To ERS and others. I think LK's frustration appears to stem from a personal belief of injustice in that he believes the link to templars.org.uk website is being removed with an inconsistent approach to the Wikipedia policies. This article does contain links to other websites that contain a great deal of unchecked or unverified information and it appears that he seems to want a level playing field. But I have emailed him privately to ask that he puts his position a little more diplomatically and I will the first to edit or scorn any more sarcasm. Equally, having looked at the history of changes, Elonka does need to show some consistency here and apply these hard and fast rules to other links if appropriate. That inconsistency could easily be interpreted as a personal grudge, hence the obvious friction. The question of external links is quite clear in Wikipedias's policies. If a site offers reliable resource material or is a good point of reference that is relevant to the article, then it can be included in line with those polices. I have briefly read the history section of LK's link and it does appear to be good information and is also well set out. It is neat, tidy and well formatted. This does perhaps seem curious to LK where some of the other links here have all sorts of advertising pop-ups and ticker-clickers with an obvious advertising and revenue bias. You state that you want proof of the charitable nature of the site but has that also been queried of the other sites that are plastered in adverts? Again, consistency needs to apply to prevent stoking of the fire. I will therefore check the Charities Commission entry for this organisation and see what their accounts say. That will clearly show if the management of the organisation is drawing any financial gain which would put in a clear COI position if added in by him. But, does that totally exclude a site if it still provides good reference material. One could argue that Microsoft's website should not be referenced from the article on Windows as it is a clear commercial entity. LK has pointed out Elonka's own entry page, but perhaps not in a very complimentary fashion. On that page she has included links to her own site which does feature an advertisement to her book. So I come back to the level playing field issue. If you want to play referee you have to enforce the rules to both sides or one side will feel rightly peeved. I review and edit history books for a living especially those in this sector of interest and I am particularly noted for the integrity of data and cross-checking references. Elonka has stated that she objects to the link on the basis that it is not reliable, although there is no further detail as to what precisely. Therefore I will offer to read the entire website, especially the history section in detail, and see if there is anything factually incorrect, controversial or just plain stupid. Maybe one solution would be to generate a totally separate article on modern orders. But the fundamental matter is still whether the website is a good reference point. If it is, and the history details concur with published knowledge and this article, then it probably deserves its place.  Maybe even more than some of the other links here that, perhaps, have not been subject to such a review? I don’t know because I haven’t read through those others. To be frank, it is quite silly that so much effort has been expended on this personal battle between the two of them and this debate over one web link. They could both contribute a lot to make this article a potential featured article. Who knows, they might even become best of friends in developing a fantastic article on a subject that we all enjoy. I will help out with proof reading and trying to make some of the writing flow a little better if that's okay with everyone.