User talk:Pandroid

Pandroid, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pandroid! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More than the word controversial

Apparently you missed some of the discussion: "In THAT article, the incident is properly covered. BTW, the notability of the company is not derived from that single incident. If we have to characterize the company, why aren't we mentioning that they're a large federal contractor instead of singling out a negative incident."[1] When you read that, what incident do you think I'm talking about if not the one in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

that "single incident" garnered a vast amount of column inches and essentially put them on the map in terms of public awareness, such a notable aspect warrants mention and is of encyclopaedic merit. Pandroid (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• First, let's acknowledge that the incident WAS part of the discussion, contrary to your claim that it wasn't. Now, much has been written about the incident, but Blackwater was notable before that incident and it was already well into the public eye, along with Halliburton, because of the size of their federal contracts. Want a good frame of reference for that? The incident happened in 2007. In the 2006 TV series Jericho, a Blackwater-esque private military contractor called "Ravenwood" was a big part. They were depicted operating a paramilitary force, assisting with the set up of a government apparatus etc. They were also supposed to have worked in Iraq. There was PLENTY of coverage about Blackwater prior to the incident you keep putting in and it was already on the radar of much of the public. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

great, so we agree they are widely known, notable, and of encyclopaedic merit, maybe we could add additional content you are pointing to? would help flesh it out. Pandroid (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was notable and widely known, as it relates to the company. Look a the Blackwater article and you'll see plenty of well sourced coverage and incidents that pre-date this. There's no reason for me to report them all here. The issue is not whether this incident was notable or encyclopedic. The issue is why this single incident belongs in the bio of a person who has no connection to the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• This may be worth mentioning: You may be thinking I'm some sort of apologist for Betsy DeVos. If you look at the edit history, I've really had nothing to do with any edits, positive or negative, with things she was personally involved in. The only things I've contested are items she really had nothing to do with. I haven't removed anything negative about her involvement with charter schools or stuff like that. My objections have been to materials added have been things that really aren't about her. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally believe limited WP:WEIGHT tangentiality is warranted if connections are of encyclopedic value, here we have a case in point.Pandroid (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• And I believe that being related to the founder of Blackwater is a connection worth mentioning. Adding in the actions of employees of a company owned by her brother, a company she's never been affiliated with, is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Betsy DeVos edit

Hi--you reverted my edit to Betsy DeVos with the comment "Please read citations before removing sourced content." FWIW--as I think my edit comment made clear--I had read the citation; my objection wasn't to its factuality, but to giving such prominent placement to a pedestrian fact. That said, I'm not interested in an edit war. I started a comment block about it on the talk page, Talk:Betsy DeVos/Archives/2017#Ties to Reform Community in the intro? -- you're welcome to weigh in there if you like. — Narsil (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pandroid. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)