i contend that in the first section yes legalese makes a valid point that he does majorly include points to support his edits also but my assertion that the second section be civil iaf is meant solely for a personal attack it merely has the cloak of redundant information i e which was already posted earlier by legalese in another section and its main aim as the title itself suggests is to lecture me about what he percieves is civility on this legalese definitely deserves a warning again i may repeat that i have dealt with utmost consternation and with due respect while mentioning the hon'ble sc my opinion on the judgement which may qualify as contempt of courtsomething which legalese has not and probably does not even bother to looking on the talk page the purpose of repeatedly levelling baseless charges of contempt of court despite my clarification on the same in the talk page earlier is beyond my comprehension the charge that i am not being a good editor can only be levelled as a matter of opinion only which i too can leve back at him and not as a complaint because legalese is not an admin has no authority has had no authority on wikipedia on matters related to the judgement of the quality of articles and even final arbitration on what constitutes as good editing or objectionable behaviour his lecture to me on civility that too publicly on a talk page and not on my user page is itself very appaling to me who has been contributing to wikipedia since more than a year now what is even more appaling is his assumption of a role as the moral guardian and as someone who discerns the quality of edits for attempting to accuse me of and impose the norms of civility and that too incongruous on a talk page of an article and not personally on my own talk page legalese deserves a warning besides i never said that i find the word war offending to me on part of legalese so an unconditional apology on my part does not arise at all