User talk:Knight of BAAWA

Archive 1

Regarding the introduction
In the comment to your revision to my last edit, you accused me of pushing a POV. I assure you this is not the case. I am just trying to balance the lead according to the contents of the article. As the article makes clear, there is no consensus that anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism. While I would prefer that the lead not make a statement to its classification one way or the other, if it must classify anarcho-capitalism as a type of anarchism, it must include the caveat that such a classification comes with great controversy. Regardless of one's position on the classification of anarcho-capitalism, one cannot properly introduce it without mentioning the controversy because the controversy is integral to the story of anarcho-capitalism. I hope that you will see the merit to this argument and revert your reversion. If you like, we can have a conversation on the matter in the article's talk page. KLP (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The body of your work shows that you have a bias against capitalism. You are trying to push your POV by trying to sneak things into the lede that don't belong and which are already in the article later on. One can properly introduce anarchocapitalism without mentioning the "controversy". The lede in Evolution, for instance does not mention the "controversy" regarding creationism or intelligent design. Your hatred of capitalism is yours to deal with; do not push your POV. -Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a rather unfair characterization of my contributions thus far. In my transition to more substantial edits from simple typographic ones, I may have had some awkward moments. However, I've made constructive edits and faithfully curated articles that some might consider flagships of (anarcho-)capitalism, such at Bitcoin and Silk Road (marketplace). So don't misconstrue me as some anti-capitalist agent. At worst, I am a pedant. I enjoy categorizing things appropriately and explaining them thoughtfully. That's why I enjoy participating in this project. I also find very disingenuous your implicit comparison of me to an evolution denier. I am hardly arguing for the inclusion of something, like irreducible complexity, into a category, like science, to which it does not belong.


 * Now, let's get back to the issue at hand. Going with your example, the body of the article on evolution does not contradict its introduction. In anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, the body does. The lead states, without qualification, that anarcho-capitalism counts as a type of anarchism. Yet, the body makes very clear that that's hardly a forgone conclusion. Anarcho-capitalism's introduction is therefore disconnected from its body, to the detriment of readers. Let's fix it. KLP (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a very fair characterization, given your body of work. And no, the lede in anarchocapitalism does not contradict the body; the body of evolution mentions intelligent design and creationism, but that doesn't mean the lede there contradicts the body. Similarly, the lede of anarchocapitalism does not contradict the body. That there are people who doubt evolution does not mean the body contradicts the lede in the same as as there are some who hate capitalism (such as yourself) does not mean that the lede of anarchocapitalism contradicts the body. You can try to weasel and hem and haw all you want; don't care. The lede connects properly, your narrow POV of hating capitalism notwithstanding. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I said, nothing in the body of the evolution article contradicts the introduction. In anarcho-capitalism, however, the introduction states, in a very certain tone, that anarcho-capitalism is an "individualist anarchist political philosophy". Then, in the body of the article, we have "Some scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, while others do". The article goes from anarcho-capitalism definitely being a form of anarchism to it maybe being one. If that is not a contradiction, then it is certainly a major discrepancy that deserves correction.


 * You clearly have some kind of investment in this article. I respect that, which is why I've been consulting you on the matter. So, I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate and not rudely dismiss my arguments because of your suspicions. If you won't, then fine. Sorry for acting on good faith and thinking that would want to improve the article with me. KLP (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not believe you edit in good faith, given the body of your work. The body of your work shows that you dislike capitalism, and your edits seek to marginalize it wherever you can. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to play the victim, when clearly you got caught red-handed trying to push your POV and you're now pouting about it.


 * And some "scholars" do not consider evolution to be true, either. Does that mean there's a discrepancy between the lede in evolution and the body, given that there's some talk of creationism and intelligent design? Of course not. Same with anarchocapitalism. End of discussion - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like more hate toward anarchocapitalism from those who want there to be a government. Can't you people stop trying to marginalize it? Are you scared that people will throw off the shackles of government? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
You gave me hope that WP isn't completely tilted left. Wolf DeVoon (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology
Regarding this edit, I was mistaken. I did not see the quote template in the paragraph above. I apologize. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution ticket
Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 24.197.253.43 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Socks at Anarcho-capitalism
Hello, Knight of BAAWA. I suggest that rather than warning the obvious sockpuppet accounts vandalizing Anarcho-capitalism, it might be better just to get them blocked as socks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've requested protection for the page, and I supposed I could report them as socks. But I don't know if they are, so I think I'd have to ask for a sock check. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They are either sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts, and probably liable to an immediate indefinite block in either case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Now which do you think is the sock/meat master? I'm looking at the sockpuppet check request page, and I have to name who I think is the "master". I would think t-34 BRRT, but what are your thoughts? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, T-34 BRRT is probably the original account, though it is possible there might be an earlier one. You can just start an SPI for T-34 BRRT without worrying about that question. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I just don't want to falsely accuse someone, even though I know that T-34 did something wrong. But I'll start the SPI. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)

Relationships not caused by threats or violence
Hi Knight of BAAWA, since you've reverted my changes a couple times it looks like I need to discuss this change with you. I think that we have to specify that it is according to anarcho-capitalists' belief that exchange of money, consumer goods etc. are relationships not caused by threats or violence, because as it stands, we state unequivocally that it's true, while that's just an assumption made by ancaps. Could you please explain why it's not necessary to do so, as to me it looks like a case of WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When you can provide citations that it is actually the other case (and not simply the BELIEFS of others, because that would be WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL), then you can have your edits. Until then: your attempts to marginalize will not stand, as it is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, I need to provide references for what? That other beliefs exist? It even states in the article that the main anarchist critique of "anarchocapitalism" is stating that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary and ones caused by threats or violence. What do you need a reference for? BeŻet (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A thought
Why are you so insistent on ANCAPism being anarchist? It seems to be fairly controversial, however you continue pushing the view that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkynetPR (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a thanks and my potential support.
Hey, Knight. I just wanted to say I appreciate your work in trying to represent Anarcho-capitalism as fairly as possible.

Articles referencing the topic are being rapidly rewritten, and it seems the left-anarchists have gotten their way with most of the edits.

Even the Anarcho-capitalist page itself is painful to read; its explanation on it is just awkward and incoherent — almost as if that's the point: to deter —, and most of the page, unsurprisingly being backed with leftist sources, are just criticisms of the ideology and why Ancaps aren't anarchists.

What really did it for me was the removal of "Capitalist" from the Anarchism template's "Schools" sidebar. I did not like that at all.

As an ancap I care about this issue, I really could go on and on, but now I'm just wondering how I can help. I notice Czar, BeZet, Davide King, and Cinadon have their own team, and you're just on your own. I don't know how much of a difference I would make, but I'd try at least.

Get back to me when you can.

Pestyboy (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC) pest