` As  could be clearly read here, I wasnt asking for any unblock, but to talk to Tawker, so unless you had the intention to contact him for me, or to contact me directly I dont see why you have put your finger in it. Please any other admi coming here, do not remake the same mistake and give my smoke signals further to the rigth target: Tawker. I dont care about being unblock, I do care about being treated as a person and been given acomment and else that outsiders dont mingle in a case that they do not know a single thing about. Being reverted for not adering 100% to all mormons theories is in my view a direct attack to the first amendement. Here are some proove for what I have advanced in some of my edits (I have edited from the 10th of june 2006 in the evening to the 14th of june 2006 in the afternoon, with being subject ton unfounded personal attacks and reverts without explainations from my first edits. Both from other editors (all mormons) and from administrators who were also mormons. As you are not an administrator and not the one this edit VERY VISUALLY is adressed to, so you should have step away or contact the person himself to ask him to take a look here. your actions in that case are counter productiv Pgk and waist my time and place in wikipedia.  Try to bode for this or use it as a learning stuff for future times. Do not make the mistake of using your previous type of experiences in vandalism as a stonehenge model for all situations. Take into account the basis and what actually occured in the case at hand and that the people who generated personnals attacks against me did it without having been subject to such on my part, and only by assuming things about me who werent true. Even when confronted with that fact they pursued their personal attacks in form of racism and accusing me of lying and calling me a troll, and all their edits stating those have not been removed nor do those editors have been sanctioned nor even warned. Most probably because they appeal to mormon administrators to begin with. I have written contributions in only 2 days, before all were reverted without explainations. That i was blocked on the basis of NPA is a cynical joke, as I thad tried for days to make the other editors to stop agressing me ´by answering my edits with personal attacks and to instead adrees the content of those edits. I have in all my answers to them specifically and always adress the contain of their edits directly and accuratly, that it had contain also similarity with personal attacks has to be seen in the ligth that their edits were made of 90% of personal attacks and false allegations about my motives and source of informations, thought i had clearly stated what those were several times, and even was falsly citated on words and sentences I had never uttered! The feeling of being done wrong was growing for each of those unfounded attacks, and instead of getting clear and founded and logical responses, I was confronted with further illigetimates handling as a pseudo archiving of the talk page where all edits, incl the 4 th last, had been removed, and the talk page was left blanck, and was officialy choosen to dont reply to my first edit, who was never adressed, meaning its contain and not me as a person. The last edit written by me had been deleeted from the archive and the historic, which I didnt accept, as I know it was against wiki rules. No explainations nor warning were given nor the possibility to contact the admi who had done so as on his talk page he pretended to be on holyday until the end of june wich I found odd as he had done those actions a couple of hours ago. Nobody being there to can talk that matter through with, nor any others being named to take over, and no plausible explanations being given for doing those hidden reverting of the page, I took the initiative to reinteger the last 4 edits in the actual empty talk page, as mean to pursue the communication and arrived at a propper reaction regarding the contain of my contribution and not personal attacks against me nor disuasiv terror actions being made against me. I argued about it and explained my actions abundently both before I did it, and at the end of those, with a clear stand point concerning my worries about the freedom of expression being severely enfringe in wikipedia and the danger of letting this type of actions going on without control, as well as seeing wikipedia getting too onesided on a relevant amount of articles.  I hope this clarified some point and i didnt appreciate being bulled nor sanctioned by an admi who officially recognised not having read the edits he removed and reverted and archived, nor having read my explaination for reinserting some of those from the archive to the talk page, and also being warned and threatened and banned from an admi, the same, who didnt look at all at the contain of any of my edits nor look upon what happen in the course of only 3 days, for reasons that I was complaining about concerning the other users, and all that on the basis of what he heard other say to him, and not on the basis of his factual experience with the case. In short he give a judgement and sentence and executed it without having read the case. It is unacceptable, and extreeme and trigger extreeme reactions. Anything else will be ignoring human behaviour and elementar psychology as aperson under stress and attacks from several sides and unfairly and unequaly treated will have to shout louder in order to be heard and will feel the urge to do so especially if none is listening nor taking this persons views nor the facts at hand into account. Ignoring and pretending like if things as otherwise is the worse form for insult and agression, and a real psychological attack. To say it very clear: If you didnt have beat me, I will not have scream nor feel pain. Denying to have ever beaten me, is a form of psychological torture, and I do hope that wikipedia policy do not support this kind of behaviour, and should begin to at least recognise this fact and to take it into account in the future evaluations of conflicts. I have seen that it is often the vandaliser who accuse the victim of vandalism in wikipedia and that many users and admi are very bad at distinguish between calculated and planed tactical psycho war to trigger specifics responses in order to ban or eliminate a person, and the persons who trigger the buttons of this war. They often are misleaded and become active participants of this psycho war, helping the real vandaliser to achieve their plans instead of amening a solution to a problem. Their actions often fired even more an already infected situation. I will not use this case here as an exemple, but more as a mini model of such, and will not either generalised to all types of conflict nor all kind of vandalism actuated on all wikipedias articles and talk pages. I just have witness som specific reaction and action patterns who are in my meaning encouraging good manoeuvers and manipulators to do more of the same, and serve as splendid models of battle work for future replication of the same, at the service of ex and future unpunished vandlaiser, who even often end up being gratified for their actions!!! BUT, in the process, it is always possible to see, at some points, that something is wrong, and that all is not as  it seems, but admi having already given in and being often alredy part of it, have difficulties at coming out of it, and setting a critical eyes on whats going on really as it will imply critisising themselves. Not that people are unable to do so, but it is often more difficult to do so one oneself for many, specially when adrenaline is up, tension is mounting, admis have already taken side, and in many cases the persons are involved with several other things or articles or other conflicts at the same time. The time and ressource factor is here often a big limit. One will have a tendency to jump where the gear is lowest and oversee even central things. That was this problem and the consequences of it in matter of freedom of expression and justice , as wiki justice, and equality and protection of neutrality, inside wikipedia as a whole that I have tried to expose on the talk page but also and specially outside, before participating in the mormons talk page at all, by sending several emails to members of wikipedias board, to drag people attention on it. It is more part of a general changement of attitude toward the freedom of expression, gaining several countries, than just a specific to wikipedia only thing, who is the cause of such problems.But nonetheless those issues need to be urgently taken up at wikipedias top, for evaluation and to see what can be done to avoid it in the future. I know wikis ressources are limited and that the number of admi is also restrained, but I do hope that the problem by its repercussions, will be taken up seriously and soon enougth to avoid an escalation of it in wiki, conducting at the end to the abrogation of wikis most basic principles in all wikipedia. Voilá. Hope you, reader, can now see where I come from and go to, and that something will happen in that field because of what I set into motion now, and if so, it will be my best contribution to wikipedia, and people at large. I have until now only meet narrow point of view, but here are some professionals stuff about this freedom of expression problem that has infected wiki since short ago (but more than a year at least). ``The group [Reporters Without Borders] evaluates how well the world's nations respect freedom of the press. Finland, Iceland, and the Netherlands are the top three, while North Korea, Cuba, and Burma are at the bottom. Canada is ranked tenth. The U.S. is 137th (of a tot