I mostly create or contribute to articles that relate to motorsport. I sometimes contribute to articles about history, art and artists, post-war military aviation, and cycling. I sometimes make minor edits to improve grammar, punctuation and phrasing if I happen to spot something. I also keep an eye open for articles that need maintenance of some kind. I try to not to worry about edit counts, but if you do, feel free to click here. My enthusiasm for editing has diminished significantly in the past few months and I no longer contribute regularly.
In the past, I have regularly contributed to help pages, such as NCH and EA/R, and to deletion discussions, but no longer do so. I have at times been active in discussions at the Village Pump and related content in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Observing and taking part in the development process helps to create a better understanding of the end results. I have been asked whether I would consider requesting adminship – the short answer is no, unless there is a significant change in the system. I think that the bureaucrats should be able to offer admin status on a trial basis to any good experienced editor of their choosing, but that has been proposed before and went nowhere.
I favour Deletionism and Immediatism – I like to see new articles made as complete as reasonably possible, with proper referencing. By definition, an encyclopædia should be comprehensive, but it does not have to be complete in its coverage and that means that we do not need an article about every street, bus route, band, film, or other similarly inconsequential things. If an article passes that threshold, but does not meet the standard of verifiability, then it still does not belong here. Accurate and verifiable material is important to the success (or failure) of Wikipedia as a respected and trusted tertiary information resource. If it is to reach its full potential, Wikipedia needs more reliable and neutral material and more good or featured articles. WP is too soft on unverified content.
