It is approximately 9:29 AM where this user lives.
This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Free Errata Sheet.
This editor supports the ARS in its efforts to improve articles to better serve the Wikipedia community.
On systemic bias: To paraphrase what has often been attributed to Edmund Burke...
All that is necessary for a systemic bias to prosper is for good editors to do nothing. We're an English-language encyclopedia, but we gladly include all qualifying topics no matter the language of their sourcing and simply present the topic in English. If due diligence finds coverage, even if only non-English coverage, we DO NOT claim lack of notability or insist on "only" English coverage.
I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. Long story short, it's far better to pro-actively improve weak articles, than it is to ignore them and expect others to do the work.-
Adminship is a personal acceptance of responsibility to the community. It is not authority nor should it be used as authority. It is simply the assignment of certain additional tools that can aid a willing editor in making Wikipedia run smoother.
Within this community, improving articles should never be thought of in the negative, as making Wikipedia a better place for its readers is supposedly the reason we are all here... as Wikipedia is about the readers and not about the editors... and immediatism is not a policy.
"Deletionist"
Unlike the definition of inclusionist, I am not a proponent of broad retention, I do not support the including of articles simply because they might be "harmless", and I do not support the including of articles deemed substandard which are found incapable of future improvement. I am quite willing to nominate something for AFD.
Interestingly, and specially as I quite often opine a delete for substandard or unsalvable articles, no one has ever called me a deletionist.[2] Go figure.
And when I opine at AFDs, whether for delete, or keep, or merge or redirect, or userfy, it's nice that some take my opinion into consideration. [3][4][5]
My own philosophy being that if an article has the potential for improvement, we editors should actually try to improve them as we are able, rather than demand their immediate removal. But for ANY article to flourish.... whether it be FA, GA, or lowly stub... it needs attention and care.
I believe it is important that experienced editors not assume through actions or words that unexpanded or new articles are somehow unsalvable or without merit.
I believe that as a community together, we should do what we can to encourage that articles become better than when we first find them... by our researching and adding sources or cleaning up grammer or correcting style and format... and so give them them time to grow through the course of regular editing.
