User talk:SeanTheSheep

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 ISIHAC 2 A friendly warning 3 Warning 4 Charles Hawtrey 5 Tony's friend Mandy 6 Your latest comment to TK (Sysop Abuse) 7 Trapezoid / Trapezium 8 Personal remarks warning 9 Moving averages

ISIHAC

I hope you don't get Cheddar Gorged by this. Ian St John 19:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

A friendly warning

In case you haven't discovered yet, Conservapedia has a goal of being a family-friendly site. Although mild by today's standards, the Carry On films would not have been considered in that category by many people in the era in which they were made. I don't know just where other Conservapedia sysops would draw the line on this sort of thing, and I'm not suggesting that you've crossed it, but please be aware of that and be careful. Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I think I am right in saying that all of the films were classified as 'U' even when they were released, but I'll check.--SeanTheSheep 05:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

And when you check, you might like to explain 'U' to non-British readers. :-) Philip J. Rayment 05:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I think it translates as R? Or is that Restricted? --SeanTheSheep 06:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Here in Oz, R is Restricted. Philip J. Rayment 06:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

U was completely unrestricted: family friendly. Alba 06:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

It might have been PG or whatever the equivalent was then. I certainly remember seeing Carry On Constable with my parents when I was 6 or 7 in the late 50's. Of course some later ones like Carry On Emanuel (delib spell error) might have a higher rating. Ian St John 14:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes but by then they were'nt the proper carry on's,--SeanTheSheep 15:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Warning

Your article on Hawtrey (1) seemed designed only to portray homosexuals in a positive light and (2) is a copyright violation to boot. Familiarize yourself with the rules here before making any more contributions. --Ed Poor 17:08, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I object to this. An article on which I had put in a great deal of work was deleted without any discussion whatsoever. --SeanTheSheep 17:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1. The amount of work you put in is not related to whether it fits with our project's goals. Sorry, but that's just how it is.
2. Sysops have the right to delete bad stuff on sight. --Ed Poor 17:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Charles Hawtrey

On what grounds, precisely did you delete my entry on Charles Hawtrey? .. as well as the image? Hawtrey was a confirmed homosexual, and his chatacters were always very camp; however he was an extremely well-loved British actor for all that.

--SeanTheSheep 17:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1. Using him as gay role model
2. Copyright violation

What copyright exactly did I violate? I did not use him as a gay role model. If you have actually seen any of Charles Hawtrey's works, you would never amke that accusation. He was a very wimpish character; funny, yes, loved byy the British public, yes, but a role model. Never! What you seem to be saying is that in any discussion of any icon (who happens by their very anture to be excedingly camp) we cannot mention their sexula orentiation. Isn't that censorship?--SeanTheSheep 17:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, and if you have a problem with that you can always contribute your work to Wikipedia. --Ed Poor 17:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Tony's friend Mandy

You could do an article about the Rt Hon Peter Mandelson. The nairae-nebbit would have dificulty explaining him away as unimportant. Though I bet they'll find some way to link his you know what to his deviousness or leftiness. Will be an interesting read though. Auld Nick 07:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Your latest comment to TK (Sysop Abuse)

Did you visit my user page before writing it? (Orwell...) ;-) Leopeo 07:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry. It's only a matter of time. Then you will never have existed (well, the CP version: you will be RETIRED) and your valuable contributions gone, forgotten, forever. But before that, you will be warned, and taught, that what you think is wrong. Leopeo 07:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Trapezoid / Trapezium

I wasn't aware of the linguistic complications! Now there are articles for both Trapezoid and Trapezium. Could you give it a glance? Leopeo 08:43, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It was Niandra who deleted the Trapezium page and put again the redirect to the Trapezoid page. I don't know the definition of (american) 'trapezium' = (british) 'trapezoid' and took it from Wikipedia: no parallel sides. Leopeo 09:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But while I aknowledge the wikipedia definition, does any american use 'trapezium' or any british use 'trapezoid' to refer to a figure which is not a US trapezoid/UK trapezium? Leopeo 09:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Trapezoid is not used in Britain AFAIK, but both Trapezoid (= British Trapezium) and Trapezium (= Scalene Quadrilateral) are used in the US. I fear we are gettning into hot water here. Is there anyone currently editing eg User:Jacques who might know?--SeanTheSheep 09:38, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, what is the definition of US trapezium? The wikipedia "quadrilateral with no parallel sides" is not enough if kite and arrowhead are not trapeziums. Would it be "quadrilateral with no parallel and no equal sides"? Or "a quadrilateral which doesn't fall in the types below:" (rectangle, parallelogram,...)? The spanish wikipedia says "no parallel sides": http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezoide Leopeo 09:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer to use Scalene Quadrilateral (The 'scalene' adjective is applied to any polygon that has no side equal to any other side, and no angle equal to any other angle.) for a quadrialateral which has no sides equal.

There are two common definitions of Trapezium. The American definition is a quadrilateral with no parallel sides. The British definition for a trapezium is a quadrilateral with two sides parallel (Bronshtein and Semendyayev 1977, p. 174). http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trapezium.html

For Trapezoid, here is a useful reference, which I think sums up the US position: http://id.mind.net/~zona/mmts/geometrySection/commonShapes/trapezoid/trapezoid.html

I agree that this now makes very messy defining, and that "no parallel sides" could in fact mean that the shape could be an arrowhead or a kite, which is not at all trapeze-shaped. --SeanTheSheep 10:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Personal remarks warning

You said:

you clearly don't have sufficient mathematical understanding to appreciate the nuances.

Please read Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks and then tell me if you'd like to rephrase or retract that. --Ed Poor 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you tell me that you have sufficient mathematical understanding to appreciate the nunaces than I am not going to contradict or disbelieve you, but in changing my edits, and claiming that they were unnecessary, you were not actually demonstrating that understanding.--SeanTheSheep 18:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Forget it, Sean, understanding has no place on this site. Czolgolz 20:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The tone of the remark may be a bit off, but it may also be accurate...i have no idea. Ed is pretty smart, so he may understand, but feel that others might not. Anyway, maybe there could be a summary at the beginning of each mathematics article, sort of a "math for dummies" (like me) thing, then a full mathematical explanation?JoyousOne 20:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving averages

I think it's logically the next section. Why don't you go ahead and write it? Dpbsmith 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT) Ed Poor will probably huff it if I write it....--SeanTheSheep 11:27, 15 May 2007 (EDT)