ZeroAlpha87

Good day, and welcome to my user page. I shall refine this when I get chance between edits, but what follows will do for now, I reckon.

I like accuracy, brevity and clarity, and strive for these things above all else. I firmly believe that, if more people were to put time and thought into their written endeavours, the world would be well on its way to being a better place − why say something in ten words if it can be said in one? In this regard, I must ensure that I practise what I preach; I understand that.

I do not think that 'that's the way it's always been' is a good enough reason for keeping anything as it is, unless it was right from the beginning. Conversely, I do not like change for change's sake, but I am prepared to accept it when the need arises, even if this goes against my personal tastes. I am not of the 'cut my nose off to spite my face' demographic, stifling progress just to prove a point.

I think that, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly − after all, why waste your precious time on doing half a job, which is bound to create more work later, often for others, which is, in itself, selfish, when better planning could prevent this?

I do not like empty edit summaries, and have learnt the hard way that it pays to consider what is written before clicking 'Publish changes', as non-constructive reasons can be inflammatory, and lead to unnecessary bad blood. I also do not like subjective reasons, such as 'fine as it was', being attached to edits, particularly by editors that appear to believe that they own certain articles; irrespective of how much work they have put into them, or whether the articles have 'GA' status, *nobody* should be judge, jury and executioner. Until there is a 'PA' or 'perfect article' status, there is room for improvement from us all.