[09:20] <[redacted]> anyone knows how to get the "noteability" flag removed from a page?
[09:20] <CharlotteWebb> [redacted], see the link that says "edit this page"
[09:22] <[redacted]> CharlotteWebb: thanks! that worked

War on idiocy:

1. "Notability": is not and never has been policy [1].
2. "Consensus": please learn to spell it before claiming one exists [2].
3. "Merge and delete": is not a valid result of an AFD debate [3].

	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Thank you very much, I don't think. The way in which you caused me to be blocked on my previous account was entirely unnecessary - if only someone had taken the time to tell me what was wrong with those page moves, it need never have happened. I am only on Wikipedia to make positive contributions! For evidence of this, see Church of St. Peter, Brighton, which I am in the process of creating. Please leave me in peace to make positive, happy editing - and positive, happy editing to you too. Yours contemptuously, Vox Humana 8' 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you closed this AFD without following the guidelines for admins. Deletion Guidelines for administrators quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

Well I believe that you had not followed this and closed the article as keep even though no one had addressed any Verifiability questions. The article had no third-party, independent, reliable, reputable sources (let alone multiple sources). There was a local news article on the missing manager but every other link was from the club or was a 'missing persons' page about the manager. If you would take some time and go over my thoughts in the AFD, I would appreciate it. I don't want to waste our time going through a deletion review so I thought I would try to solve this here first. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte, I was checking the status of this case to see if you have any questions or have had a chance to review the afd again. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if I can offer any additional assistance with this. For expedience of the process, if I don’t hear from you by the end of business today (5pm PST), I will send this case on to deletion review. If you believe that your closing was correct and that it requires no comment, I will understand and will proceed with the process, without malice. I appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this incident. If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance please let me know. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 123 Pleasant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]