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.

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)

@Milladrive: 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: [1] 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: [2]. Both these edits went against the consensus at the time. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Holly Ringland

On 3 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Holly Ringland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Holly Ringland wrote her second book while stuck in Australia for three years during the COVID-19 pandemic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Holly Ringland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Holly Ringland), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Dark Angel (TV series" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Dark Angel (TV series until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 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)

ITN recognition for Shifty Shellshock

On 30 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shifty Shellshock, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 30 June 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)

Hey again. Just gonna leave a notice here and I already rewritten several sentences at the reception section that is based at Jill Valentine's article and thought that maybe you could perhaps leave some comments at my FAC. Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Hello. I contribute mainly on french wikipedia and i've recently translated Prison education into this language (fr:Éducation en prison). I just want to thank you for all the effort you've done to write such a general article, often difficult to tackle. I appreciate it and just want to show it :). Good continuation on our beloved encyclopedia ! ElsaBester (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ElsaBester. Thanks so much for your lovely message and this news. I'm really thrilled to hear you've translated the article. This was definitely the most ambitious writing task I ever attempted on Wikipedia, so I'm glad it can now reach more people. Will you be nominating it for featured status on the French Wikipedia? If you ever do and it's successful, please let me know. Thanks again! Damien Linnane (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I will definitely nominate it for featured status but I'm busy right now so it will take some time before coming back to work more on it. I will let you know ! ElsaBester (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Lock-Up

On 8 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Lock-Up, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Lock-Up, an art gallery housed in a former police station, retains the graffiti drawn by prisoners in the holding cells and has incorporated it into a performative exhibition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Lock-Up (art gallery). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Lock-Up), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Britain (1985 video game)

Battle of Britain (1985 video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Battle of Britain (1985 video game) retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. It wasn't a huge amount of work but I did schedule time out to try and save the article as I thought de-lisitng it would be a shame. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for rescue and all you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Book The Art of Resident Evil 5

Hi again. I was wondering if you still have a book for me to possibility expand the article Chris Redfield more for FAC purpose (active rn). Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Boneless Pizza!. I do keep digital copies of the pages I cite from offline books on Wikipedia, but my folder for Jill Valentine doesn't contain that one, so I'm not sure if I ever had access to it. It's been so long since I actively worked on the article for Jill, Sheva Alomar or Resident Evil 5. Regarding books, I have entire PDF's of:

• Androvich, Mark (1999). Resident Evil 3 Nemesis. Roseville, CA: Prima Games. ISBN 978-0761526179.
• Denick, Thom (2013). Resident Evil Revelations. London: BradyGames. ISBN 978-0744014921.
• Waples, Damien (2007). Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. London: Titan Books. ISBN 978-0761558453.

I also have photos/scans of only the pages I thought were relevant from the following. Keeping in mind that I was only after sources on Jill at the time so I would not have gone out of my way to copy pages about Chris.

• ゲームキューブ版 バイオハザード オフィシヤルナビゲーションブック [Biohazard Official Navigation Book] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Enterbrain. 2002.
• Nicholson, Zy; Price, James (2009). Resident Evil 5: The Complete Official Guide. London: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1906064419.
• Birlew, Dan (2002). Resident Evil Zero Official Strategy Guide. London: BradyGames. ISBN 978-0744001648.
• Resident Evil Revelations: Official Complete Works. London: Titan Books. 2015. ISBN 978-1783295012.

The source you're looking for may have been provided by Niwi3, who helped source many of the books for the article. They don't appear to be very active on Wikipedia anymore but maybe you can send them an email to ask. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did use the other book as a sources from Jill's article for Chris' appeareances section and the prose is still similar. Hopefully, the spot checker would be fine If I told them that I just simply copy pasted the prose and sources (tweaked a little bit) from Jill's article appeareances section then implemented it to Chris' and tell them that Jill went multiple FACs and doesn't require screenshots. Thanks Damien! Hopefully, both Chris and Jill as partners would be FA soon. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering if we can nominate RE5 as GT since Resident Evil 5, Jill, Chris, Sheva and Wesker are all GA/FA already. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, a Good topic is something I hadn't considered. I don't really have any experience with Good topics though. Looking at the Video game article already at Wikipedia:Good topics, I note that the topics for Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy XIII and The Last of Us not only have the main characters as featured or good articles, but they also have a seperate article about the characters in the series which is a good or featured piece of content as well. For example, Characters of Final Fantasy XII. My initial impression is that you'd have to do the same in order for Resident Evil 5 to ever be a good topic, but you'll have to ask someone who knows better. Maybe ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games? This isn't something I'll have capacity to work on myself. I'm mostly just checking my watch-list on Wikipedia these due to other commitments. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. I wouldn't work on lists of X characters because I don't have much interest with those + it is a dumping ground for IP editors. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)