User talk:Knight of BAAWA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1


Regarding the introduction[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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


Regarding this edit [1], 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[edit]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template:Anarchism_sidebar (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Knight of BAAWA. 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)