Contrary to a popular stereotype about computer specialists, I don't spend all my time online. I'm not involved in any kind of Wikipedia projects, but because I consult Wikipedia articles every now and then, I feel that I owe the encyclopedia feasible improvement. My normal practice is therefore to edit any article I read which can be given obvious immediate improvement: spelling, grammar, content duplication, formatting, links, headings, vandalism and so on. That's why my contributions are so fragmented and seemingly random. I add new content to articles only when I immediately know what's missing, such as an item on a list.
I respect Wikipedia's rules and follow them to the best of my knowledge. If you find me breaking a rule, please assume that it was unintentional, and that I'm willing to recognize and correct my mistake if it's explained to me.
To stay clear from conflict of interest, I avoid editing articles about my company, its products, competitors and anything closely related to those (although spelling and grammar can be a reasonable exception). However, it's worth to mention just in case that my edits don't represent the views and opinious of my employer. I also try to avoid editing articles with much controversy around them, such as those on hot geopolitical topics, religion, or any article with an ongoing edit war. Even an innocent spelling correction is sometimes seen as taking sides, of which I have no intention.
