I've been editing Wikipedia since 2008. I use the site a lot for reference purposes and my edits are a way of giving something back to the project.
I admit to not being a particularly prolific editor, not having a lot of time to devote to it, but I hope to contribute in some small way to the overall success of the encyclopaedia.
I try to improve articles about topics I'm familiar with such as UK railways, payroll, nature and anything to do with the Lake District and Peak District.
I'm a pending changes reviewer. There's often a backlog of these changes awaiting review, and I help out when I can.
Badly-written English is one of my pet hates, so I'm often found copyediting articles to fix problems such as poor spelling or grammar. If I find bad English in any article I read, I try to fix it. I also actively undertake copy-editing of articles which are flagged as requiring this.
Because I believe Wikipedia is a hugely valuable resource, I dislike people who reduce its value by vandalizing it. I revert vandalism whenever I see it, often with the help of Twinkle.
I'm found hanging around the AFD pages on occasion. In my contributions there I try to be objective, since many of the contributors have strong personal views on the articles under discussion and an unbiased view can sometimes be helpful.
I believe short descriptions are helpful, and actively add them to articles in my areas of interest.
I'm a self-confessed WikiGnome! I don't currently have long periods of time to devote to the project so I tend to undertake small maintenance tasks (reviewing pending changes, reverting vandals, generating short descriptions etc.), as those are things I can spend a short period of time on productively.
I believe strongly that my edits have no more validity than those of any other editor. If someone has a different view to mine, that's fine (so long as there's a source to support it where appropriate). This means, for instance, I'll never get involved in edit wars unless obvious vandalism is involved (life is way too short).
I believe that consensus and co-operation will usually produce a better result than conflict. For that reason, I'll never take offence if consensus in a discussion goes against me.
If you disagree with an edit I make, please talk to me about it rather than just reverting. I won't bite!
There are a few subject areas in which I generally don't edit, even to review pending changes, such as:
The Caste system. It's a very emotive topic and one which I know nothing about. I'm not confident I can edit without inadvertently causing offence, which I'd hate to do.
Articles relating to professional wrestling. This topic has its own terminology and the consensus on the structure of these articles differs somewhat from the norm. I'd likely edit in ways which other editors more familiar with the topic would find unacceptable and I don't want to make unnecessary work for others.
Anything related to Palestinians. I live in the UK, where showing support for this group is subject to legal restrictions and where Internet use is heavily policed. I don't know which edits would be acceptable and which might land me in jail, so I choose to not edit at all on this topic.
