Possibly true. If you have engaged in seriously disruptive editing practices (vandalism, libel, etc.) recently, I may have taken notice and made a mental note to follow-up on some of your edits. This is common practice, and is even recommended by Wikipedia Policy in many circumstances. Please don't take it personally, as I have nothing against you; it's the disruptive editing that irks me. If you feel that my extra attention to your edits is unwarranted, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you.

We also may crossing paths because we share an interest in some of the same subjects. If so, hello I am Senator Steve! Nice to meet you, let's be friends! Maybe we can both benefit through a sharing of information and ideas.

You are right! As a general rule, I try to avoid making assumptions. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. As taught to me by wikipedians of elevated standing and poor judgement when I first started editing here, [1][2][3], assuming bad faith is the norm. I will base my 'faith' on available evidence only.

You are mistaken. Please go back to the article in question and review the discussion page. You will find there a perfectly reasonable explanation of my edits. If you disagree with me for any reason, simply explain why on that same discussion page. If we both have the well-being of this Wikipedia project at heart, then we should be able to put any conflict easily to rest.

If our disagreement concerns your edits to a biography of a living person, you should be aware that I will not compromise on issues involving libel or sources.

Wrong. I never have and (barring some technical glich or lag) I never will.

If I have done so, it has been limited, transparent and in a neutral manner. You are allowed to do the same. More eyes on a discussion, and hence more voices contributing, will likely bring good results for all concerned.

No, I am not. You have very likely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I will admit to coming off a bit snarky at times, and I have been known to misjudge the level of informality I can apply to a particular discussion -- but please understand that I meant no disrespect; I intended no ill-will. If you feel seriously slighted, drop a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can't muster up a sincere apology.

You may need to explain in more detail here.

As long as Wikipedia has a 'Watch Article' function, it may certainly appear this way. There are some tests you can run to determine if I own a particular article. (1) Try improving the article. If nothing happens, then you have found an article I definitely do not own. Conversely, (2) Try vandalizing the article. If I promptly revert your edits, then you have found an article I definitely do own.

You may need to explain in more detail here.