Here is the history of my battles with the Wikipedia people. Anyone can edit anything that is placed there. There are a few editors there that are hellbent on their way or the highway, and I've had on-again, off-again luck keeping BetterMost listed there. Sometimes you get the argument it's not a link depository, but there are links there, other times they claim they don't want "commercial sites," (as if this thing is earning big $$$ and Dave Cullen's forum doesn't have ads too).
I have found the only way to stay listed is to out-persist them. The brokebackmountain2005 guy got listed because he wrote a program that automatically reinserted his site back into the list everytime someone tried to delete it (up to three times a day - after that they can lock you out for a day for an "edit war.") Because he was relentless, they left him in (unless someone just deleted all the discussion forums again). I stayed listed there for about a month until someone decided the three sites that appeared first (I added myself in at #4 I think because I wasn't going to presume to put myself on top of the existing sites) was good enough and deleted everyone elses. Attempts to re-add myself are, as you guys have discovered, purged.
I really have mixed feelings about the entire Wikipedia project. It is ripe for takeover by editor zealots who assume there way is the only way, and although people can edit their edits, they can try and lock people out or just make a bigger effort to stick around and control things than the average Joe trying to add something.
I don't really have the time personally to battle with these people, although I could join an effort of up to three insertions a day. If lots and lots of people did that, I suspect it would stay up there despite whining from the self-appointed "editors." Remember, no one controls or is a ruler of the Wikipedia, no matter what they imply.
