User:Signimu

I contribute to Wikipedia since 2006 by adding, and seldom reverting (hence low edit count).

I am mostly contributing to science and musical articles, although my interests are broad and change over time. I am currently more invested in Wikiversity, as it provides a great complementary platform with a different philosophy, allowing the introduction of scientific concepts via practical tutorials.

My editing methodology is as follows: searching for high quality sources, read them, and then use them to write entries in a WP:BRD fashion. If you disagree with my edits, it means either I am wrong, or you are wrong, or we're both wrong. I never edit entries pertaining to my job or my interests (apart from curiosity ;-) ) to reduce bias. I will always be open to discussion to resolve these kinds of issues, so please feel free to reach to me (if I do not do it first). If nothing else works, please see what to do next in WP:DISPUTE. Tries to stick to WP:Wikilove, but highly dislike WP:BRR, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:ESDONTS.

My own rules of behavior:
 * 1) Rule 1: stick to WP:WikiLove, always remember the goal is to make better articles, no matter the hardships.
 * 2) Rule 2: always avoid discussing when fatigued.
 * 3) Rule 3: always follow Rules 1 & 2!

(Sorry, no fancy boxes here, I am not fond of personality traits categories... But if you really want one, I think I might be a Wikipedia:WikiDragon)

A practical introduction to medical articles edition
For editors new to medical articles editing on Wikipedia, which follows specific more stringent rules different from the rest of Wikipedia, the most useful and quick tips IMO are to 1. watch the intro video below (3min), 2. read WP:MEDHOW or this document for a general outline of how to contribute (10min), 3. then WP:MEDRS to identify reliable sources (20min). All of these links will help in identifying what content is pertinent for Wikipedia.



Tip: if you come from a Wikipedia of another language, you should not assume that the rules are the same!

Also you can (ab)use of internal citation tools (additional tools here), they will make your life a LOT easier (see also the video on the right). Personal tip: always use the PubMed's PMID to cite a scientific work, this will both ensure that the work is referenced in PubMed (which is a positive indication on quality, if it's not on PubMed it's generally a bad sign that this source is not usable on Wikipedia, although there are exceptions).



Often, newcomers (and even experienced editors), and particularly those from academic backgrounds, have issues with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Make sure you read and understand these two very important points. To summarize: you can write only what is written in reliable secondary sources. You can select (the pertinent info), you can reduce/synthesize (to make it more concise and short), but you can't combine (to create a new meaning, even a slight bias)! Make sure what you write is findable, without interpretation nor reasoning, in the source.

Finally, but it's more daunting, read the WP:MEDMOS to know how to format your contributions. If you are an academic working on the topic you are editing on Wikipedia, see also WP:EXPERT. IMO, WP:MEDMOS is less important than having a sourced pertinent content as the formatting can be fixed without any knowledge of the topic (and sometimes even automated) and thus takes much less time, but other editors might think otherwise and revert you. In any case, try to remain calm and patient, follow WP:BRD, remember that WP:PERFECTION is not required, and at worst follow WP:DISPUTE. Contributing to medical articles will become easier over time and experience :-)

Tip for good sources: check that your reference has a PubMed PMID and use that to make a reference using the cite journal tool (this will signal to other editors that this reference is listed on PubMed). If not, check if the publisher is not in WP:CRAPWATCH nor WP:RS/P and has a high enough impact factor (as a rule of thumb, anything lower than 2 is not worth considering for Wikipedia). In case of doubts, check the archive of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Tip for discussions: often, most discussions (and oppositions to edits) will be on the basis of WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (which could be summarized as "mainstream, not fringe"). Knowing and understanding these pages will ensure your arguments will be constructive. Also ensure you comply with WP:COI by clarifying your affiliation on your userpage if you intend to work on articles pertaining to your expertise.

Tip for WP:DISPUTE: follow WP:AGF and try to be concise, save your and others time by avoiding WP:MWOT ;-) Often, the best thing to do is to find higher quality sources per WP:MEDRS and don't forget to WP:PRESERVE :-D

Tip for advanced users: check your gadgets, there are very useful optional tools there (such as ProveIt, eases citations management).

Tip for WP:DISPUTE with WP:BRR and deletionist users: if they don't want to discuss, simply add a tag on the line that is disputed (leave the line to their version), so that they will have to discuss to resolve the matter :-) Great idea from ! Also check WP:1AM sound advices :-)

I wish you an enjoyable collaborative editing experience on Wikipedia full of WP:Wikilove! :-D

PS: of course, Wikipedia is far from perfect and has systemic biases, try to be patient and stick to WP:Wikilove, in the end things tend to get better :-)

Awards
Please also see the wonderful heart-shaped WikiLove plugin|WikiLove at the top right :-D For the very interesting rationale behind, see.

Wikipedia

 * Wikipedia en (+ ip1 + ip2)
 * Wikipedia fr (+ ip1 + ip2)

Wikiversity

 * Major overhaul and "universalization" of the article Reed–Solomon codes for coders (and check out the Appendix with extended source codes!). It was announced on the Main Page News on 2017-07-02.
 * Others: Signimu (+ ip1)

Wikibooks

 * SPM slice order, before there was almost no info on the net (at least not centralized!) for such a critical parameter for fMRI studies!
 * All contributions: Signimu