User talk:Damien Linnane

Welcome to my talk page. Unless you request otherwise, I will respond here. If I left a comment on your talk page, ping me in your first reply if you respond there. Have a nice day.

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Feedback
Hey Damien, Happy New Year. Wondering if you have time on wiki these days and would be able to provide some feedback on my current FAC. It's a shorter BLP and hopefully not too long to read :) Sadly, it has not been getting some traction going into the 2-week mark. Totally understand though if it's gotten busier IRL. Hope things are going well with you. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. With my current IRL workload these days I'm mostly only maintaining my watch-list on Wikipedia, which I've actually also trimmed back to try and save myself more time. Occasionally I'm finding time to actively edit, so I may get a chance to look at this, but I can't make any promises. I hope you get some other people taking interested in it as well though. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, and appreciate it, if and when you can. But totally understand that it's hard to split IRL and wiki time, had a bit of a break myself. All the best mate! Pseud 14 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR
"MOS:ENGVAR Rv Americanisation of non-American article without consensus". Where, in an article that states, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others", does it say anything about Americanizing with or without consensus?. "British English, the English used during the time period depicted". I won't make a case to change it back, but frankly, your reasoning is specious. Putting aside that it's a French movie with French financing, filmed in the Czech Republic with American stars — putting that aside — would we really want the article written using the English spoken in the 1400s? milladrive (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would have been clearer to you if I'd linked directly to MOS:RETAIN, which is underneath MOS:ENGVAR, but I thought editors would read all the relevant sections before leaving a comment like this. MOS:RETAIN clearly states that what you did was unacceptable.


 * "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. ... An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another".


 * The English usage was consistent, and you did not have "consensus to the contrary" to change it, which is required. Further, having some American actors among a cast that consisted of people from many nations is not "strong national ties" to America. So the question remains, why did you try and make that change in the first place? No of course it doesn't mention 'Americanising' by name, but it doesn't have to.


 * Where on Wikipedia does it give you permission to go and change articles to the version of English that you personally prefer, without consensus, and to a version of English that has extremely limited relation to the subject? It doesn't, so stop violating Wikipedia's guidelines by doing it, and don't complain when your edit gets rightfully reverted.


 * And don't be silly just to prove a point please. Obviously I'm not advocating to switch to the version of British English in the 1400s. My point was that you have no case to make the change, as you cannot argue that a French film about a war with people who used a version of British English, set in a time before America was colonised and American English was used, has "strong national ties" to American English. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are insulting. There was no "consensus". I am way more interested in consistency than some preferential stars-and-stripes nonsense you describe. "Synthesizer" had a "z", and half the dates were, and still are, in a mmddyyyy format. You don't know me from Adam. I suggest that before you start disrespecting those of us with the same goal of improvement as you, you take a deep breath and realiZe you're not the linguistic expert you think you are. milladrive (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your original comment made no mention that the article had any inconsistency, but you did feel the need to mention the film has some "American stars", and you concluded with a silly comment about changing to the British English used in the 1400s. I did not attempt to do that, and you're also well aware that would never be allowed anyway. I suggest that you don't go out of your way to be condescending when you don't have to be, then expect people not to push back.
 * If you had of opened this conversation by pointing out there was some inconsistency, my response would have been different. But you didn't. What you pointed out was American STARS, alongside requesting I explain myself for reverting your Americanisation of the article, an explanation that you would have found yourself had you read the entire 'National varieties of English' section that MOS:ENGVAR links to the top of. So don't try and backpedal now by claiming this has something to do with consistency. If it did, you could have pointed that out to begin with, and this conversation would have gone differently.
 * If you look at the history of the article, there was a consensus for British English when the article was peer-reviewed and promoted to good article status. Since then, it appears individual editors have added individual bits of text with American spelling here and there that went unnoticed as there was no concerted effort to change the style in the entire article, and almost certainly no intention to. I have written using British English words my entire life, so not surprisingly I have accidentally added a single use of British English to articles written in American English more than once. It appears American editors have done the same here. It happens, and when it does happen, it doesn't override a previous consensus. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, the article originally had the term "synthesis", before a single user reworded the sentence and changed it with this edit: The article used the term "criticise" exclusively for years, until a different editor for unknown reasons changed only two of the four instances, as well as the spelling of armour, with this edit: . Both these edits went against the consensus at the time. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Holly Ringland
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Dark Angel (TV series" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_Angel_(TV_series&redirect=no Dark Angel (TV series] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Maseikula
Thank you for your contributions! (Maseikula) — Miha (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're referring to any contributions in particular, but you're very welcome, and thank you for the lovely message. It's very much appreciated. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Josh Phillips
Concerning my recent edit, just for the record, I want to note that I knew that fact. I was trying to edit the sentence to say "his wife and Josh," but forget to erase "his mother," and thus it sounded redundant. Sorry for the confusion. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, these things happen. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Peer review
Hey again Damien. Since your FAC from Jill's article inspired me; it helped me to push through. Just gonna ask if you're willing to review Ada Wong for peer review if you're free. Many thanks. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sure, I don't really do reviews much anymore but I'll try and make some time to look at your peer review soon. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)