In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:17:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes: Pay is completely irrelevant. You added links to, and content in support of, an organisation in which you play a leading role. Conflict of interest. I don't think I have ever edited the articles on Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales, by the way. I edited an article and began a corporation to benefit fellow families of killed in action. The article involves life-long learning about the concept, something my faculty advisor, a Stanford-graduated Ph.D., also thought I would be good at because of the courses I took. Foundations and other credible organizations even provide information and research about topics, and our nonprofit is legally incorporated as an educational institution. I see citations of other educational institutions in here all of the time. Moreover, it did not cite anything. I provided outside links on the subject, including our "competition," as I said. It's only information on a topic I have interest in, not that I get paid for. I volunteer my work with the organization and currently support myself by other means. It does however, allow deferment of my student loans, and I plan to return to school full time in the fall, where I have financial aid lined up. WikiProject Military history rated the work I did to a "start-class" on the article, but an 18-year-old senior in high school blocked my account, one of your fellow admins, whereas I have much more of an education and experience and know a lot more about the topic, "killed in action" or KIA. He didn't even spell properly in describing the reason for the block, and he also has a lot of spelling errors on his user page. Lastly, another admin edited the article down to just include our nonprofit, for some strange reason, and I reverted, including the work I had done. I felt I deserved a bit of credit and also provided links to other organizations regarding killed in action, including The White House Commission on Remembrance's National Moment of Remembrance, a program by a bipartisan committee to honor the fallen of the United States of American. That, too, was removed, and they also provide links to our organization. I don't see how, with good conscience, you can condone or approve of editing for profit whereas you disapprove of editing an article you care about. That policy would have a lack of justice to say the least, though I still haven't seen the Wikimedia Foundation's approved Form 1023 goals, something I've requested and the IRS requires you provide; an organization seeking official determination as tax deductible and tax exempt by the federal government submits this form, which also requires public information be disclosed. All of this so far indicates how consensus should not override authority. Consensus has its place and makes authority, but it should do it for knowledge and truth here, not just the majority or for someone's joke about topics others take seriously. Lack of seriousness occurs somewhat when you get burned, and certainly two sides of the issue are better than censorship or even types of vandalism that Wikipedia describes. Vincent Bartning UN: John Wallace Rich <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.