` ::::::Johnpedia, two quick thngs:  First, Justanother didn't ask me to comment hereI've had no communication with him in weeks (maybe I'll send him a note now).  I just happened to ``eavesdrop`` on your discussion, and it struck me that you might be under the mistaken impression that the problem here had to do with your intra-Scientology standards of civilized conduct.   Yes, if somebody's behavior is objectionable or wrongheaded, you have every right to say something about it.  But this is where you seem not to grasp the concept of civility.  You can and often should comment on their behaviorwhy you disagree with it, how it can be remedied in the interest of the good of the article (or the Wikipedia community).  You should, however, confine yourself to talking about the behavior, not the person.  In other words, it is appropriate to say ``I think your edit made things worse because you removed x and shifted the order of y, and this creates confusion because of z, so I've restored x and propose that we move y to the top of the section.``  It is inappropriate  and counter-productive to say ``you must be an insecure bozo with a shrivelled penis to make such a stupid edit.``  Do you understand the difference?  Your comments are all-too-often closer to example #2.  And while ``wikinazi`` may be ``just a name,`` it completely unacceptable.  `