User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2016/August

Blackbeard
Why did you revert my  to Blackbeard, and with no edit summary to explain it? I linked New Providence at the first mention after the lead, per MOS:DUPLINK:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

While I was there, I removed the unnecessary space between sentences. I find them distracting when copy-editing. If you like spaces, fine, but was it that important that you had to undo my edit? – Corinne (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I restored the necessary spaces between sentences. I didn't put them there for fun. Parrot of Doom 06:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (a) Why do you feel the spaces are "necessary"? Most articles do not have them, and they don't render in article space. (b) If you felt the spaces were necessary, you could have discussed it with me. Alternatively, you could also have provided an edit summary and manually restored the useful edit (the wiki-link) that I made. – Corinne (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...the onus is on you, Corinne, to discuss your reverted edits, per WP:BRD.  Cassianto Talk   17:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall you providing an edit summary when you removed them? I find them necessary because it makes the edit window much easier to read.  And as they don't render in article space, them being there makes no difference to readers.  So please, leave them be. Parrot of Doom 16:33, 27 August 2016(UTC)
 * – Hi, PoD. Double spacing after full stops is a legacy custom that is typically reserved for typewriters, where it does render to the reader.


 * When doing convenience rollbacks, it is polite editing to reincorporate edits that are nuked in the rollback.


 * There is no practical way for us to maintain double spacing in articles for their eternity. One must pick their battles. Ping me back. Cheers!  17:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)