Howdy hello! I see you recently left this edit on my talk page, comparing experienced editors to the Gestapo. That's not cool bro. Experienced editors do act as gatekeepers because they are familiar with policy and procedure, as well as what the intention of Wikipedia is. But they're no Gestapo. For starters, the Gestapo are one of the most evil organizations in history, and their name should not be dropped lightly. And secondly, if you ever feel bludgeoned by an experienced user, please talk to them. Remember, we are all volunteers, and everyone makes mistakes. Experienced users should always be willing to discuss why they did something, and explain it to you. Have you had much interaction with experienced editors that left a bad taste? If so we can try to see what went wrong. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks (e.g. [1]) and an attitude and edit history that indicates that you are not here to contribute to an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:52, 12 January 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I'm blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead.

Decline reason:

It is not enough to repeat back to us what you are asked to do; you need to demonstrate your understanding by telling what it is you did wrong, why you won't do it again, and what exact contributions you want to make(such as what articles or topic areas you want to edit). As you have not done that with this request, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It was wrong to compare the established editors to the Gestapo, such hatred is simply unacceptable. Instead, I will make productive contributions in terms of cleaning up articles i come across on Wiki during my work research.

Decline reason:

I concur with the below. You clearly aren't ready for Wikipedia. Perhaps in a few years, if you can explain to us how you have developed a habit of being considerate of other people and have worked on collaborating instead of attacking people, we may consider an unblock. Yamla (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Being considerate of other people comes naturally to us humans. You can see plenty of such examples in my edits and other peoples edits. Even when i was pushing back on the established editors, it was for the consideration of new joiners who might feel pushed around. Some of the ideas i have referred to below are all in fact in helping with the collaboration and highlighting clearly why attacking is sub-optimal. At the end of the day, block is preventative in its purpose which it has served. If you unblock and see similar behaviour, you can always restore the block.

Decline reason:

Clearly not here. Possible breaching experiment.-- Deepfriedokra 19:21, 13 January 2020 (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.

Due to the above unblock request, I have revoked talk page access. This is as clear a case of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE as I've seen in recent memory. Gaurarjun, another admin will be along eventually to review your unblock request. If declined, you are free to make use of WP:UTRS no sooner than six months from now, and only if you can clearly explain why your behaviour here was abhorrent and how your future behaviour would be radically different. Making claims that your edits were shining examples of consideration will not fly. Note to those following along, the below statement, "Apologies", is not a response to my comment here. --Yamla (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies --Gaurarjun (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaurarjun, sorry to do this, but multiple established editors have been more than patient with you as you repeatedly compare them to the Gestapo, which is simply unacceptable. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to ANI thread-- Deepfriedokra 08:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Gaurarjun, I have been watching some of this discussion and your interactions with other people. I think that under present circumstances Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. In a few years, if you are interested in coming back, then I think that a request for a review of your block would be OK. In the meantime, I encourage you to work on being considerate of other people. Playing rough is OK in some circumstances, but the way that you have done this on Wikipedia is problematic. Over the next few years, if you develop a habit of being considerate of other people, then Wikipedia will likely be a good fit for you if you want to return. ↠Pine (✉) 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been developing some of the ideas around adaptive performance and Wikipedia has turned out to be really good example of it. That's the reason I wanted to see first hand of how this could be applied even better here on Wiki and outside. Working with other humans comes naturally to all of us humans, look at the world we have all built around us, that's why Wiki and other examples have worked so well. However, conflict resolution naturally requires dedicated use of pre-frontal cortex producing good strategy which is at odds to the amygdala which controls our ego and not accessible to higher level conscious level awareness. That's why they are at odds to each other and we end up making inferior decisions. This should help in understanding it better - https://www.principles.com/principles-for-success

Obviously putting emotional pressure decreases our adaptive performance. So playing rough is sub-optimal, however sticking with inertia is even worse. This should help in understanding it better - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMPSaZ4hxKk

Finally on being considerate, yes, though that's just the starting point, there is long road of leadership and kindness that lies ahead for all of us. This should help in understanding it better - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRcHdeUG9Y

--Gaurarjun (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see your now-deleted user page, but I'm pretty sure it had those links on it, or something similar. Posting all that again here seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of (at least) WP:NOTSOAP. Pinging Deepfriedokra, who may want to remove it again. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Any of those tie out to our ego which i talk about above. These ideas though have helped other people and myself a lot and was again an example of collaborating with other people who could use if they choose to --Gaurarjun (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should set aside your assumptions and what you learnt from YouTube videos if you want to edit here in the future. Clearly "Working with other humans comes naturally to all of us humans" didn't actually apply to you, otherwise you wouldn't have persistently tried to get someone to use WhatsApp to talk with you even after you'd been denied, or kept calling people gestapo when you'd already been told to cut it out. If you listened to what people were telling you, rather than operating under the assumption you knew how to work with people, maybe you wouldn't have been blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note RE: "I have been developing some of the ideas around adaptive performance and Wikipedia has turned out to be really good example of it. " Two points. This clearly makes it clear you are not here to build Wikipedia. If this is a breaching experiment, let us know.-- Deepfriedokra 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Gaurarjun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 User:Gaurarjun has been deleted
Hello, Gaurarjun. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but  User:Gaurarjun has been deleted as meeting WP:CSD#G11. "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION." These must be rewritten from scratch from "reliable, third party sources unconnected to the subject." See WP:RS.

Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising#Typical signs of blatant advertising contains information about content to avoid. For more information on content that may be perceived as promotional, click User:Deepfriedokra/promo. These are just rough guides. Pages can avoid all those pitfalls and still be glaringly obvious ad copy. Sometimes pages meeting WP:CSD#G11 give the appearance of an editor violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or WP:PAID. Please read and heed them if they apply to you. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations.

There is a very common mistake of assuming that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to promotion for commercial gain, but that is not so. Sometimes creators of promotional content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write or spent some time writing corporate documents or mission/vision statements or anything similar, they may simply be blind to the promotionality. It can be hard to unlearn.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and providing verifiable information. That generally means someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources . Template:cite has templates you can use in citing your sources. Place the template {{references}} at the bottom of the page, and references cited in the text will appear there.

The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. -- Deepfriedokra 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]