User talk:KevinDavis

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User talk:KevinDavis as edited by JonG (Talk | contribs) at 04:45, December 2, 2011. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I want to start correcting misspelled words

Go right ahead. --Ed Poor Talk 13:30, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Thank you. I have a script searching for commonly misspelled words at the moment. Hopefully it will return something. KevinDavis 09:38, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Spell check

In case of essays where it says no other contributions, I think minor spelling corrections are fine. Karajou 11:28, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Ok thank you. I'll refrain if a correction would change the meaning at all (I don't know why it would, but still). KevinDavis 09:37, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

RE:James Bond?

Yes, that is correct.--GOPFan2011 13:40, 5 September 2011 (EDT)


Regarding this: there are two ways to approach quotes and punctuation. One format (which I prefer) is to only have the quotes represent the quote punctuation, i.e. if there is a comma or period at the end of the quote then put that punctuation, if not leave punctuation outside of the quote. Some others prefer to have all punctuation within a quote. One is based on quotation correctness logic, the other is based on uniformity. Which does Conservapedia prefer so that can be established (or you'll have to be doing a lot of changes to switch it over :) )? I do have a program that can swap the punctuation more easily so I can handle some of it without a problem. Ottava (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

I was always taught that punctuation is placed within quotes, regardless of context or content (with a few rare exceptions, none of which I've seen used here). I've used that method for years in my work, and it's what I pass on to my students. However, if you have any lingering questions, I would ask User:Aschlafly, since he's who I've turned to for help with other issues. Kevin Davis Talk 10:22, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Looking briefly online, it appears it is more of a UK/US thing, and looking at some of my critical books it seems to be a pre-1980 (logic) vs post-1980 (uniform). Ottava (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
As my education has always been in the US, perhaps that's why I defer to it. I would always use the US standard, since that's my personal preference, but if you choose to alternate between them, it would make sense to use the US standard for American web sites (of which this site is an example) and the UK standard for UK sites. Kevin Davis Talk 12:40, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Pearl S. Buck and The Good Earth

Buck living in China was suspicious? Really? A child of Christian missionaries stationed in China who later married a Christian missionary? How is that suspicious?

I admit I haven't read the book in a while, so I would appreciate it if you would please explain and reference the connections to communism you believe exist in The Good Earth - otherwise I'm going to remove it. --SharonW 00:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Later in life, Buck was highly critical of her father; specifically, see her work Fighting Angel, which portrays her father in less than a flattering light. Buck explicitly described her father's missionary work as part and parcel of Western imperialism. Hardly a positive view of evangelical efforts, wouldn't you agree? Also, several of her political views (particularly, her support for "women's rights" and the left-leaning progressive movements) led to substantial disagreement between her and the Presbyterian group that employed her as a missionary, thus leading directly to her resignation from that group. Finally, her husband worked primarily as an agricultural economist for the Chinese government; his missionary work was a distant second to his agricultural studies. Marxists critized his work in later years, but the vast majority of this criticism occurred during the Cultural Revolution in China, which in its nationalistic fervor lashed out at all ideas Western, regardless of their political orientation.
I believe I have presented enough about Pearl S. Buck and her husband to satisfy your curiosity. As for The Good Earth itself, I won't engage you with too much detail, for the sake of brevity. However, the novel contains a sizeable amount of discussion of the protagonist's agrarian background, which exemplifies the agrarian school of thought popular with Chinese Communists. Mao himself was famous for his application of Marxist principles to the primarily agrarian economy of China, despite Marx's idea that a revolution could only occur in an advanced industrial society. Although The Good Earth contains elements of Algerian novels of the 19th century, it also contains numerous anti-capitalist implications, i.e. the mob that destroys the house of a wealthy city dweller, and Wang Lung's sadness at the end of the novel, despite his hard work and the affluence he has provided for his family. Finally, his actions involving the concubine Lotus make me question the moral standing of the author.
I hope that the information above is informative; if you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 19:12, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Kevin, Sorry I haven't responded before this - we've recently moved, and our house is decorated in the Early American Box motif, as well as I lost a friend way too young this past week. I'm hoping to get a chance this weekend to pick up a copy of The Good Earth, and maybe one or two others written by Buck, so I can read/re-read them before trying to discuss them with you! ;-) As I said previously, it's been *ahem* a year or two since I've read anything by her, and at the time, I probably just read it to enjoy the story, without looking for any deeper meaning/intent. Thanks for being patient with me! --SharonW 23:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
My apologies on my late response as well. Normally, I am completely unable to access the site because of connection problems on the server end, so I can't check my talk page or see that you have replied. I think reading The Good Earth would certainly be helpful. However, if you wish to continue our discussion, could you perhaps email me at the email address on my user page? As of now, that is the only way I can reliably continue our discussion, unfortunately. My condolences on your friend, as well. I've lost friends and family members of my own in recent years, and even though the emotional pain is never the same between people, I can certainly understand how difficult it can be. Take care, Kevin Davis Talk 14:25, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Good stuff

Excellent work on the categories just lately!--CPalmer 08:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Thank you! I hadn't explored Mediawiki's Special Pages before, but I found that page and figured it was a good place to apply my editing time. Kevin Davis Talk 08:29, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
That's good news. I've been making a dent in the uncategorized list lately by doing a few each day, but there are still a few hundred. Well done on Goat in particular - that had been on the list for a long time indeed.
You might find this page of links useful in addition to the Special Pages page, for maintenance-type things-to-do.--CPalmer 08:32, 12 October 2011 (EDT)


It seems that you were right about the spam. Good vigilance!--CPalmer 11:36, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Happy to help as much as I can! Kevin Davis Talk 12:38, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

RE: Tables

HTML element aren't just for presentation; HTML elements have semantic values. Tables are only meant to be used to create something with rows and columns, and they're supposed to represent tabled as well. The div element is meant to create and represent blocks. The simplified MediaWiki syntax for tables is meant to replace table-relate elements, not the div element. In addition, HTML is a markup language, not a programming language. I don't need to be a software developer in order to understand it. Webpage designs and online publications are my specialty; I know HTML and CSS inside and out. --Michaeldsuarez 15:34, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Hi Michael. I know HTML isn't a programming language, and I didn't refer to it as such. The reason I stated that the Mediawiki developers probably understand it better than you or I is because web developers normally have a high level of experience with HTML, as well as the programming languages behind a web site. For example, PHP, which outputs raw HTML code when run through a web server, requires knowledge of HTML. If you're exceptionally worried about semantics, then there's probably no harm in your corrections. However, for someone who lists on his user page that he's a sysop at a wiki, please remember that replies to talk page posts should go on talk pages. As someone with a lot of web development experience, please remember that. Kevin Davis Talk 15:49, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
Alright, but didn't I post my reply on a talk page? --Michaeldsuarez 16:05, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
My apologies; in my haste to post before I left I wasn't clear enough. Normally, replies should be placed on the same talk page as the post to which they're responding. In this case, it would have made logical sense to post your reply on your talk page, since that's where my comment was placed. It keeps threads together and prevents subjects from being broken up amongst numerous pages. Basic Internet sense, as far as I know. Just something to keep in mind for the future; thanks! Kevin Davis Talk 17:09, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
Alright. I'll keep that in mind. --Michaeldsuarez 22:05, 14 October 2011 (EDT)


Thank you so much! That really means a lot to me. And I plan to hold myself to a high standard. Unfortunately, I don't think Andrew and Conservative saw that comment the same way you did. Given all their talking about the "liberal mainstream media bias" and that I'm not in any of Andrew's classes, I worry that they might distrust me in the future. Conservative has already accused me of being an "obsessive atheist" for my questions once. Do I have reason to worry or am I being a little paranoid? :/ --SpenserL 14:44, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't know enough to comment on that particular issue. There is very much a liberal bias in many "mainstream" media outlets, but I think the problem is not so much that the people running them are liberal; these people simply do not care, more often than not. Although that sounds bleak, it means that biases that occur do so as a result of individual people (the majority, unfortunately) with those political beliefs. This gives you a great chance, because if you are actually free from bias, your publications will reflect that. The institutional bias occurs because most people in the business are not free of such biases. Kevin Davis Talk 15:45, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

My Source

Discussion moved back to user's talk page, found here. Please respond to a talk page comment on the talk page where it was made, not on a different page. It's quite frustrating to need to move between several pages in order to continue a discussion. Keeping discussions on the same page makes archiving and finding conversations significantly easier. Kevin Davis Talk 17:30, 19 October 2011 (EDT)


Comment moved to here. Please keep all replies and comments on their related talk pages. Kevin Davis Talk 09:17, 24 October 2011 (EDT)