented supporting rationale. Thanks.

GDW13 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have two pages, Tau and Tau (disambiguation). One is about the letter and also lists uses of the letter. The other is about the word and lists uses of the word. Tau (2π) is a use of the letter, as a symbol, so belongs on the first of the two pages. If it appeared on the second then all other uses of the letter should appear there too. Then there would be no point listing them at Tau. They would all be at Tau (disambiguation) making it much longer and harder to navigate. So they're split along natural lines.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Chinese as a foreign language[edit]

Hi, I see that you are one of the most recent experienced editors to have made changes to Chinese as a foreign language; if you have time, would you be able to weigh in at Talk:Chinese as a foreign language#Inclusion of Leehom Wang and other foreign-born people of Chinese descent? Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne personal revenge[edit]

Comment: I am sure: JohnBlackburne proposed delete Dao's six circumcenter theorem because he want personal revenge. He didn't need proposed delete Dao's six circumcenter theorem, because If Dao's theorem be delete then Dao's six circumcenter theorem be delete. Please check detail at Dao's theorem at comment at's_theorem .--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

'personal revenge' ? No, it's you who has a personal stake in this, who is obsessively pushing to get your research onto Wikipedia. And it is you that insists on turning this into a personal grudge match, calling into question other editors judgement or knowledge and levelling baseless accusations, both in the deletion discussion and on their talk pages. Please stop it, it's already gone too far and is only likely to get you sanctioned.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template for discussion/dated[edit]

One needs to surround Template:Template for discussion/dated with <noinclude></noinclude> tags when adding it to a template. Without those tags Template:Template for discussion/dated shows up on the articles where the template for discussion is used. With those tags Template:Template for discussion/dated only shows up on the template for discussion. Hyacinth (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually that was intentional on my part, and I will usually do it. The best people to judge whether a template is appropriate are often the editors and readers of the article it's used in. So having a notification in the article helps alert them. The only reason not to do it is if it causes problems, either because the template is used inline like {{math}} and a notice will break up the text, or if the template is used many times so the notice gets repeated. But a single notice out of the way of the text is not a problem. Without it editors might be upset if a template they added is deleted but they did not get the chance to comment in the deletion discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've re-enabled it, after you removed it without giving a reason, and having checked the documentation, Template:Template for discussion#Display on articles, which makes it clear that disabling it is "unusual" and is normally only be done "In rare cases". The default should be to include the notice in articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the AfD for Concave hull?[edit]

You can comment or vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull. -- (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


I invite you to participate in the open request rather than making the edit while underway Talk:Ebola_virus_disease#Second_request_for_hat-link_expansion. Widefox; talk 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the talk page discussions first, my edit was in response to a technical query which I thought easier to make in situ rather than try and explain or demonstrate, which might not work. I don't have any particular view on whether it's needed, and have no objection to it being reverted until the discussions are concluded.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, totally understandable given this FORUMSHOPPING. Widefox; talk 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Phone (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi! The article on Phones (DJ) refers to him as "Phones" as in "headphones", but never as "Phone". Why should he be listed as an alternative meaning of "phone"? Isn't that strictly incorrect? ––St.nerol (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a separate disambiguation page for "Phones" and unless pages are split this way it's usual to list both singular and plural on the same page. There are others that could be added, many others judging from the 'all pages beginning with...' link i added, probably a job for someone with some spare time to wade through them all. But there's nothing wrong with this entry.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Flow-based Programming[edit]

My, that was quick! The reason I put that link there is that we are having a major problem with FBP these days - namely, that the term has been adopted by the NoFlo people who are using the term to denote something rather different from what it has been used for over the last 40 years - their concept is related, but it is different. The link I put up (

) attempts to clarify the differences between their concepts and what we are now having to call "classical" FBP. And their publicity is much more effective than mine! So I thought that, if a reader has come across NoFlo and then tries to learn more about FBP via WP, we could give them some reading matter up front. IMO Disambiguation is not an adequate mechanism to solve this.

Since you so alertly disallowed my proposed change, I'll put the problem to you - how would you handle this situation? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem that directly concerns WP, how a particular group denotes something. There are all sorts of strange ideas out there, strange ways of naming things and describing things, which we cannot and should not be concerned with. Our articles should cover the topic as described in reliable sources. If that is at odds with other sites it's not our problem, although hopefully WP's reputation for neutrality and sourcing will reassure them that our version is fairly reliable. If there were an article 'NoFlo' to which they could be directed as an alternative use of the name then that could be in a hatnote. But not a link to an external site.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to try the hatnote idea - apparently the second item does not have to be an article - see

This page is about USE1. It is not to be confused with TEXT.

. Please take a look, and see what you think. Thx! Jpaulm (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:HATNOTE, the second sentence: "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking", and that is their only purpose. See also WP:LEGITHAT (formatting added)

This is a typical and highly improper misuse of disambiguating hatnotes. Instead, the information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about the book, or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself.

Anything other than links to other articles, perhaps with brief text clarifying the purpose of the link, does not belong in a hatnote.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you were a bit hasty! says clearly "This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation, such as a book and its film adaptation.", which is exactly the situation here - the NoFlo people describe their product as an FBP implementation, which it isn't. Also, as I said before, definitely allows TEXT as its second part - so it doesn't need an article.
Given my description of my problem, if you don't like my using a hatnote, what would you suggest? Remember that I want to intercept my readers early, before they get all confused (which BTW is happening on a massive basis right now). TIA Jpaulm (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
By 'separate topics' it means 'articles'. Again read the start of the guideline, in particular the second sentence I quoted. Hatnotes have a very narrow and precise purpose, they are meant to help readers who end up at one article but are looking for another, with perhaps a similar title. If there's just one other article a link is provided. If there's more a disambiguation page can be linked instead.
And they are not your readers, it is not your article. Wikipedia cannot try and correct misconceptions caused by external sites as it happens all the time. All we can do is try and make WP as accurate and reliable as possible. If you have a problem with an external site then take it up with them, there's nothing we can do about it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

GD&T Link[edit]

Hello John. My username is TommyGeiss and you recently flagged one of the links I but on the GD&T page as spam. I understand if you are trying to avoid spammy links on Wikipedia, but I do feel that the overview that link I provided has very good educational examples and helpful to anyone learning more about GD&T. I am trying to contribute to the content and provide the best resource for learning online with the site. The links at the bottom contain many other websites which only give basic commentary where my link is a well founded free resource. Please check us out at [] and you will see it has only links to the GD&T symbols discussed in the article and expands on the topic further by going through examples and where each is used. If after viewing the examples you feel that they would not help someone learning about GD&T then leave it off. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommygeiss (talkcontribs) 18:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the site, and it seems to exist solely to sell services. And all you are doing is coming here and linking to that site, not doing anything to improve the encyclopaedia. I suggest you read Wikipedia:How not to be a spammer, as so far your editing, consisting entirely of adding links to a commercial site, is entirely inappropriate.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello John, I am sorry that you feel that my comments were spam, however I was only trying to send a link to a GD&T symbols overview that is on my site. If you look at every other link on that references page there are nothing but companies are only selling things. There are a few that go directly to pages that are actual paid content. I am merely sending to a page that gives an overview of every symbol that is talked about much more clearer than the wikipedia page itself. Yes I offer training on my site, but nowhere in where other than my menu bar is that mentioned. I am a design engineer who is ASME certified for GD&T and know that my resource is sound and will help people without any cost or deviant motive. Someone like you who is looking to make wikipedia a better place must understand that there are are some resources that are beneficial being linked out to, that expand on the topic, and helpful to the reader. I suggest you see my page on [ Perpendicularity] (a symbol in the resource that was linked to) for example to see an ad free, fully detailed source that fully explains the exact topic being discussed. Can you at least tell me why the other links are a better fitting resource than my own? Thanks - Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommygeiss (talkcontribs) 00:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Proposed signature by Technical 13 are not good to me, I'm trying to make as similar as old signature. I need more time, but I will do it.--MaCroatian squares Ljubicic.pngGa 11:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


So linking to East Asia is verboten unless it is on a separate line? What a weird rule?! (don't talk secrets) (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See MOS:DABENTRY for the rule; only one navigable blue link per line. The point is to make sure readers get to the article mentioned. There they can find further details about the topic including links to related topics.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I got it thanks. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Republic of China(1912-49)[edit]

Hi Blackburne, you wanted me to refer to Wikipedia:TW --> which is about Twinkle? Mistakefinder (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle, WP:Twinkle, is a gadget, an optional tool that makes many tasks easier. It's especially useful for doing deletions as it does all the steps of a deletion process. The link in the edit summary is there to show when it's used, both as a help to other editors to find it and so it's possible to see how it's used, within one editor's contributions or among a larger number. It is not related to the reason for the change, and does not refer to e.g. Taiwan, which is coincidentally sometimes referred to by the same two letters.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


My edit was neither necessary nor out of place: The section in reference was about whether 00 was 1 or undefined and contained many explanations of why it might be considered 1 but none of how it might be considered undefined. As such the section was unfairly weighted so I added an example of how 00 would be seen as undefined to balance this out. My addition might not have been in the most appropriate subsection but it did not disrupt the flow of the article and was not out of place (plus it could merely have been moved to a different subsection as opposed to being reverted), nor was the addition false and given its nature it needed no source as the maths explained itself with good mathematics explained in its entirety needing no citations. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

It was out of place; that is a well laid out and sourced history section and does not benefit from an unsourced digression like that. Other than that it was so badly written that it made no sense as an example. For questions such as what is 00 clarity is important, as the answer is by its nature unclear and ill-defined. You are wrong to write it needed no source: any mathematics beyond simple arithmetic needs sourcing, otherwise it is original research and as in this case that often means it is unclear and confusing. If it can't be found in sources then chances are it's not a good example.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I say, it might have been in the wrong subsection but it was not out of place to be in that overall section. My edit was not badly written either; it is clear when stated, that 00 can be expressed as (0x)/(0x) for x ≠ 0 as by the laws of powers (ax)/(ax) = a(x-x) = a0 this shows that 00 can be expressed as 0/0 as 0x for x ≠ 0 is also 0 and ∴ 00 can be described as undefined just like all numbers divided by 0 are by the nature of a gradient on a cartesian graph showing to been vertical and therefore both ±∞ This is not beyond simple arithmetic either, infact in England, UK it is taught to all children at age 12 and usually fully understood by at most age 14 depending on the intelligence of the child with many understanding it at an earlier age. By extension it is also non-confusing as long as you have a basic grasp of the concept of numbers so I fail to see how you found my edit confusing. Furthermore, maths beyond simple arithmetic is not original research, that is an invalid assumption. In addition, all maths is either true or false and is the only subject where this applies and as such as long as an explanation is given in its entirety then no source is needed. Also even if a source was needed, it is clear that it is correct and as such such just be marked as needing citation as opposed to being removed. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

de Moivre's formula is currently grossly incorrect[edit]

Please elaborate on how my edit was erroneous, my edit in and of itself shows have it is true via way of my own explanation. If you feel it not fit to continue this here I have already created a new section on the de Moivre's formula about this topic which I expected you to reply to in explaining my supposed errors and how adding correct notation makes the page confusing (as I assume that is how you deem me to have made the page more confusing) Though I know that my edit was not erroneous and any further mathematician specialising in complex numbers would know that. (Sumandark8600 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC))

Chester Burn viaduct[edit]

Hi John: I'm so sorry to inform you that your recent nomination of Chester Burn viaduct is not going to pass. It was originally created on December 20, which means it would have to be expanded 5-fold in order to qualify now. It's a crazy rule, but one that they (at DYK) are not willing to bend. Let me know if you have any questions! MeegsC (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at the nomination page (I noticed it before noticing your post here).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that — somehow I missed the article move! Anyway, it's approved now. It would be good if you could add page numbers to your book references; it's hard to track things down without them. And there are a number of things which are included in the article that aren't in the source (Cong Burn as an alternate name, for example, and the info about Tesco's parking lot). MeegsC (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)