User talk:BeŻet/Archive 1

Username change
I noticed your question at Alison's talk page, and I understand she's fairly bogged down these days. This request can be made at WP:CHU for a faster response. Hope that helps, – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Juliusz Bogdan Deczkowski
The article Juliusz Bogdan Deczkowski was created a little while ago on the English Wikipedia as a somewhat incomprehensible stub. I've touched it up a bit, but all sources are in Polish and we'll need a speaker of that language to get any further with it. I found your name at the Local Embassy, and am wondering if you know of anyone who might be interested in touching up the enwiki version of this article so that it might meet the standard of the version on Polish Wikipedia. Thanks!  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blossom Goodchild
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Blossom Goodchild. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Possessive
Jobs' is not incorrect, and neither is Jobs's. The decision on the Steve Jobs article was to go with the more widely recommended version for one-syllable names ending in s. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 05:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Alert
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. --18:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR vio
You'd do well to self revert, as you've broke the WP:ARBPIA "original author" 1RR restriction with original authorship and revert. Furthermore, using the highly partisan and unreliable Palestine Chronicle (and reprints) for statements in Wikipedia's voice is not acceptable. There is no photo evidence for "settlers storming" or for a "flood". There are photos showing a puddle. Per AP - this is apparently from a nearby Israeli settlement. and The sewage flowed downhill toward Khan al-Ahmar earlier this week, and on Friday was still pooled in a ravine by the West Bank community’s corrugated tin shacks.. AP. Kindly self revert. Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've quite clearly pointed out your 1RR violation above - you were the sole author of this paragraph - on 2 October. It was removed today for the first time - 13:36, 9 October 2018, and it was restored 14:20, 9 October 2018 less than an hour later. This is a clear and outright violation of WP:ARBPIA If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit - no other editor edited or reverted the sewage content between 2 October and 9 October. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting Tajemnica Statuetki to GA
Hi, my name is Jarod (Coin945) and my focus at Wikipedia is on improving articles on obscure video gaming topics. I became fascinated by the Eastern European history of gaming in the early 90s, and worked really hard on Tajemnica Statuetki. As I am unable to speak Polish there are limitations to my work so I was wondering if you'd be willing to head over to the article and copyedit my work? Otherwise would you be able to refer me to anyone who would?

Best regards, Coin945--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan protests
Hi. I was wondering if we could continue the discussion in the protests article. Regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ZiaLater ( talk ) 14:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disagreements
You and I clearly have some disagreements when it comes to the content of articles. However, I would like you to not make attacks against me. I am assuming that you are attempting in good faith to improve Wikipedia, and you simply fail to understand our policies. I would appreciate it if you would make the same assumption about me, and refrain from calling me "dishonest": Also, I'd like to add that "However, I've seen very little to convince me that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is extremely dishonest. . I don't even understand what you mean when you say that. Do you think I'm lying, that I have seen such evidence and I'm choosing to ignore it? Almost every single one of their articles I've read comes at the issue in question with a clear agenda, and the reporters either leave out significant facts that would contradict the point they're trying to make, or they contain false statements. They rely heavily on biased sources and rarely, if ever, seek out comments from people who might disagree with their argument. I've never come across an independent source that argues for Jacobin's reliability, nor any that relies on their reporting for factual claims. If you believe that Jacobin has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, why not gather some evidence to make that case, instead of attacking me personally? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

NOCON is policy
Please read WP:NOCON. ''In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.'' Springee (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we have both broken the 1RR rule on the Ngo page. However, your revert of 's removal here [] was the second time you broke 1RR. Arkon hadn't made any prior changes to the page at least in the past few weeks. Thus when then again removed the material I removed you can't claim they weren't discussing it. The rule doesn't require that. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you broke the 24h revert rule, therefore Arkon, by reverting my change, also broke it. No need to self revert. BeŻet (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't since the bold addition was yours and it was already under discussion. Springee (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. You've made a change, which was removal of content that has been added before. Moreover, I wasn't the editor who added the part about Islamophobia, which has been there for quite a while. Therefore, you cannot treat your change as a revert, but a change that I've reverted. BeŻet (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all incorrect on your part. Please review the sanctions at the top of the talk page.  The only reason I didn't report you to AE is my own laziness.  Arkon (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the ongoing discussion where other editors are politely explaining to you that you are in the wrong. Feel free to report the situation, perhaps someone will be able to explain the rules to you. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One editor offered no explaination what so ever. The other offered a very weak reply.  The net result is we still have no consensus but instead of 3 editors calling for removal with you calling to keep we now have 3 calling for removal and 4 calling to keep.  That's still a noconsensus and now you can't say there was no discussion.  Springee (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which 3 people? Only very recently Shinealittlelight joined you saying that those sources are not RS (which is incorrect). Hence, only now, if we let this discussion progress, we can determine if there is consensus or not. BeŻet (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

3RR
I suggest you self revert your last edit, since you have violated the three reverts rule. I also advise you to bear in mind WP:ONUS. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop removing content you don't like without any valid reason. There is no trace of anything that CEPR has said anymore. This is unacceptable behaviour. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cited WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and now WP:ONUS. Even if it was true that I'm not providing an explanation, the only exception to 3RR is vandalism, which is not the case. You should stop accusing other other editors or just "not liking content" (WP:AGF), specially since it seems I'm not the only one that agrees that section in particular should not be included. Once again: I really encourage you to self-revert. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't just claim WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and then expect everyone to comply. This isn't a golden bullet for you to remove everything you don't like. BeŻet (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anarcho-capitalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rent ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Anarcho-capitalism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Anarcho-capitalism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Your recent editing history at 2019 Bolivian political crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv  🍁  13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Notifying you of discretionary sanctions in effect for articles related to American politics
Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Per a suggestion, I am reminding you that the above notice applies to the Andy Ngo article and talk page. Springee (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2020
- MrX 🖋 13:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk
You have put him in Category:Engineers from California and Category:Pioneers of rail transport, which you say he does not belong in. Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

1RR business
Your complaint was quickly dismissed, but I feel it would be helpful to point out that you did not provide any link showing MrX saying, as you claimed, that he could do whatever he wants within 24 hours. It's really important to stick to simple demonstrable facts in Wikipedia discussions, and I hope you'll consider what might have gone wrong time around. Enjoy your editing.  SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Pings
Apologies for the errant pings I just sent you; a bug while moving around archive pages. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 05:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please self revert
Your BOLD edit to the Andy Ngo page was reverted. Please self revert and take it to the talk page. Springee (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

requested redaction

 * Sorry, but you may have missed the point. I read the link you provided twice. I searched for the word "hoax" and did not see it. I think I read it carefully enough to determine whether they use some other formulation that could be construed as a hoax but I didn't see it. I think I'm completely within my rights to remove the statement but I wanted to give you a chance.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

BeŻet, I believe Sphilbrick is concerned that you have used the word "hoaxes", which has a specific meaning, when you were describing "misleading narratives", which don't technically meet that meaning. Can you amend the characterisation please, lest argumentation over he semantics obscure the substantive question about the source. Thanks. Guy (help!) 12:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Bolivian political crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CEPR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point USA edit
Bezet, you should probably self revert your edit. The article is under mandatory BRD. An almost identical edit to yours was reverted less than 24hrs ago. [] Additionally, the content in question is currently under discussion. That said, the material you added is currently in the article. Springee (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

- my good faith edit has been already reverted nearly an hour before you messaged me. Not sure why it got reintroduced. No need to self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor who reverted decided to self revert the removal so it's basically like it didn't happen. If you remove it I think everyone would see that as a self revert on your part. Springee (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Pinging as the admin who implemented the restriction for their pov. Springee (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't [mind] removing it, I was just confused by the whole situation. BeŻet (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Clearly you aren't the only editor who feels this should be included and I agree your edit was good faith.  Springee (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism
Hi BeŻet,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 03:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Updated notices
Your previous template had expired and I didn't see one related to BLP. I would suggest using an aware template like I added to my talk page. I added  . Springee (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing needed for Communist-related articles
I have seen your good copy editing at Anarcho-capitalism and Marxism, among others. I believe your good copy editing skills would be useful for Communist-related articles. Here, I expressed my views and raised what I believe to be issues related to Communist-related articles that makes it so hard to make them NPOV. It is a long read, but I really wish you could take the time to read it and hopefully express your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree with the problems and issues I raised. I am not even asking to remove all sources to the "anti-communism", henceforth "orthodox" school; I am merely arguing to avoid stating controversial notions, especially when other scholars disagree, as facts and source them to "orthodox" scholars; and to make more use of the "anti-anticommunist", henceforth "revisionist" school. I am not even arguing to give both of them the exact same space and weight, just to make better use of both of them, attribute controversial facts and not state them as facts.

The issue is that Communist-related articles not only may need to be tagged but they need to be restructured to make sure both mainstream views and schools are relied on; yet most Communist-related articles I have seen or read rely too much on the "orthodox" school (Conquest, Pipes, Pons, Rummel, Service, Valentino et al.), when scholars such as Davies, Fitzpatrick, Getty, Geyer, Tauger, Wheatcroft and in general scholars critising, rejecting, or simply expressing doubts about the totalitarian concept, could be relied on more. So they would need to be worked in the body to add content and source to other mainstream views, whether from the "orthodox" or "revisionist" schools. Communism and History of communism are themselves problematic as they both give too much weight to Communist states and there is no real discussion of anti-Leninist dissident communists; at History of communism, which is really the history of Marxism–Leninism/Communist states, seems to discuss only Trotskyism as "dissident communisms".

I already foresee those arguing that they should not be given the more weight because the "revisionist" school is "fringe", but Soviet and Communist studies are polarised, politicised, controversial and conflictual, with legitimate scholars who do not hold the anti-communist view; in other words, this is not like climate change or the Holocaust, for which there is overwhelming evidence or consensus. Of course, "orthodox" historians have accused or criticized "revisionist" historians as "apologists" while "revisionists" have accused or criticized "orthodox" historians as "anti-communist propagandists". This just goes to show how controversial and politicised the field is, which makes it all the more damaging to rely mainly on one view or school over the other, although there are Sarah Davies and James Harris, who "note that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of the archives, some of the heat has gone out of the debate"; yet both are leigitimate and mainstream views and should be attributed and better weighted accordingly

As I wrote in the link I posted, "[d]ue weight and NPOV would require to present all mainstream, relevant points, including the so-called 'revisionist school', and let the reader decide and think for themselves, especially when considering both actually agree on many key facts, but simply give or have a different interpretration. However, this is not the case in most 'Communist'-related articles as they are mainly based on the 'anti-communist' school and basically telling the reader they are the 'right' view rather than one of many. To return to the main topic of the thread, Mass killings under communist regimes is a prime example of this in that it is mainly 'anti-communists' holding that position or even creating it while many other scholars do not deny that killings occurred but deny that 'Communist' mass killings is a special or separate category; in other words, they deny that an article can be created from it as a main topic." Davide King (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll have a look this week. BeŻet (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe several economic liberal/libertarian-related articles would benefit from some of your copy editing as you have done at Anarcho-capitalism and Privatization. Right now, Non-aggression principle is very much in need of this. That it is a right-libertarian concept, as is proved by its definition of 'aggression' as "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual or their property." The criticism in the lead has also been eliminated even though there is a Definitional issues and Criticism sections, hence that paragraph was a summary of that. In general, the main topic is the NAP as defined by right-libertarians; there is no discussion of non-American libertarians or left-libertarians, whose concept is not really a concept and is more like the golden rule and the no harm principle than the NAP (ironically, it is the NAP proponents that conflate the NAP with the other two concepts, when they are two different things) and it is not based on property (for left-libertarians, property is liberty only when it is personal property while capital and land property is theft and tyranny as defined by Proudhon). Finally, going back to the main topic of this thread, i.e. Communist-related article, a discussion is ongoing at Mass killings under communist regimes. It is a long discussion, but I hope you can read it all, weight all the arguments and express your analysis with a comment there. It would be really helpful if you could give an analysis of the main topic (is there a main topic? If so, is it a minority or fringe view or is it notable and mainstream within scholarship?), especially whether sources actually support the main topic, which has been the issue between the two sides. I am open to being proved wrong but my view is that the topic does not actually exist, that even 'anti-communist' or 'orthodox' sources have been misread or misrepresented, and that the content should be merged and the article deleted, or restructured to make the main topic be a scholarly analysis of Communist regimes, including background, context, the rising of living standards, modernisation, lives saved (as discussed by Ellman) and mass killings and famines with context and relevant, expert scholarly views highlighted rather than having so many Communist-related coattracked articles. Davide King (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - appreciate you reaching out to me! I've been editing ad hoc recently and not focusing too much, but I promise I'll have a look at the two things you've mentioned, and hopefully structure my time a bit better to be able to address things. Thank you again! BeŻet (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism definition
If I may ask, how would you define Anarchism? If Anarchism means chaos then i agree that Anarcho-capitalists aren´t anarchists, in that sense. Liberty5000 (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Anarchism rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy, which includes but is not limited to the state. Since anarcho-capitalists support capitalism, wage labour, private ownership of means of production (and the system of private property in general) and absentee ownership, there is frankly barely any overlap with anarchism, and therefore it's a lot more appropriate to define anarcho-capitalism as a form of extreme liberalism. Moreover, anarcho-capitalists are not against the state per say, they just want the mechanics of the state to be handled via private means – enforcement of contracts and the system of private property would be handled by private police and security forces, and not the public state; in other words, they reject the public state but want a private state. Anarchists reject all of those mechanics entirely as they see them as coercive and the defining features of the state. Hope this makes sense. BeŻet (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What you would call Anarchism I would call left-Anarchism. The problem with left-anarchism is that it lacks a theory of what constitues ´´coercion´´. Anarcho-capitalists do have such a theory. In Anarcho-capitalism coercion is always coercion against person or property. Left-anarchists do not oppose private property in all cases. They only sometimes do. That makes them inconsistent, in my view. Are you allowed to own a toothbrush in an anarcho-communist society? Then you have private property! Liberty5000 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "left-Anarchism", because Anarchism already is a radical left-wing ideology. Socialism and all its forms makes a distinction between private and personal property. Personal property are things intended for personal use. Private property are things like factories, mines, farms, land, infrastructure etc. that "belong" to someone thanks to the force of the state (or in ancapistan, the force of a private security force or army) and that are not directly used by the "owner", but nonetheless operated for their profit - it's therefore more of a social relationship which is a result of coercion applied by whatever entity is enforcing the system of private property. BeŻet (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

All ownership is absentee ownership. The point is that it´s my toothbrush. There are only two options. I am either allowed to defend my toothbrush with force or I am not allowed to defend my toothbrush with force. If I am allowed to defend my toothbrush with force then you have absentee ownership, just like in the case of the factory. There is absolutely no difference between the ownership of a toothbrush and the ownership of a factory. You can´t just assume there´s a difference. The difference has to be explained. It has to be proven. You can´t say that the difference is that the factory is defended by force, because the tootbrush is also defended by force. If, on the other hand, I am not allowed to defend my toothbrush with force, then you have no ownership at all! In that case anyone can use my toothbrush as long as I am not using it myself. I if would, in that case, interfere with someone´s usage of the toothbrush then I would be a coercionist. The problem with Anarchism, as you prefer to call it, is that it is contradictory nonsense. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to talk about contradictory nonsense, there's so much we can talk in the context of anarcho-capitalism (starting with the name!), but I really don't see any point in that. I think it would be less contradictory to you once you start reading anarchist literature and deepen your understanding of the topic. Private property is what requires explaining, not personal property. Why is this my toothbrush? Because I use it, it's at my home. Why is it my home? Because I occupy it, I live in it. What if someone tries to break in? The community will defend it through mutual aid. Why? Because it is in everyone's interest to do so.
 * Now, why is this Mr Smith's factory if he doesn't work at it, and he lives in a different city - it doesn't make sense! Because... a piece of paper says so. So what happens if the people who work there take over the factory? Well, the (private) police will come and throw them out by force. But why, aren't the workers the people using it - clearly they should be able to govern it as they please? Well, a piece of paper says it's not theirs, it belongs to Mr Smith. So does that mean that the workers are not free to do what they want with the factory they occupy and work at? No, they can't, because there is a more "important" person - "the owner", who makes all the decisions, and a piece of paper says so – it's all natural, I swear! So you're saying people's freedom is constrained by arbitrary decisions made by owners of capital, stated on pieces of paper that are enforced with violence or threats of violence - isn't that the state? It's like a state, but it's private, so it's better, and you are free to "voluntarily" starve to death if you don't like it!
 * Why is this Mr Brown's land? Because he "homesteaded" it. But he's not using it now, he's moved away! Why am I not free to enter and use it? Because he mixed his labour with the land (see Murray Rothbard - Man, Economy, and State) and now it will forever belong to him, even if he's not using it for years and years, until he "gives" it to someone else. So what happens if I trespass? Well naturally the (private) police will come and throw you out. Why? Because a piece of paper says so. So my liberty is constrained by some arbitrary act that I wouldn't be even aware of if not for seeing a piece of paper which for some reason attributes "ownership" to Mr Brown? That makes no sense! No, all of this is completely natural, it requires no explanation. So, if the (private) police didn't exist, I could just use freely use the land, right? Yes, but please don't call this a state - you can "voluntarily" oblige and stay away or "voluntarily" get shot by the private police for trespassing and violating the NAP – it's not a state though, I swear!
 * If you clearly disagree with so many aspects of anarchism, why do you insist that ancapism is anarchism? This is contradictory. As you see your views are completely different from anarchists, but very aligned with extreme economic liberalism. You support capitalism, you support wage labour, you clearly see a need for a hierarchical worker-boss relationship, you clearly see a need for accumulation of capital, you clearly support strong private property rights and hierarchies – that's all fine and dandy, just why call yourself an anarchist and confuse everyone? BeŻet (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If there´s one thing anarcho-capitalists can´t be accused of it´s being inconsistent. Anarcho-capitalists oppose all violations of the non-agression principle. How consistent can you get? I would argue that anarcho-capitalism is the only consistent political philosophy. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists because they want to abolish the state. They are also against all attacks upon person and property. So they are also against private aggressioon. Anarcho-capitalism is the only political philosophy which is completely against the initiation of force. This is not extreme economic liberalism, this is extreme logic! You have failed to explain the logical difference between the owneership of a toothbrush and the ownership of a factory. The same thing applies to your ownership of your house. You are not using the entire house. According to you I would be completely justified in breaking into your house. You are lucky that I am not an anarcho-communist because if I were I would be allowed to break into your house. But what about the ´´years and years´´ rule? Does this save anarcho-communism? No, it does not. The factory owner can simply walk into his factory, every month or so, use it for a bit and then leave. In that case his factory has not been abandoned for ´´years and years´´. There is no difference, in princple, between the ownership of a toothbrush and the ownership of a factory. I suspect the real reason why you and your fellow anarcho-communists oppose factory ownership is because of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is another contradictory philosophy. Liberty5000 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Dunning–Kruger effect is that everyone affected believes they are being logical. Logic can be futile and lead to wrong conclusions if not supported by knowledge. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Logic can never lead to wrong conclusions. Only faulty logic can lead to wrong conslusions. Where exactly is my logic faulty? Are you able to answer that question? Let me tell you why egalitarianism is a contradictory philosophy. A consistent egalitarian is not allowed to have above average income. If he has above average income he must distribute his income to those who have below average income until his income has reached the average. Do you have above average income? If so you should distribute some of your income to homeless people or poor people in the third world until your income has reached the average. If you fail to do so then you are not a consistent egalitarian. This is an example of irrefutable logic. Liberty5000 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When you start with a false statement or a false idea and apply logic, you reach a false conclusion. You may think you are being completely logical, but that doesn't mean you're correct. For instance, if I assume the Moon is made out of cheese, I can logically conclude that it must contain dairy. I can go further and apply logic, and deduce that an animal must have been used to create the milk for the cheese for the Moon. I can come up with many logical but completely insane conclusions. The same is with you, you start with, quite frankly, ridiciolous assumptions (e.g. "a consistent egalitarian is not allowed to have above average income", "there is no difference between owning a factory and a toothbrush") and end up with ridiciolous conclusions. Your assumptions are absolute nonsense, and this stage I am simply begging you to do some reading on this topic.
 * You say anarcho-capitalists oppose all violations of the non-agression principle, but there isn't even one, uncontroversial definition of scope of the NAP or the enforcement mechanism. If the toxic smoke from my factory travels many miles and harms humans somewhere miles away, is that a violation of the NAP? How about toxic waste that gets into ground water and travels far away? What about noise? Who decides the tollerable noise threshold? Who enforces the consequences of this violation? What's the guilt attribution mechanism, who decides which evidence is real? Finally, who then defines what is the scope of the NAP? Are there different scopes and definitions for different communities - are we now talking about mini-states?
 * Who enforces contracts in anarcho-capitalism? How do you resolve NAP violations between people who are not bound by any overlapping contract?
 * You say there's no difference between private and personal property, but private property is only a recent development in human history. Do you think early tribes used the concept of private property? How would you explain to an early human that this piece of land belongs to some random stranger who isn't even present and therefore he is not allowed to enter? There's absolutely nothing natural about private property rights. It's a feudalist invention, and that's why anarcho-capitalism is compared to feudalism - the only difference is that serfs are allowed to leave. Land ownership wasn't even a thing before the 11th century.
 * I honestly don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you until you educate yourself on these topics and not just refer to your "logic". Come back after you have read at least one book on anarchism. BeŻet (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Completely wrong. The claim that the ownership of a toothbrush is no different from the ownership of a factory is a conclusion, not an assumption. This conclusion is based on the fact that both are defended by force. This is an extremely important issue that you have conveniently bypassed. If you disagree with this conclusion,fine, but don´t make the false claim that it´s an assumption, because it´s not. What does it mean to own a thing? In my view, ownership implies that you are allowed to defend the thing with force. If you have a different definition of ownership I would love to hear it. I did not claim that owning a toothbrush and owning a factory is the same thing in every respect. The toothbrush and the factory are both defended by force. That´s all that I am saying. The force is definitely there. The question is, why is the force justified in one case but not in the other? Note that you are claiming that the force is justified in the one case but not in the other. So the burden of proof is on you to explain the difference. You might reply that the factory is used to facilitate wage labor. But a toothbrush can also be used to facilitate wage labor. I can pay someone to brush my teeth for me. That would be wage labor and would presumably be outlawed in an anarcho-communist society? If you are consistent you would have to view that as a coercive act. Consistency is extremely important in political philosophy as well as in life in general. If you are inconsistent then you are in the wrong.

As for my critique of egalitarianism I really don´t see what your problem with it could be. The goal of income egalitarians is to maximize income equality. So far, we are in agreement. Again, the claim that egalitarians should distribute their income is a conclusion, not an assumption. The assumption is actually that they want to maximize income equality. Surely you agree with this? If income equality really is their goal, then they have to spend their money as if it really is their goal. Otherwise they are being inconsistent. Have you heard of the concept of demonstrated preference? It´s when you claim one thing but show by your actions that you don´t really believe it. This applies to egalitarians. And that is why egalitarianism is a contradictory philosophy. Putting my logic in quotation marks doesn´t make it any less correct or less logical.

Are there any specific Anarchist books that you would recommend? Does there exist a book which makes a logical case for anarcho-communism and avoids appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies? Liberty5000 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Davide King. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks and failure to focus on content
Bezet, I would like to ask you to please remove your uncivil comments that you recently posted to the Andy Ngo page. Specifically you imply I may be a paid editor [] (I am not), that I am willfully lying [] (disagreement with your views is not lying... even if I'm ultimately wrong, it's not the same as lying), and this uncivil comment []. I get that we don't agree but this needs to be a FOC discussion. If you don't address these comments I will take this to ANI. Springee (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC) I did not imply you are paid editor, I said that since I am not getting paid, I am not obliged to reply immediately or participate in discussion frequently. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't say anything about removing the uncivil comments. I will file an ANI if you don't.  Springee (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Me asking you if you know how Wikipedia works after you said I am "posting nonsense" is an uncivil comment? Go ahead, file an ANI and let everyone judge the things you write. BeŻet (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

BeŻet, several of your recent comments on this article focused on editors instead of content. Please be careful about this. We can disagree without personalizing the comments. Springee (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please alert me if this is not the right place to be commenting. I am quite concerned about Springee's litigious behavior and failure to strike through false allegations made against me in ANI despite requests, while remaining superficially civil. I'm concerned to see similar behavior here. Surely there is a better way of resolving disputes than resorting to protracted and distracting ANI requests Noteduck (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how you decided to find this discussion. FOC when working in contentious topic areas is always a good idea. Regardless, what comments do you feel I should have stuck out and ANI (do we have an ANI discussion)? Springee (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Staying on topic
I want to give both you and Captain Primo a reminder to stay on topic at the Andy Ngo talk page. The conversation (just the last section) is beginning to stray into a wider discussion about Andy Ngo; it's usually easier to reach consensus if we focus on the immediate topic at hand which is how to best present what the sources say about it. I went ahead and collapsed that part of the discussion so that we can move forward with more productive discourse. Thanks and happy editing! –dlthewave ☎ 22:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on WP:HEADLINE
Regarding this: Special:Diff/1023643610, if the claim that the two statements contradicted each other was only in the subhead, we can't user it per WP:HEADLINE. And for good reason, too – in this case Al Jazeera's subheading, not supported by the article body (AP reprint), was actually wrong: "The Secretary was referring only to what he personally had seen. As he made clear, any such information would be provided to others in the administration, not directly to the secretary of State," a senior State Department official told Axios ... Blinken said he "will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment of that information." It's all good and I'm not trying to bust your chops, just something to be mindful of in the future. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)