Siobhan I am only taking specific issue with your editorializing my motivations as "sickening" and "unethical" - not on your disagreeing with me on what I beleive is an objective issue with a particular citation and a particular editor that I felt was not even-handed in his approach. You said, "While some of your edits may have been great content others were clearly just promoting your own external efforts without regard to Wikipedia's core policies" But ALL my edits including unchallenged and valid nonprofit technical references were removed because of a seemingly unrelated the issue with Greentealovers. The hypocracy I indicate is not specific to you but to these uneven decisions. Go to the green tea page on Wikipedia and you will still see citations from TEA COMPANIES that have only *JUST* been referenced as dubious/discuss because of the concerns I recently raised about evenhandedness. The fact is Greentealovers was a valid contributor to the green tea pages for years and wrote the entire initial section on Japanese green tea WHEN NOTHING EXISTED ON WIKIPEDIA but information on Chinese Green Tea  How self serving was that to provide information that did not exist on an important element of green tea? And yes, I did appropriately cite where that information came from: greentealovers.com. My problem is that Wikipedia's CORE policies are always a work in progress and a valid contributor one month is in violation the next. You are correct that I did not remove other references on the green tea page because I felt it innapropriate and actually quite petty to remove the citations of others while my own citations existed there. I considered them all as valid as mine. Since the official WIKI editors didn't deem it appropriate to remove them why should I? But there was one editor, OhNoItsJamie (the name says it all), who went after my citations because I questioned his evenhandedness. You'll find most of my warnings and issues stem from this back and forth between myself and him. In fact, the blacklisting of every reference I have seemingly made to wikipedia is the result of my recently *MOVING* (not adding, but moving) a citation that had existed for years from one part of the green tea page to another. I wonder if you have even visited the greentealovers site to check for yourself the amount of referenced medical, preparation and tea processing information on it  far more than other Green Tea page tea companies provide because my motivations are different. I don't sell the more popular black teas only teas I feel are backed up by peer-reviewed medical research to have health properties. The money I make from this green tea site goes to limiting my carbon footprint and I have invested significantly in solar power and more fuel efficient boilers. That is why I take exception to your editorialing about my motivations ethical. I have no issue if you disagree with me about the appropriateness of a particular citation in an objective manner. My lifeling record touching literally millions people in a socially responsive way stands on its own merits.