User talk:AidanParkinson

April 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Social cost of carbon. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 03:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock | reason: Link is not inappropriate. It is not an advertisement, it is a link to a formally declared belief system (OWL ontology) under version control. It's content is highly scientific and on permissive (MIT) license. It is as valid a citation as any Wikipedia article. Realfeed Ltd. is officially a romantic company that acts as an agent for one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanParkinson (talk • contribs)

Github is not a reliable source because it consists of user-generated content. A source is considered reliable only if it has an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, books and magazines. It also disqualifies self-published sources like social media, online forums and blogs. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request/s

You aren't blocked either here, or on the Portuguese Wikipedia. You should only use {{unblock}} when you are actually blocked, not when your edits get reverted. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two other points

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Also, your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom; new comments to an existing section should be added to the bottom of that section. I have moved your comments so that the discussion appears in the correct chronological order. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right for new discussions. For more details see the talk page guidelines. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Social cost of carbon. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should be applying the difference principle when considering due weight, not popularity.

Ethics is not a popularity contest. If a proposition is significantly different and well justified, then it should have equal weight with the others that adopt the Ramsey formulation (no matter how many contributions there are).

If you believe a proposition is not justified, then do the research and develop proper critique of the content.

I don't understand why Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press and Fringe Papers are being labelled as "unreliable" here. AidanParkinson (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my additions to social cost of carbon please?

Hello @AidanParkinson

Why did you remove the additions I had made to social cost of carbon, such as information about Canada? My additions were reliably sourced I thought. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. It's because you reverted a significant Commonwealth of Peoples perspective. Try adding the Canadian information now and I'd happily arrange a place. AidanParkinson (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Social cost of carbon) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason? Many Peoples are interested in Social Costs of Carbon in the private sector and need to be included amongst the Nation States approaches? AidanParkinson (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The liberal tradition is not a minority perspective AidanParkinson (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AidanParkinson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the liberal tradition is not a minority perspective

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AP, your editing at Social cost of carbon has been disruptive, so I've blocked you from editing that article directly. You are still free to discuss on the article's talk page, but be aware that your editing there is looking pretty diruptive, too. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am making every effort to accommodate different perspectives within a highly contested area of policy. My contributions are for the private sector and in the liberal tradition. However, I am encountering hostility and abuse because the significant perspective I report isn't aligned with the policy of Nation States. I am not in a minority at all. I am simply so not represent the authority, which I am well aware of. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect me to do? AidanParkinson (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I expect you to go to the talk page and make suggestions about how to improve the article, sourcing those suggestions to actual wp:reliable sources rather than github. I also expect that you'll take into account what highly-experienced editors are telling you about WP's content and sourcing policies. We understand that you're new here and that there's a steep learning curve, but you're going to have to listen to what people are telling you. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources are all published books.

The Nations States approach that seems hostile to my contributions appears in minority to me, as it is only held by North American administrations. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With ISBN numbers AidanParkinson (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These policies are entirely unfair treatment of the majority of humanity AidanParkinson (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm encountering the kind of argument that dismisses me because I'm applying well-regarded theory, rather than politics AidanParkinson (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of the subject, but if you'd like to give me

a single brief statement you'd like to make in that article, along with
a single highly-reliable source supporting that statement

I'm willing to try to assess it for you, as a way to help you understand the problems you're encountering. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't need to add anything new to the article as I believe it is. There is a need for others to research this more thoroughly. I just need my thoughtful contributions to be respected and not reverted without justification. All insights are published in books. I'm happy to include Nations States perspectives alongside within a report acknowledging reasonable plurality.

2. My major influence here is John Rawls: The Law of Peoples. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the article has been reverted again!

This discrimination is very difficult to overcome AidanParkinson (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This intolerable. I'm not getting along with you Valaree. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

1. The Nation States perspectives exclusively cited now, since the revert, are not credible because they do not prioritise justice and equality over welfare. A perspective following the liberal tradition is missing entirely from the narrative.

2. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice AidanParkinson (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've excluded the reasonable perspective here grounded in comprehensive philosophical doctrine. We're being overrun by North American imperialism AidanParkinson (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a change to the article. It's just an opinion on what you believe is wrong with it, and it appears to fall afoul of what we're trying to do here, which is not WP:righting great wrongs. I need to see an actual statement you'd like to see inserted or modified.
Rawls appears to be a reliable source. Note that this is irrelevant since I don't know what addition to the article you want to make and would like to use Rawls to support. A page number would be helpful, too.

Valereee (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a significant re-write because it is severely biased.

An entirely different perspective needs introducing.

Please see my last contribution to the article as an example of what we need to achieve AidanParkinson (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a world fit for Earth's Peoples, not just the North American People!!! AidanParkinson (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offering to try to read that entire contribution, it's long and extremely involved. Your argument is indeed one of needing to right great wrongs, which is not what we do here. You might try writing for Medium, but until you understand wp:what wikipedia is not, you're going to have troubles here. Best to you. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia was about sharing correct perspectives, not excluding them.

In my private life I am not trying to correct great wrongs. However, your article is highly biased and in need of correction.

It is Wikipedia that is doing the great wrong to me. Not North America. You misunderstand me entirely. AidanParkinson (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen how @AndyTheGrump talks to me on the Social Cost of Carbon page? He's rude and abusive.

You are backing a person like that over someone who has put a lot of thought into his contributions.

I hope @AndyTheGrumpis blocked as well??? AidanParkinson (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you ruled so unfavorably to me?

I've been mobbed! AidanParkinson (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well - that's an highly institutionally biased revert there. I wish Wikipedia could be more helpful, rather than acting like a mob. There's no attempt to get to grips with the reality and promote credibility left there.

I'm sorry I published a sanity check myself that was significantly different. All that was needed was for someone else to helpfully point out that wasn't possible on Wikipedia and we could have arrived at something better.

This page just makes me feel sick now. AidanParkinson (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please extend the block to the talk page too

It seems self-evident to me that AidanParkinson's posts at Talk:Social cost of carbon subsequent to the above block are non-productive, and based either in a refusal to accept multiple relevant Wikipedia policies, or an inability to understand them. Accordingly, I would suggest that the existing topic ban be extended to the talk page too. Does this need to be taken to WP:ANI to resolve the issue - e.g. with a more general topic ban - to avoid further disruption? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Not sure this is the right place to discuss as I very rarely get involved with blocks - if discussion is elsewhere please let me know. Whilst I support the block on editing the article and am happy you got involved and rolled back, I think a block on the talk page or more general block would be too much at the moment. As he is a relatively new user and has only just been blocked from the article let’s give the guy a chance. If any further blocking or unblocking is wanted we or he can request it next year.

On WikiProject Climate change we are short of people who are both interested and knowledgable about the economic aspects. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen precisely no verifiable evidence of such knowledge. What I have seen however is a complete inability to grasp the purpose of Wikipedia as a tertiary source. We don't need self-proclaimed 'experts' who mistake Wikipedia for a platform for the promotion of their own eccentric views views on topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of hate to increase the block myself if this editor might be able to learn how to productively contribute. They're clearly well-intentioned.

AP, ATG's request isn't unreasonable. You've said All that was needed was for someone else to helpfully point out that wasn't possible on Wikipedia and we could have arrived at something better. This is your opportunity to do that. I'd suggest you read all the policy links people have offered you here and at the article talk, and after you've done that -- maybe in a couple weeks or so, after the holidays keep so many people busy -- maybe reach out to Chidgk1 at their User talk:Chidgk1 and ask a few questions about your understanding of policy w/re the topic and article. Give your arguments on the article talk a rest for now, there's wp:no deadline. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly understand the policies. I studied them to PhD level! There is nothing new that confounds my understanding.

There is an urgent need to step back, get out of the quantitative models and review the ethics here. They're inappropriate for application to anyone but the dominant state. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AP, I think you're misunderstanding policy vs. Wikipedia policy.

Academics often have a very hard time with the learning curve here. Literally everything we do is the opposite of what you're used to. We do not do wp:original research, we severely limit the use of wp:primary sources, and we do not draw conclusions no one else is drawing. Exactly the opposite of what you're expected to do in an academic setting. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current perspectives written up in the Social Cost of Carbon Wikipedia page, as is, raises core stability issues across the world.

Use of Ramsey models for long-term planning of deadweight losses inherently raises security problems and economic instability for many. Foreigners are not for cost-optimisation.

I acknowledge that such an approach may be acceptable for the dominant state (ie. POTAS). But, it is likely not acceptable for anyone else. AidanParkinson (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Read it. Read all the links it gives you. Come back in two weeks after having studied them. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "POTUS" (President of the United States) rather than "POTAS" in my previous message.

I'll have a look at the policies and guidelines more closely over the holidays.

However, the difficulty we have is there appears to be some fundamental conflicts here with core ethics that need some resolution. My personal contributions that appear to be raising concerns

aren't really substantial enough for scientific publication. Feedback from scientific editors are that my views aren't disagreeable, they're well written, but are not novel enough ie. it's just common-sense. Wikipedia seem to have the opposite problem with me (too different). AidanParkinson (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Social cost of carbon and Talk:Social cost of carbon) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, AP, but this edit promoting use of your own book published by Fringe Papers is too over the top. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Cost of Carbon Wikipedia page, as is, only provides a narrative for a discussion that supports a kind of national socialism (social costs of carbon as agreed by a nation state, supporting long-term global development plans). It's disgusting that a discussion allowing more diverse and thoughtful analysis has been banned from these pages. There is vast scope, with reliance on little in the way of novel content, to improve the article from a people's perspective.

I hope to put this down to incompetence from the administrators of the page. Although the administrators are at risk of being labelled as extremists.

I'm sorry I promoted my book as a reference. Such a suggestion was only in response to an experience of hostility by others and an attempt to offer a basis of understanding of where I was coming from.

But, my god, their is a dire need for the administrators to read more widely around this topic. The page lacks a consideration of core theory. I'm quite frankly appalled at my experience of trying to bring balance to this disgusting article. The contributions that I had previously largely cited seminal works from Harvard/Oxford University Press. These were labelled by your administrators as unreliable!

The Social coat of carbon Wikipedia page appears to be run by Nazi's from my perspective. Sort it out!!! AidanParkinson (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complete failing to understand that the issues around a social cost of carbon reach the heart of the social contract. The issues have strong connections with what is considered sacred in religions (sacrifices made to maintain the State within a world of free-will and sin).

Hobbes is an very relevant philosophical reference and a sound basis for judgement. Commonwealth Costs of Carbon are an important position to represent. It doesn't matter if it's a fringe position. It probably always will be a fringe position unless a Nation State formally recognises it. It doesn't mean it's any less important.

Surely we want to accommodate as diverse a peoples as possible, with many+1 associations. Rather than the central command and control planning from the dominant Nation States followed by a hostile mob, which is that presented to me in the "social cost of carbon" Wikipedia article as-is to date. AidanParkinson (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please begin a separate dedicated page to discuss "Commonwealth Costs of Carbon" in the interests of Peoples of the Global Commons please?

I am tired of facing hostility, which has resulted in my non-compliant responses. A fresh start on a more manageable topic would be welcome.

I am happy to be an initial contributor and will make sure I never cite myself. No novel research is required. Just a simple interpretation of what follows Hobbes philosophy described in his seminal work "Leviathan".

If at any stage my contributions are non-compliant when taking this initiative due to my inexperience. I would appreciate it if challenges were constructive and simply recommended corrections, rather than deleting my thoughtful content entirely. Such challenges in the past have not been well received at all. AidanParkinson (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Can we please begin a separate dedicated page to discuss "Commonwealth Costs of Carbon" in the interests of Peoples of the Global Commons please?". No. Because no evidence whatsoever has been presented that any discussion of the proposed topic even exists in published reliable sources, never mind evidence that this peculiarly-framed topic meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Wikipedia is not a forum for initiating such a discussions. It is not a publisher of original research. And this will remain so, regardless of how often you post pseudohistorical hogwash claiming that Hobbes discussed the 'social costs' of an element he didn't know existed, in a book that by common academic consensus is about an entirely different subject. Find somewhere else to peddle your nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, @AndyTheGrump - I don't think you've studied the subject matter in sufficient depth or properly understood the work of Hobbes and Rawls.

I'm afraid I cannot understand you and regard you the product of extreme national socialism.

I don't like you and have no respect for you.

Please stop offending me. AidanParkinson (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump, you've got a real problem here. Because you are essentially asking the scientific community to publish insight that is not interesting enough for scientific publication.

What I am advocating is regarded as common-sense given the sources. Study Rawls. Study Hobbes. It's not difficult once you understand them.

Not worthy of a Novel Prize I'm afraid. AidanParkinson (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "... not worthy of a Nobel Prize, I'm afraid"... AidanParkinson (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Commonwealth Costs of Carbon (February 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Commonwealth Costs of Carbon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AidanParkinson! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering the article, I understand your decision. I'm sorry, I have struggled with editors from major publishers who have been very dismissive of my original research, in particular, and failed to improve my discussion in any way. Unfortunately, the only option for agency has been a self-publishing route that isn't well respected. Therefore, we have a situation where a position I effectively hold religiously is not accepted within any community I am aware of. As I believe that this is an important matter of reasonable belief, this is causing me distress. I have become alien to what is accepted as reasonable knowledge, even though this is a subject matter I have studied for the last 14 years. Personally, I regard this as an unacceptable situation for anyone to find themselves. However, this really is a shared issue with industry at large. AidanParkinson (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can find something that interests you at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. A WP-editor recently created their own online encyclopedia, called Justapedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]