User talk:Everestrecords

April 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. D P 17:35, 12 April 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I provided abundant information and questions in the Talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chad_Kellogg and at the Administrators Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Everestrecords Everestrecords (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you'll need to address that and only that in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:32, 12 April 2014 (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.

Biographies

good luck.

thanks malerooster. banster for you! Everestrecords (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[1] Everestrecords (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kazi Sherpa

The article Kazi Sherpa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This should never have been a BLP; he did hold the record at a given time, but such record holders are not inherently notable. All his references are his appearance in lists, and mostly at the particular time when he held the record, but there is zero SIGCOV on him as a topic for GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kazi Sherpa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kazi Sherpa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazi Sherpa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]