User talk:Aladdin Sane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You think I was beaten by trolls, but really I was "Bested by Pelicans" [mp3] (CC licensed)

Keurig Etymology[edit]

Hi there - I've been puzzling over your recent edit regarding the etymology of "Keurig", trying to parse the meaning of the phrase "received the translation to mean". It's a strange locution. It occurred to me that you might be an editor whose first language wasn't English. But I can see that you have full command of the language -- so I thought I'd ask what you had in mind. Are you saying that they construed it to mean "excellence"?? Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cgingold: You needn't worry that you are on the right track. You get a LOL from me on reading your message. Yes, construed may be better here. The problem we're confronted with is not that. The problem is with the source. The source says the inventor got it from a Danish-English translation dictionary. I've googled lots, there is no keurig in Danish. There is a nifty word keurig in Dutch with lots'o'cool meanings. You can find this evidence at the Talk page for the article (as Softlavender points out, neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR on my part is allowed in the article; I keep it on the Talk page therefore). That is how my wording came out that way. You're welcome to edit me, if you find it appropriate.
(BTW, I've written the editors of The Boston Globe about this Danish/Dutch issue, and they've failed to write back, or issue a correction. Since you brought it up, in the interest of full disclosure, here is what I wrote in email to them:
Subject: Request correction/annotation. Article, "The Buzz Machine"
Date: Sunday, March 8, 2015 1:38 AM
From: "[redacted]" <[redacted]>
In your publicly available article, "The Buzz Machine" by Daniel McGinn published August 7, 2011 available at::
Mr. McGinn states that 'keurig' is "...a word meaning excellence that Sylvan pulled from a Danish-English dictionary."
I've tried to verify this for my etymological curiosity, and to incorporate into the online encyclopedia. Everything I come up with says the word is Dutch, not Danish. I've lots of Dutch search results, and none Danish. I fear that either Mr. McGinn mis-quoted Mr. Sylvan, or, more likely, Mr. Sylvan mis-remembered his marketing quest from well over ten years ago at the time the article was written.
Still, could your online edition possibly feature a note stating that there is no Danish word "keurig" but a very useful and versatile one in Dutch? If you can verify my assertion? See, for example,
A humble Wikipedia editor.
I'm sure the editors of The Boston Globe are too busy with other matters to respond to an etymological issue that dates to over four years ago (but is still a matter of record on their web site).)
Yes, we fans of etymology want the evidence in the article (I already pointed out to SL when she asserted that companies and products do not have etymologies, that this is absolutely untrue, the WP article "Etymologies of companies", as obvious evidence of the obverse of her argument). But we must be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as @Softlavender: flapped her wings about here, she, her arguments, are to be considered with some weight. My circuitous wording I thought left the issue alone. But you may (so to speak), as your editorial judgment allows, go on with it as you see fit.
On these sorts of matters, should they become contentious, I tend to weigh in more on Talk pages, than actual edits to articles; they can be highly polarizing, and I desire the truth of the matter to end up in the finished product, though never deleted from it.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Aye aye aye... Thanks for your expeditious, detailed and, well, comprehensive reply. I rather suspected that there was a reason for your odd choice of words. Not much likelihood that you'll get a reply from the Globe, though. I'm not quite sure how to revise the text, so I'm going to let your info, um, percolate... if you know what I mean. ;) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well then, I'm long past past LOL, and off the sofa and on the floor. Thanks for that...   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle[edit]

Would you care to have a look at the latest issues being discussed and give some input? BP OMowe (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@BP OMowe: Thanks for the offer. No. I can't comment specifically at this time. I find the subject makes me too emotional when I think about it. I'm not, at this time, an objective editor there.
However, you asked there how to quote multiple pages from a source, in multiple cites. I use the {{Rp}} template for this (works for me). I recently did this in this diff (Rp p. 1, 3, and 42, but sources were from a different editor), for an example you can see, if it helps you any.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged, that should do the trick. BP OMowe (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ref desk[edit]

I've answered your questions. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very grateful (re: Translation requests: Mexican Spanish to English; IPA needed).

*If the movie was widely released and known in English by its English name, then the English title is fine. For example, most of Almodóvar's movies have English titles here (Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). (This is not a question I can answer with any authority, since it is cinematographic, not linguistic.)

The IPA is [raʼises de ʼsaŋɡɾe] with a broad Latin-American accent. In Spain the c would be [θ], not [s]
Spanish does not use English title capitalization; only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized, so Raíces de sangre would be correct.
μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few minor changes of wording and expanded the lead of Roots of Blood a bit. I'd normally recommend not going into such detail about the release date, but at this point I wouldn't worry, since shoehorning it in somewhere else won't really improve anything. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
PS, I hope you are nominating this for WP:DYK? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No, not at all. In fact, when I saw your change to this article, I got a chill down my back. Good work.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: I've reviewed the DYK procedure, perhaps you should submit it. I can only weigh in on what secondary sources have said, I have not seen the movie myself. I do not have a 'hook' for DYK. I can not imagine the possibilities here. I am your humblest,   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen the movie either, I prefer lush romances to the gritty class struggle. I have also known a lot of illegal Mexican workers in the US, so I might have an overly critical view. It would be entirely appropriate for you to nominate it yourself, I have written or expanded plenty of articles on places I haven't visited and things I haven't seen. If you do nominate, I'll be glad to help with a hook and the review. Many DYK noms go through a dozen hooks before being finalized. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't find the film on line or at any library available to me. There is a time limit for posting a DYK nomination, five days or a week or so. You should look at some of the other listings, this will certainly be more exciting than The People's Palace (Kinshasa). μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Going back to the top of the conversation, your info put my article online. I'm very grateful, as I attempt to lose the word 'my' and let other editors have at it.
I use OCLC as much as possible, because it lists the libraries nearby that have the work in question (274 miles to Abilene in my case). I'm reading your comment and am thinking of my own advice: You can walk in to any college/university library in the US and request an inter-library loan, and get anything. Why didn't I think of that? Still, maybe, writing an article without access to the primary source may be the ultimate for an editor here.
The DYK time line flies in the face of WP:TIND. There's been 3 edits in two weeks and no AfD/PROD/Speedy Delete to this article (my greatest fear). As an editor, I want my edits to stick, but they don't always...I see appropriate edits to my edits in hindsight, and can see where I've gone over the top with literary license, and other errors. "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia."
So, I see DYK as a lesser version of GA/FA. Since I'm an unpaid contributor, I may submit my this appropriately short article for FA instead of DYK. Does WP:BOLD cover this? I think not, but it is the spirit that counts. Do you have an opinion on this (given that many WP articles on movies are pretty crappy, and do not cite literary journals as references, as this one does)?   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As to your bottom line question the article is currently rated as a start-class quality article (see the template at the top of the talk page), and that would not be sufficient for a GA/FA article. I am not expert on that, so if you want help I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Help desk for advice.
But, given the difficulty sourcing this article, I would really suggest you focus your energy on something new, like a song or album (this is just and example) by a popular group, but one which currently lacks an article. For example, only four of the songs of one of my favorite albums, Sweet Dreams have articles. It should be easy to write a new article on another song. Personally, I write new articles only when I am inspired, not in order to get listed--although I expect to write something worth listing when I do get inspired. I strongly suggest you think of such a goal, and express it at the help desk. Editors there will either help you or give you better guidance than I can. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Thanks, I've been considering that, but not along those lines. As I wrote the article in question, I started being annoyed by the obvious WP:systemic bias in the redlinks in that article. There are small-time-actors here who have articles here, yet the Hispanic actors of note don't have an article. Out of fairness to them, I'm a bit pissed.
Also, like CONACINE, a major conglomerate (is/was) on this continent, has no article? What?
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen where I go next, thanks for your comment.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You cannot be angry that redlinks exist. Just write the articles for them yourself. Everyone here works only on what interests them. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Crazy Boy, [a-lad-insane]

I'm a bit of a Linux head as well. (hobbyist, hang out in GUIs mostly)

You may enjoy a *nix oriented Facebook group I've facilitated:
A fair number of 'old hands', like yourself, hang out. It's an open group, so feel free to make a membership request and/or friend me at my page: — and I'll add you.

BTW, Bested by Pelicans, languid Cali ska, I'm loving it. Thanks for turning me on to The Uptones.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As I enjoyed your taste in music I decided to check into your taste in film as well. Educating Rita was delightful. :  } Thanks again, --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Thanks for your comments. I mean that, not just bein' polite. I've known few who've seen Educating Rita but it is my favorite all-time movie since I saw it back then. (Please note that the DVD was produced as Region 2 only when I went to buy it, and I now own a "region-free" DVD player, just so I can watch this movie again; it has everything.)
As to my "Linux advocacy", please see these Talk page archive sections for your historical edification: User talk:Aladdin Sane/Archive 1#Fortress Linux and User talk:Aladdin Sane/Archive 1#U A TRAITOR BRO. I won't forsake objectivity here for my personal proclivities.
The article on which we met, "Depraved-heart murder", seems to have its disagreements, for now, resolved by a type of WP:POLE, but the first section of the main body still sucks, because it is a quote, without an editor leading in to the quote with a few words to tell us what it is about. (Man, don't even talk to me about the principle of least surprise here.)   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


I don't think MOS:PIPE really says this. But if it does, it should be harmonized with the long-standing practice on the Main Page, at least since 2009 at Did You Know, which is documented at WP:DYKSG (search for C7) and WP:DYKHN (search for H13). Art LaPella (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)