Hello. I do not see a point in writing about my interests and activities on Wikipedia here as it would easily go out of date, and anything is easily inferred from my editing history. I have no plans to edit Wikipedia in the future - I will take each day as it comes.

Google "von Manstein hard-working idiot". The idea is that hard-working idiots are destructive. This applies to Wikipedia editors as well, in that well-intentioned edits can have a destructive effect on the quality of an article. Quite often, edits will be both constructive and destructive. I don't know where the balance should lie in wishing that an edit had never been made, or should be reverted.

Wikipedia articles are read by millions. Therefore, the effort an editor puts into an edit is of very little value. I think if an edit has major problems, but does improve the article in some ways, such as by adding new information, the edit should be reverted with indifference to the editor's hurt feelings and they should try again to fix the problems.

One thing that gets on my nerves is disregard for structure in articles. The prose in articles should flow smoothly. We do not need caveats, parentheses, exceptions or cross-references all over the place.

I have a nihilistic view towards rules - they are a means to an end only. Often when Wikipedia policies are referred to on talk pages they are not brought up productively, but in order to further an agenda or for other motives.