Cybercobra... give it a rest.  You didn't just consolidate your TODO list, you completely removed all evidence of your focus on me and my organization.  Obviously, it appeared inappropriate to you, or you would have left it.  The fact is, that if my articles needed fixing, amending or deleting, other competent editors are capable of doing so.  You might think that your BOLD stance and following me around makes you a good editor, I submit that it is hounding.

I have edited Wikipedia in the past, but I am a busy man.  Being CEO of a company and president of another doesn't leave a lot of time for going tit-for-tat with people like you.  I can only assume that you don't have a lot of pressing issues.  At any rate, I recommend you recuse yourself from my articles and issues and let other people deal with them if they see fit.  As it stands, you have made editing here unpleasant for me and appear to be going out of your way to undermine me and my organization. (both of which are criteria for wikihounding)

I can't imagine why you would have such animosity for a person who spends the majority of his time helping people for no remuneration.  The articles in question are not self-promotion... we just don't hire people to do this kind of thing like some other charity organisations.  It seems only logical to me that if our contemporaries in hydrophilanthropy and their CEO's warrant articles, than our organization does as well. If there are things that could be improved I am sure some people other than yourself are capable of helping out in that regard.

You say it only takes 2 independent reliable sources?  Well, there are dozens of them, and they are not hard to find, so if you were truly being impartial of your research into Water Charity and myself, you would have found more than enough yourself.  I am guessing the Washington Post, the LA Times, and other news agencies from London to Hong Kong, the AP, Reuters and more are reliable enough. If helping a million people doesn't make us notable, what does?  You do realize that water related illness kills more people than all forms of violence put together... including war.  And yet, there are Wiki pages for military officers who have only appeared in the media a couple of times that you don't seem to see fit to subject to your scrutiny.

I really don't have the time or energy to do this with you though.  If you withdraw your aggressive editing of my posts and go on about your business, I guarantee you that someone else will see what you seem to have seen and take up the torch... if you were right.  I would be happy to learn more about how to do all of this correctly and make my edits and articles better.  But at this point it would be best if it wasn't from you or User:Ism Schism (whose call for speedy deletion of my article was rejected, who you seem perhaps inordinately close to, and who also seems to feel the need to follow me around scant minutes after or before you).  These lessons will have to wait anyway, as I have real work to do.

Should you continue to make me a priority the way you have, I will take this to the appropriate venue for harassment complaints and let them decide.  Erasing me from your TODO list will not cover up what was posted here.  If you retract your attacks, we can erase this entire back and forth and go on about our respective businesses.  If this is not personal or harassment, what do you care anyway?