User talk:Mr.POV


 * Moved from Talk:Britney Spears per WP:TPG

Kirk, your reply entirely misses the point. The wiki policy is that parties to the dispute should not be protecting the page in question. How hard would it have been for you to ask another admin to protect the page? You are abusing the policy and when that is pointed out to you you change the subject. As a question for others, where is the appropriate wiki venue in which to report abusive administrators? Kirk needs a timeout and/or an intervention. Mr.POV 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was properly reprimanded for my page protection (and, I'm probably the only one who has not changed the subject, returning to it instead when others attempt tangential arguments). The current sprotect was done by another admin in response to the recent vandalism spree. That my enforcement of policy should warrant a "timeout" is patently ludicrous; if you still feel I'm being abusive in any way, feel free to contact another admin or file a request for comment. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kirk, you don't get it, or won't admit it. 1) You were not enforcing policy.  You were violating policy.  2) Neither you nor I are qualified to judge our own POV/NPOV efforts.  Only an outsider can judge someone else's POV/NPOV efforts, and even that is inexact due to the nature of inherent biases.  3.  Having been disciplined once for a gross abuse of wiki admin power, it seems entirely justified that you should recuse yourself from this discussion. Mr.POV 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your characterization is 100% false, and you know it&mdash;among other things, I was not "disciplined", nor was my action "gross" under any possible definition of the word. That the person who wrote the potentially libelous "Spears is a rational effective adult making tons of money and getting much PR by purposefully exposing her slit, to not mention this utterly destroys any credibility the Wikipedia once had" wants me to self-recuse demonstrates the real meaning of "you don't get it, or won't admit it." RadioKirk (u|t|c)  00:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the diff between "a proper reprimand" and "disciplined?" Abuse of power is not "gross?"  You must luv teh bushies!  Why would I recuse myself? I acknowledge upfront that I have a POV.  My name is Mr.Pov, but RadioKirk, you're the one that believes you are Mr. NPOV, yet you BOTH take very POV actions as well as edit the article involved.  Shebus.  Me?  I just write on the talk pages about your clear and present and dangerous POV.  So what is potentially libelous about what I wrote?  You don't think she is rational? effective? making tons of money?  getting much pr?  I guess you think she isn't purposefully exposing her rottencrotch, which is why she made that mistake three nights in one week (that act from the singer of "Oops! I did it again!", a song about her purposefully, rationally, effectively, using her sexuality to toy with others) Have you been to her website recently where she writes "I guess I took my new found freedom a little too far".  What does that suggest to you apart from purposefully exposing the gash to one and all?  And then for notability?  We have many wikipedia subjects chiming in on Ms Spear's spear catcher.  Camille Paglia foo thinks its relevant in how it affects feminism, how it effects Paglia's work, and how it reflects changes in Hollywood's star system.  Ann Althouse thinks its relevant for similar reasons.  These are both noted cultural observers.  Idiots sure, but widely quoted as cultural observers.  So what dear RadioKirk was it I said then that was potentially libelous?  In fact, the only potentially libelous comments here are yours, where you smear my good name, by suggesting I wrote potentially libelous material.  Do the honorable thing Kirk, your NPOV abuse is disgusting so recuse yourself and reclaim your cred. Mr.POV 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Spears is a rational effective adult making tons of money and getting much PR by purposefully exposing her slit" is a direct quote from your post here, since removed, is potentially libelous, regardless of whether you choose to admit it. Further, Us magazine is a tabloid, and I've never heard of Ann Althouse and I've been in the news business for 13 years. It's time for you to retire this username&mdash;its cred never existed.
 * I was reminded of admin etiquette; "discipline" would have involved a temporary removal of admin responsibilities.
 * Now, back to Wiki guidelines, the second point of Talk page guidelines reads, with emphasis intact, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." As such, I will be moving this to your talk page, where it belongs. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Username
As per Wikipedia's username policy, this account has been blocked from editing due to inappropriate choice of username (see, on that policy page, under "Inappropriate usernames" where it says "Wikipedia terms" are not allowed). Please select another username that complies with the Wikipedia username policy. Thank you. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)