Talk:Certified Mail

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philately Mid‑importance

	Philately portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Does certified mail exist only in the United States?[edit]

If not, then:

68.55.112.31 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]