The following essay/article is for any editors who have come to my page in response to any edit or comment I have left on their articles or pages.

I often peruse the New Articles on Wikipedia for biographical articles, tagging them for WPBiography project appropriately. As well, when viewing a new article I tend to leave some helpful tags for future - namely {expand} and {unreferenced}. I usually leave these as friendly reminders since articles do sit at an undeveloped state for weeks, months, even a year or so. This is so you, or another editor who happens upon the article, is aware that the article needs expansion. I do not believe that having the article merely tagged as a Stub is enough to initiate people into motion as much as a notice across the top of the page will.

I do not go about Wikipedia on a witch hunt seeking down to remove specific articles for removal. I treat every article on an article by article basis, and in cases where I feel the article may not encyclopedic I send it off to AFD so that the community can decide its fate; not I. I do not mean offense should it be one of your articles, and rest assured I do run a subject through some searches before deciding if AFD or a {prod} is appropriate. By all means, contest!

I know I am human and may make errors or miss some details when reading through an article - it is my hope you understand that I am specifically targeting your article out of some blind hatred, but rather I am putting the decision in the hands of the community at Wikipedia. In some cases doing so has initiated other editors to expand the article or fill in what was missing before. I think these are wonderful opportunities and in some cases can save an article.

I try to reply to every message possible I recieve here on Wikipedia (or via e-mail), but I do have a real life with a full-time job with four hours of commuting every day - so patience, please! I never ignore anyone intentionally (after all, this is a collabortive project, communication is essential).

When also checking recent changes, when I see whole chunks of an article removed without an edit summary, I assume vandalism and revert.

I do not dislike anyone on Wikipedia, and voting on RFA's are tough - they can, on occasion, cause divides between editors. Please know that I do not vote based on any personal bias, but ignore edit counts, review all of your contributions (mostly seeking edit summaries) and other criterion.