How can you block me from editing when I don't log into an account to perform edits? I can use MacMakeup to change my MAC address which causes that ISP's routers to assing me another IP address anytime that I want. "This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits." Right back at you bitch. Don't mess with geeks while your online!

Damn. You keep this up and I'll have fun with you!

I don't know if your page was deleted or what, but I find it distressing that your talk is still a redlink. Welcome! Enigma ^message 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're the first person to comment here. Thanks! Switzpaw (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive userpage, by the way. I looked it over before I created the talk, to get a sense of who I was talking to. Enigma ^message 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, that was for templates, but I agree that Macedonia is not confusing when it says "in other countries such as...". That edit was simply one of many disambiguations of Macedonia. Cheers, BalkanFever 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Palin links Re:Hacker. I know I read somewhere that the info hacked was governmental in format...but I can't find it...probably a fringe source. Should I delete so that the reader isn't mislead? I don't want to promote a non-factual rumor.--Buster7 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GO CUBS!--Buster7 (talk) 02

42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Ok, Wired's ThreatLevel blog has had good coverage of this issue, and I believe that ThreatLevel has been discussed and approved as a reliable source. Here are some links with respect to the event:

• (Wired) How the hack transpired: Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy
• (Wired) What was in the inbox: Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account
• (Wired) Background on 4chan/Anonymous "hacker culture": Palin Hacker Group's All-Time Greatest Hits
• (Seattle Times) Controversy about Palin using her private email account for business, dated before the hack: Palin's e-mail secrecy an open secret in Alaska Switzpaw (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the broader issue of notability goes, I think this is well sourced but probably undue weight for the Sarah Palin biography at this point in time. It's hard to tell with recent events. Switzpaw (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little harsh, but I guess I can see your point. I didn't mean to imply a split decision or anything. It's amazing how quick a consensus was reached at MSNBC, that was a great learning experience. Thanks for your participation. Wikiport (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you started the RFC at a contentious time, and the fact that there was crossover at Talk:MSNBC muddled the whole discussion. I reverted your edit mainly because I didn't want people to be misled. Regarding MSNBC -- discussion was brewing there for quite some time, but yes, there was a catalyzing effect that got the ball rolling again. I hope you are sincere in your remark that it was a great learning experience. To be blunt, you have come across as disruptive and not-so-productive, though I understand your frustration with editors who seem very stubborn (though they do a service in maintaining article stability which is often taken for granted). Anyway, good luck in your future endeavours... Switzpaw (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I meant every word of my comment. Although some may argue this; opposing viewpoints are crucial to our survival. I make my living in "making an argument", but it is a breath of fresh air when people agree for the collective betterment. Thanks again, I'll see ya around campus. Wikiport (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you agreeing with? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You. I'll modify my talk page comment to make it clearer. Switzpaw (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment briefly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Book_Banning Right now, the article only says she inquired as to censoring books, without even saying why. That's oversanitizing the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was sincere in my apologies for the misunderstandings, and I hope that the air is clear between us. I see that you have actually answered one of the questions I posted on my talk page.

I would request of you that if you notice an error in any of my actions on Wikipedia please let me know. I do not act out of ill intent, and much prefer collaboration and compromise to the feuding I've endured the last few days. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't want to do the Wikipedia drama shit. If I say "readers can read this other article," I mean just that. It's a bag of worms to try to cover a separate article's topic in one article. You saw that first-hand. If you say you're too lazy to read the other article or references, I'm going to take you seriously and give you a synopsis. I don't want to discuss opinions on an unrelated topic. In my experience, that's where Wikipedia goes to hell. I believe in taking editing seriously, even if it doesn't seem controversial, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure that a certain standard is upheld. Don't take it personally, okay? :) Switzpaw (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for explaining. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]