Welcome to my humble home, I consider it an honor that you stopped by. I don't get visitors very often, so really I'm flattered. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, but I'm quickly falling in love. Since you entered my home, allow me to first bore you with a story that I feel illustrates why I have chosen to stay.

If you would, could I get you read this not yet complete article on Reinhard Sebastian Zimmermann.

This article changed me. Not because it is a particularly compelling article. Not because I'm particularly interested in the subject matter. Prior to this article, I neither knew who this man was, nor had any interest in learning who he was. Then I read the article. I made a couple of text changes (Which is what originally brought me to the article. I was texting out an offline tool that I built for identifying changes to help articles conform to the style guide. Then I noticed the article didn't have any sources. A couple of them seemed pretty easy to find, and sure enough, within a couple minutes, I had a couple of sources to add. But that led to a question, the article said that the author's paintings are on display, but the source that I found said that they are in storage. Does storage count as being on display? Plus, when seeing if my source validated any other info on the article I picked up a little history on the author and what he was trying to convey in his painting. Suddenly, grabbing one little source had opened my mind to a dozen different questions that I wanted to answer.

To me, this illustrates the beauty of contributing to Wikipedia. The pursuit of sources, for me, opens the door to and encourages true scholarship.

Interests

Economics — In case you couldn't tell from the name, I figured I better lay it out pretty straightforward here. I graduated in Economics and consider myself a bit of an economics nerd. Though admittedly, I'm getting a little rusty. One of the things that I love about contributing to Wikipedia, is that in preparing to contribute, I am able to study and then distil down information to a summary that can be easily digested and understood by anyone. I know that I truly understand a subject when I can teach it to someone else. And I know that I really understand a subject when I can explain it to someone through written word.
Programming — Mostly in Python and Javascript, though recently I've been branching out and doing a little in Perl (so I can use the amazing MediaWiki::DumpFile module). And hey, I'm completely self-taught so I find that to be quite the success. I don't really consider myself a true programmer, I have too much of a "hack it together" mentality. It might not always be pretty, but it gets the job done.
Transparency — This comes from my Econ background, good decisions can only be made with good information. If the world was more transparent, I think we would all be better off. One of the things that I love about Wikipedia, is that as a community we strive for fair treatment of all subjects. To me, this is an important form of transparency. As a society, we can not make informed, wise decisions, if we do not have correct, fair and unbiased sources of information. Bias is unavoidable, we all have our opinions and so our writing will always be biased by they conclusions that we have drawn or how we feel. That is what makes the Wikipedia community so important. The closest that we can get to creating an unbiased source of information by achieving a consensus through discussion and collaboration with those who think differently that you. By conversing with, and understanding those who hold different viewpoints, we can overcome the bias of our of own understanding and draw closer to the truth. I commend those who take the time to participate in Talk board discussions for their attempts to first understand truth and ensure accuracy on sensitive topics before declaring their own understanding as truth before the eyes of the world.

Goals

Visibility — Information is valuable and access to great information is even more valuable. I'm hoping to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date on information of all types.
Using Programming for Good — I'm a big advocate of using programming to make lives better. I'm working on a couple of tools on the side to try and help me make Wikipedia content better, faster.

Thoughts on Conflicts of Interest

I think that it is very difficult to avoid writing without having a conflict of interest. Inherently, every person acts in their own self-interest in some way or another. Though some topics are easier to maintain a NPOV than others. For instance, I think that the easiest articles to maintain a neutral point of view in, are those dealing with subjects you know very little about. I find it far simpler to discuss art history with a neutral point of view, for instance, than I do, economics, religion or business, as they are subjects that I am actively engaged in daily and have strong opinions already formed on those subjects.

However, does having conflicts of interest mean that someone should not contribute? No! Those with expertise or an intimate knowledge of a topic should be encouraged to participate in the community. Their active participation, in fact, is essential to ensure that all viewpoints are given fair treatment. Conflict of interest becomes an issue in Wikipedia primarily when those with a conflict of interest refuse to accept the viewpoints that are commonly held by others. I think that those with a conflict of interest (whether of the paid variant or due to personal bias) should still be welcomed to participate in Wikipedia, though they need to do so in a way that will continue to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia as a fair source of information.

It is my personal belief that Talk boards prove an invaluable resource to those with a conflict of interest. Before proclaiming their viewpoints as the truth, there is a medium provided to get input from others and ensure that the majority can come to a consensus about what is fair.

Conflicts of Interest

I greatly appreciate the feedback of other community members in helping me to ensure that contributions are not weighted too heavily toward viewpoints that I hold or conflicts of interest that I may have. For this purpose, I commit to striving to keep this conflict of interest list up-to-date. I further commit on topics that I feel or know that I have a conflict of interest or especially strong bias, that I will discuss any proposed changes on Talk boards. If commentary on talk boards doesn't garner any attention then and only then will I move content that I feel is reasonable and fair to the Wikipedia page, but will still make sure that a note is left on the talk page that I made that specific change in case down the road anyone thinks that my edits on topics of which I have a conflict of interest require revisiting, revising, or removing.

General

Below is a list of topics that I expect to frequently experience a conflict of interest. This is both a declaration for others and to ensure that I am self-aware of subjects or topics I expect to have a conflict of interest or have a difficult time maintaining a fair/unbiased viewpoint.

Economics — I hold a strong bias towards the Austrian School of economic thought. Though I try to maintain an open mind to understand other schools of thought, I doubt that I will be able to provide fair treatment of other schools of thought on Economic Issues.
Religion — Though my religious ideals are largely grounded in the pursuit of truth. So, I don't expect this to be a large issue. I believe that all men have the privilege to worship according to the dictates of their conscience and find viewpoints different from my own fascinating.
Business — Business interest is probably one of most visible places for Conflicts of Interest to arise, and I am no exception. Whether it is through investments, direct payment, or simply a personal preference. I believe that most people if not everyone has a conflict of interest here. I have included a more specific list of companies with which I have a direct conflict of interest and my relationship to them. Note that I do not typically accept solicitations to get a company, product, or other information on Wikipedia. If you have to solicit help getting on Wikipedia, you probably aren't notable enough. See Wikipedia:Notability. Most companies I engage with are companies in which I already have an interest, I already believe are notable, or which I started with by first helping them to become notable.
Cotopaxi — I am not in anyway affiliated with this company. However, I do have an interest in getting the article published. I'm practicing writing articles on subjects that are difficult to maintain a NPOV. I'd like anyone reading my contributions on this company to act as if I am a paid contributor and hold me to the highest level of scrutiny.
iRhythm Technologies — I am not in anyway affiliated with this company. However, I do have an interest in getting the article published. I'm practicing writing articles on subjects that are difficult to maintain a NPOV. I'd like anyone reading my article on this company to act as if I am a paid contributor and hold me to the highest level of scrutiny.
Laurel & Wolf — I am not in anyway affiliated with this company. However, I do have an interest in getting the article published. I'm practicing writing articles on subjects that are difficult to maintain a NPOV. I'd like anyone reading my article on this company to act as if I am a paid contributor and hold me to the highest level of scrutiny.

Paid

Arena Solutions — this company is not yet on Wikipedia. However, they would like to be. I am working with them, but do not yet believe that they meet the Notability requirements to get into Wikipedia. I won't even attempt making an article on them until I believe that they do. I am paid to help manage their online presence and advertising. I am not paid directly to get an article on Wikipedia or to manage their Wikipedia presence.