Last modified on June 9, 2015, at 06:45


Return to "Parrot" page.

Haven't you heard of a Jackdoor, Sam? Or aJar? Or..... AlanE 01:22, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

I hope you're joking--I know that doors are very rarely jars, but a door can be ajar. But your erudition on many subjects (especially non-United States use of English) is so much greater than my own that I can't be sure. Just so you know, I actually googled the phrases "they walk with a rolling gait" and "they walk with a rolling gate". They both got hits! Far more "gait" than "gate", of course. Most of the "gate" hits were Conservapedia, but not all. Of course we all know that spelling (and grammar, and lucidity) is a lost art. SamHB 01:50, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
Show me the "gate" hits concerning Conservapedia from Google. Karajou 01:53, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
I did a quoted string search of "they walk with a rolling gate". I got, in part:

About 46 results (0.35 seconds) Search Results

Parrot - Conservapedia Conservapedia Jan 27, 2015 - On the ground they walk with a rolling gate. Both feet are zygodactyl, i.e. two toes in front, two toes behind, a trait shared with owls and ...

Cockatoo - Conservapedia Conservapedia Nov 5, 2013 - On the ground they walk with a rolling gate. Both feet are zygodactyl, i.e. two toes in front, two toes behind, a trait shared with owls and ...

Amazon parrot - Conservapedia Conservapedia Oct 18, 2013 - On the ground they walk with a rolling gate. Both feet are zygodactyl, i.e. two toes in front, two toes behind, a trait shared with owls and ...

Parakeet - Conservapedia Conservapedia Oct 16, 2013 - On the ground they walk with a rolling gate, their long tails slightly elevated off the ground. Both feet are zygodactyl, i.e. two toes in front, two ...

and then a bunch of non-CP things, from places like,,, and so on. All very weird. SamHB 02:24, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....Sam; you're too serious, mate. (Though not as serious as some) My "jackdoor" was a misspelling of the bird, 'jackdaw', as "gate" was a misspelling of "gait". (Only, mine was deliberate.) A jar is also a bird - usually known as a "nightjar" - and, as you thought, I joined the jar with its indefinite article so as to keep the door/gate reference. AlanE 02:47, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

I'm taking back what I said above. But the points are these: one, we simply cannot make up stuff out of thin air; that is called lying, and it has no place here or anywhere else for any reason. And two, we cannot take a spelling error and turn it into a major catastrophe. It's simple human nature to make mistakes, and that includes something as mundane as a written word. It doesn't take much to correct it. Karajou 03:06, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
Well, not surprisingly I was badly outclassed by your linguistic wit, though I did get the "ajar" reference, and I almost got the "gate / door both swing on hinges" reference.
The reason for the Googling was that I know that "gait" means a style of walking, and was 99% sure that that was the word that was supposed to be used. But 99% isn't good enough when I'm way outside of my area of expertise; perhaps I don't really know what "gait" means. So I Googled the two phrases, expecting to find many hits with "gait" and only a very small number with "gate", the latter just being the Conservapedia article and maybe a couple of completely random things. The first part of the hypothesis turned out to be correct—351 hits for "gait". But "gate" got a surprisingly large number of hits. They claimed it was 42, though only 11 were showing.
The first screenful of hits had 4 for Conservapedia (I've fixed them all) and 2 for the others. Scrolling down, and clicking "next", got the other 5. I didn't go through all the others, but I looked at just enough of them to see something really weird going on. There are a few references to something about climate change causing sea otters in Port Heiden, Alaska to be starving. They are going up on dry land, with a "rolling gate". It seems that when you post something on a blog, it gets splattered around the internet, with many of the exact same phrases.
When I clicked on the "If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." thing, it went up from 11 to 23, but still not 42. I will never understand what Google thinks it is doing.
So that's what happened. All over a trivial spelling error. I think all 3 of us took it too seriously. But at least I learned what "zygodactyl" means. SamHB 00:47, 2 June 2015 (EDT)

At least none of us went off in a fit of high gudgeon. 03:27, 2 June 2015 (EDT)

the spelling errors were mine. Sometimes I do that, like the failure to capitalize the first word in this paragraph. But the point is that anyone does it; whether or not you're conservative or liberal or how good or bad you are on a keyboard makes no difference. What I do expect is that if someone finds it, just correct it and go. And on a side note, from what I've seen in many websites it is only the liberals (aka "grammar nazis") who have the "curmudgeon" problem when a conservative misspells something. Karajou 05:07, 2 June 2015 (EDT)
Of course they were, K, and whether they were yours or of any other CP editor is not the point. Sam said "yipes" at the edit, not the editor. I used his edit to let rip my love of punning. I doubt whether Sam knew or cared who had made the edit. I know I didn't. CP's obsessive Cons V Lib thing didn't come into it. AlanE 01:25, 3 June 2015 (EDT)
Remember everyone, there is no letter i in the word team. :) Conservative 04:13, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

My use of "yikes" as the edit comment meant that I was surprised at how subtle and tricky the error was. It was a correctly spelled homonym, that a spell checker could not have found, and a grammar checker would probably not have found. It was an interesting error, nothing more. I did not care who made it. For a sample of what I say when I want to put someone down, see this.

@Cons: I'm glad to see that you feel this way about working together as a team. I infer that you will soon unlock the following pages:

SamHB 23:46, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Credit Where Credit is Due

I'm amazed and pleasantly surprised! I was expecting another icewater in Hell comment. I take back some (but just some!  :-) of the mean things I've said about you. SamHB 01:06, 4 June 2015 (EDT)

No Credit Where Credit is Not Due

I take back my former praise, pending your unlocking of the


So are you going to work together as a team, or not? Does the word "team" have an "i" in it, or not?

I plan on removing the protection after the article is no longer a "featured article" on the main page.
Second, after squawking like an ill-tempered bird on the talk page of the parrot page, you are hardly in a position to complain about teamwork. Conservative 00:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
OK, I'm giving you a pass on that one. While something is a featured article, it definitely needs to be locked. But now that it is no longer a featured article (that was short!) you will be unlocking it, right?
Speaking of featured articles, these decisions used to be made by a committee. In fact, I may have been part of that committee at one time; I don't remember, and I'm too busy to look through my records. Something about featuring the "Riemann Integral" page, and some huge blowup. Be that as it may, the decisions seem to be made by you these days. Which means it's heavily biased toward "Atheism and Strawberries". I wonder if you could be persuaded to feature an article of my choice? Like E=mc² or Theory of relativity? I'll stop making fun of your atheism articles.
Finally, I don't think "squawking like an ill-tempered bird" is a fair characterization of my edits on this page (or any other page). I believe that I engage in teamwork all the time. Like my correction of "gate" on 4 bird pages, and numerous other team-playing edits that I have made. Look at my contributions. I'm trying to make Conservapedia better.
SamHB 21:29, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
Don't do it, Conservative. SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted. VargasMilan 21:53, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
He's already done it, which I think shows that he does trust me. Cons and I understand each other, and interact with each other, quite well, thank you. A quick check of our interactions on this page, and several other pages, will bear this out. Check, for example, our good-natured ribbing over rocking chairs. Somewhere. Cons knows that I would never vandalize one of his articles, or, for that matter, any article. You would do well to put aside your withering stance of Patrician disdain, or whatever it is.
Unless the thing you don't want him to do is promote a relativity article to "featured" status. Cons is quite able to make those decisions by himself, without the help of anyone who uses phrases like "leavens science too tightly to be trusted". I believe I had a run-in with you a while back about "doing your homework" on the relativity articles. You obviously haven't done so. If you had, you would know that Andy watches over those articles very closely, and reverts anything he finds the least bit counter to his ideas. (In fact, he just reverted a change of mine; I took out a duplicated sentence. I need to discuss this with him. I'm trying to make the article sensible, without two consecutive sentences that are practically word-for-word copies of each other. But I digress.) The relativity articles are not my articles, they are Andy's. Cons knows that. He would clear any featured status promotion with Andy.
Do your homework. And if you think I "embrace pseudoscience", explain that. If you think relativity is pseudoscience, explain that. In your own words.
SamHB 01:34, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

For the most part, I am not going to be reading talk pages anymore. I made some commitments so I have to exercise stricter time management. I have been meaning to do this for some time.

I don't expect to be reading talk pages for a considerable time period.

Best wishes to fellow editors. Conservative 01:50, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

So that's it then. We can put the genera back in the bottle, because what's the fun without Cons?
But Cons....before you may think of deleting "period" from your above sentence, mate. It ain't necessary.

Cheers...AlanE 02:45, 9 June 2015 (EDT)