 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Ambigous Statement edit
"Certified Mail is recognized by the old-fashioned green Return Receipt card"
Not all certified mail has the return receipt. They do all have the green label with 16 digits. Unless it is international —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.136.187 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Does certified mail exist only in the United States? edit
- If not, then:
 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. |
- 68.55.112.31 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Moderization is the raison d'etre of Wikipedia edit
Slashing content under the color of authority is more "1984" than any improvement. Giving readers up-to-date information about a subject is what Wikipedia uniquely does. Information about modernization is on mark and is its bullying removal the pacification of a depraved Luddite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.103.189 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Tip of the hand edit
A claim that content removal is appropriate is disingenuous when some links are removed and yet some are kept. Particularly when the content removal is consistent with what a USPS employee might do without a NPOV (removing references to all topic providers except one). The disingenousness is further tipped off with the removal of far more than just links and also keeping a broken link--not what a legitimate edit would entail by someone acting under the color of authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.103.189 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Misrepresenting the removal of links that blatantly fail inclusion criteria of WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is not a convincing argument for restoring those inappropriate links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)