==melisa ashley== 
 ok so i got your message - didn't know i couldn't talk about an article that was deleted; sorry my bad, ill own that. does seem like a harshe rule designed to quash dissent - but oh well, its your club, isnt it? but if the article is deleted, i cant access its own talk page (where i HAD tried to engage discussion). and if i simple make a new entry, then that's not so productive, now is it? or si that what i need to do? please advise 

 also, you are simply missing the point. there was no concensus developed, and not attempt ot address the notability criteria i mentions - initially in the main article by productive edits with well documented sources (did you review the history, where these were immediately reverted by another (dissenting editor  - with NO rationalle. 

 then i tried to engage in the talk page, AND in the AfD (not i know another acronym - wow!) article page.  there was STILL not discssuon of the underlying merits of notability that i put forth, all with very reliable well documented sources. so... how is that appropriate?  peoepl just decide to ignore facts and delete and that is OK. im not sure how you can say that isnt bullying  
 ******************************** here si your message to me in so you knwo what im talking about 
  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. –Davey2010Talk  

         AFDs closed, Notability amongst other things were addressed and it was deemed Melissa-Ashley isn't a notable person, There's no bullying from anyone as far as I can see..... Anyway constantly adding your opinion on the closed AFD is disruptive editing and can and will get you blocked if you carry on. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk  

     If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.  
    a bitch slapped contributer