Hello, Pigman,

I recently requested a copy edit from the League of Copy Editors and noticed that your name is included on the list of participants. At this writing, Jimmy McAleer, a B-class biography of an old-time American baseball figure, is in the peer review process. So far, all reviewers have suggested that the article is ready to send to the GAC. A couple of them recommended that I send it straight to the FAC. Before considering the latter, I would like to ensure that the article is as clean as possible. I'd greatly appreciate any time you're able to devote to it. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Whenever it's convenient, I'd certainly appreciate your help. Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again, for your offer to copy edit Jimmy McAleer. Since then, I've received assurances from other reviewers that the prose is fairly clean. I'm aware that the League of Copy Editors is dealing with a huge backlog of requests. So, I removed my request from the list to make way for contributors with more urgent concerns. Once again, thanks for getting back to me. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salix alba. Mattisse 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much finished for the day .. and yes, I am an inefficient edior. Your casing your editors eye over spellings, grammar etc is probably needed and will be appreciated.

Thanx ahead, in anticipation. Bruceanthro (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would liketo request FULL protection for the Christmas article. There is an edit awr that I would like to see stopped. RC-0722 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party as usual; you've already cleaned up the other well-wishers' comments into an archive. Still, best wishes. Soon you will understand the janitorial metaphor all too well. If you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Stupid mistakes are par for my admin education but I daresay I've also learned a bit. Cheers, Pigman☿ 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will certainly drop you a line if something comes up. Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig Sandnes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pigman. I was advised to ask you for an outside opinion on an ongoing dispute over at Reproductive rights, regarding documentation and whether or not a statement is fact and how it should be attributed. If you have the time, your thoughts on these matters would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast response. I hope it's fair to qualify my tone and behavior on the talk page by stating that this dispute is part of a protracted pattern that seems to have developed from an RfC at Talk:Circumcision, through Talk:Female genital cutting, and now here. Phyesalis (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just didn't want you to think that the Talk page was an example of how I start out my usual interaction. I'm only asking for your opinion on the issues as stated in the overview. Please take your time, I appreciate the thorough approach. Phyesalis (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I'm disengaging for a short while from the discussion on RR. I have a different perspective than Blackworm, but I'm not going to address it at this time. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to reply here (or my talk) or on RR's talk (upon request). Thank you for your continued efforts in this matter. Phyesalis (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thinking out loud was no problem. If nothing else, it has bolstered my faith in the wiki process. I agree that the article would be better served if Blackworm would concentrate on creating a neutral section for that particular POV. You are most correct, he has a point. I've invited him to contribute sourced content to that POV numerous times (specifically mentioning how this would make the lead issue so much more approachable). I too see a need for that info to be included if the article is to address all notable issues equitably. I have never had an objection to the inclusion of reliable material to that effect.

Stepping back has provided me some time to go over various guidelines and essays and dealing with particular behaviors. I see now that I have added fuel to the fire by not taking more appropriate actions earlier. I should not have fed the local fauna. I should have asked for a third opinion after my second "stepping back" and attempts to compromise failed to yield productive results. But after he accused me of canvassing in the midst of my latest stepping back at RR, he followed me to Talk:Genital modification and mutilation and posted this. I'm just over it. I'm now abstaining from discussion and editing on 4 pages but he keeps moving into other pages I edit, starting issues like the one here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies#Neutral Wikiproject?. I'm thinking this has become more than a single issue, one that cannot be resolved by an article RfC. Phyesalis (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi piggy, just wanted to thank you for all your work keeping the tallies accurate on my RfA. Hope new year is treating you well. --Salix alba (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In [this] recent User Talk page message, you said to another editor that I have "a point as well as an obvious POV in relation to this article," the article being Reproductive rights. I would like you to please expand on precisely what you believe my obvious point of view in relation to the article is, and what specific things I said to give you that impression. I would appreciate a response here or on my Talk page. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman, I came back here in order to strike a warmer tone with you, feeling that my comments may be interpreted as an attack. However, I discovered a disturbing post by you in your User space. You were responding gleefully (until I read the following, I fully supported your attitude) to having your User page vandalized, as a mark of valor, if I'm not mistaken. You were making fun of the vandals. You wrote (about the vandals):

I sense a pattern here. These boys (I think it's safe to assume they are male)[Emphasis mine -BW] apparently believe I would be offended by being called gay or by saying I have sex with men.

— User:Pigman/Bon mots

I think that display of sexism (referring to presumed males as the diminutive boys -- can you imagine someone referring to a presumed female editor as a girl in Wikipedia?) and gender bias (assuming vandals are male), even in jest, is entirely inappropriate, especially coming from a Wikipedia administrator. The fact you appeared, at the request of an editor in the Wikiproject Gender Studies to help resolve a dispute in a gender-related article seems doubly disturbing. In any case, could you please remove or rephrase consider removing or rephrasing [-BW] the comments I believe have no place in Wikipedia that are in your User space? Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]