"

 Problem with the Fundamentals Discussion - This Was Already Erased Please Investigate 

( minutes after posting this it was erased) check it out. this is very suspicious and unethical by the parties involved. senior management (if in existence) asked to investigate)

````Please do not block me for trying to improve the integrity of the article.
Hello, My name is JohnHistory. I was recently blocked for my mentioning of major problems here because I did not assume ""Good Faith"" when confronted with bad faith. I believe that the biggest problem with this article and thus the best way to improve it is to intensely follow the Jimbo guidelines to the T. I am going to post what I wrote on my talk page after being blocked during the controversy here. I could be more covert in my contempt for violations especially given my long but yet humble ranking amongst the Wiki Elite but abusing editors and monitors must be accountable or we will always suffer from their petty tyranny. This surely does not make me popular amongst them, yet I must assume ""good faith"" in them so that they will not prejudice their views against me and comfort their own politics in the process.
I was accused of supporting things I never did. All I ask is that criticism be included on par with other presidents. That is all. I don't especially care about Rev Wright, etc but if it is historical record and part of historically long campaign then I will stick my neck out for it.
I have to say that the amount of bashing of media and talk that has nothing to do with improving the article is highly tolerated if it is left leaning but anything even center of that is treated with heavy hand and often banished and erased. that is what struck me about the discussion page - mind you I never made an edit on the actual article I was banned for merely talking on a talk page. it was the idea that these so called monitors are in fact just random non scholars at home abusing the tools of wikipedia to further their almost personal agenda in a group- think environment.
Thin skin is no excuse for being literally fascistic in your approach to the open to the public - controlled by a small group of ideologues - Wikipedia. These political minding ideologues are 80-100% dominated by left wing or leaning people and controlled through even the excessive use of blocking for discussion posts and factual additions. These (not just mine) are non threatening non- offensive language - just the idea of one stating that their is a problem with the editors and monitors is cause to be blocked and potentially banned for not ""assuming good faith"" or ""positively contributing to the consensus"". what if the consensus is wrong then? What if about if you have already assumed Good Faith long ago and are simply diagnosing the major illness of the article as you see it? The evidence is more then abundant that these monitors are violating their tools and are involved in subterfuge or at least strong bias as evidenced between comparing Obama with W Bush. Additionally, the Obama Administration through proxies, in my strong opinion, is at work in the Obama article. I say this mainly because it is inconceivable to me that given the current administrations use and celebration of all things internet and aggressive pursuit of media outlets and shaping the publics opinion (as is understandable) that someone out of the thousands of Obama connected likely people is not involved on the Barack Obama page. It is the most visited page on Wikipedia and is one of the top hits for people searching the internet for the name Barack Obama. However, that is secondary to the already abundant supply of ideologue editors and monitors who seem to fill the demographic of the wikipedia junior officer ranks who enough of is all that it really takes. The number of those is in the millions. That is Why Jimbo guidelines must be followed as an example of the integrity of wikipedia as a REAL encyclopedia that could stand out in a scholarly work. The language given the Rulers of Wikipedia gives them broad ability to block and ban anyone they disagree with. OFten the language is contradictory. For instance I was blocked for my comments on the TALK page and cited for ""Making a point instead of wanting to edit"". How, exactly, do you make a TALK page based discussion about edits without making a point? Another monitor told me I had to assume good faith, yet no good faith was given to me in my quest to improve article. In addition, the ""TALK"" page says no writing will be allowed that involves ""general discussion"" however that can be loosely interpreted and it could for instance only be 5% of what you wrote and then be grounds by a prejudiced monitor to remove your entire sections containing many posts. Additionally, the last guideline about general talk is only applied to people making comments critical or potentially scandalous to the President o