How did you improve the wiki today?

Question

I've noticed that, while the Arch Wiki has some very good and very active editors, it doesn't have many of them and they simply cannot do much more than fix what they've already got. Other than new translations, merges, and formatting fixes, there isn't much going on and, more importantly, not much new content being added. This seems to be because the same people edit the wiki day in, day out (no offense to our regular editors) and, of course, have a limited area of subjects they are comfortable with. To encourage new users or even old ones in redoubling their efforts, I thought that this "bragging thread" might be a good idea. The idea is simple: just create a short post in reply to this stating any contributions you have made to the wiki or even contributions you are planning to make. The reasons for this are many:
It will help to encourage other people by seeing the volume of work being done.
You and others can learn from it by discussing any difficulties you have.
It is a good way of keeping track of where the general trend of work is going, and having people talk about their ideas in their own words is much more useful than manically checking and re-checking the "Recent changes" page.
Most importantly, it gives you an excuse to brag about your work.
If you are new to editing the Arch Wiki or wikis in general, here are some documents that could help you:
Help:Editing -- general Arch Wiki editing guide
Writing Article Introductions -- guide on writing article introductions
Writing Article Overviews -- guide on writing article overviews for summaries
ArchWiki Cheatsheet -- a useful cheatsheet for various formatting and style options
If you are unsure about where to start, the list of "Request" categories might be a fertile ground for improvements.
Now that you have everything you need to know, get editing, and don't forget to tell us all about it. Just a few words or a note is fine.

Answer 1

Thank you to everyone who has participated so far, I highly encourage you to keep updating the thread with any meaningful changes (i.e., anything more substantial than changing "teh" to "the"). Even just small formatting fixes might provide information to people reading this thread about good formatting practices. There are also lots of really clever things that you won't see in any editing guides or the cheat sheet. For instance, the keypress tag: {{Keypress|Text}} .
Other examples of good things people never do include:
Adding a summary (it can be a valuable resource for someone just trying to learn about the content of the page and can contain links to useful information).
Using the AUR package tag (f.e. {{Package AUR|broken aur package}} ), which dynamically creates a link to the page for an AUR package.
The note tag (f.e. {{Note|The only useful information on this page.}} ). Using the note tag for a note is a good way of making sure that people will notice it if they are just skimming the page.
By that token, you should also use the warning tag when you have something possibly critical to say about a possible danger (f.e. {{Warning|This fix may make your desktop eat your children.}}
Another good tag is the "tip" tag (f.e. {{Tip|Something copied verbatim from a technical blog.}} ).
Overusing headers. Yes, this is a good thing. Like XML and violence, if they aren't working, you aren't using enough. The table of contents is a valuable navigation tool, and adding even fairly redundant headers can be something that a reader might find useful.
These things are useful for providing valuable information to the reader who, again, might just be skimming the article. Very few people are going to have an in-depth scan of a page consisting of few headers or anything breaking the page up and nothing but miles of block paragraphs, simply on the off chance that it might help to solve their problem. Most people will try to use the table of contents to go directly to whatever section might help them, then will skim through looking for code blocks, tips, notes, warnings, etc., to see if that information is valuable. Once they've ascertained that, they will probably read in more depth.
Remember, it's better to over-format a page than to under-format. One of the advantages of the Arch Wiki (and wikis in general) is their easy readability -- they're good for someone who might just be skimming along looking for an easy fix or relevant information.