" 
 ==Making this personal == 
 It was not my intention to make this personal. I considered your comment regarding what ""Most of us manage"" fell under the category: ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"". My first interaction with John from Indgeon was when he turned up at my talk page. In a subsequent exchange he told me ""you should keep your damn mouth shut"" ...and yet he is complaining so soon about another editors incivility?    
 :Whatever your intention, it was personal, and I resent the implicit comparison you drew between the highly uncivil editor under discussion and my conduct.  As for John from Indegon, if you want to call him out on his hypocrisy, do it at his Talk page. If you think the observation will advance the discussion at ANI too,make the point and quit. Don't instead sabotage reasonable discussion among editors who are just trying to help, and with whom you have no history at all.     
 ::There is a huge difference in pointing out to someone who comes into a help forum, blatantly gives someone advice that is about as wrong as it could be for the subject matter, then comes at you like you have done something wrong by pointing it out to him, ""if you don't know the right answer, you should keep your damn mouth shut, or better yet, admit it and ask someone who does"".  Not exactly what he has painted for you here. And no comparison to you calling a vandal a vandal, or to the subject of the ANI calling another editor stupid.  
 ::He had advised a brand new editor at the Teahouse to move her article from AfC, implying that the AfC reviewers don't know what they are talking about, to mainspace by cut and paste.  I had an admin clean it up by asking for assistance at AN, and I pointed out to him directly that was the wrong answer, why it was the wrong answer,  and that he isn't helping anyone by giving wrong answers at a help forum.  He tried to defend his advice and I responded with the exact policies involved and the quote above.  It may not have been the best way to approach another editor, but it seemed right for this editor and he has confirmed that with his behavior at ANI.   
 :::Here's what I know:  With Michigan watchlisted, I noticed a reversion accompanied by an uncivil edit summary.  I made an entry to that effect on the user's Talk page and watchlisted that too.  By that means I became aware of the ANI discussion opened by John from Indegon, and there added my own observation that the subject editor does, in fact, appear to be uncivil.  I don't care about the rest of this except insofar as it sheds light on Markwpalmer64's behavior and attitude - and I have yet to see that it does.     

 == From Markwpowell64 == 

 John: Again this is the first msg of the sort I've sent in Wiki. If I knew how to ""shut off"" my talk page I would. If this silliness continues I will simply deny Wiki my legion factual corrections, leaving Wiki that much more the poorer and less credible. You people who seem to hate or at least disdain facts (the basis and font of journalistic and academic credibility) and subordinate them to *unsupported* egos  and snarl at an editor who puts facts first and occasionally makes condign, overdue observations on the incompetence, negligence and/or other forms of decrepitude of other ""editors""  are not best advancing or, on many or most occasions, at all advancing Wiki. 

 The only thing in your note with which I agree is that size v. alpha order for those states is not a factual/correction issue, and should not be the point of a serious back-and-forth as would be necessary with, say, some lunatic ""editor"" insisting and continually re-posting that, say, John Glenn was first person rather than first American in orbit. (I don't pick that example randomly. An important governmental entity inside the D.C. Belt insists that lunatic notion [no Gagarin; no Titov] is actually true, and has long fanatically refused to correct it in a glass-enclosed public ""educational"" display. Such examples are massively legion [read, thousands] in my files, with ""top"" and ""leading"" academic and journalistic sources.)   

 I challenge you or anyone who knows how to follow such things to examine my complete record of Wiki factual corrections  you can eliminate mere conceptual/organizational tiffs such as in ""Michigan,"" and the uncounted mere typos, spelling errors, etc. corrected  and factually chal