User talk:Serouj2000

Blue shell wikilinks

When adding wikilinks to an article, do not chain links to each other to look like one single link, per WP:SEAOFBLUE, like this: The ar cade games. You also went as far to make one word two links to different articles. This only makes reading or navigating to those articles harder. It's not cute, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia, so please stop. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it worked in other wikias, why not here? Serouj2000 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikias are generally built by fans for fans of the topic in question and seldom adhere to basic guidelines on readability, notability, accessibility, and reliable sources. In other words, most other Wikias are generally crap. Wikipedia has a defined manual of style, and its content should be written to be encyclopedic. I called out WP:SEAOFBLUE (twice) specifically because your actions go directly against the MOS-- you cannot just simply do the same actions that other Wikias allow. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is enumeration the better solution? Serouj2000 (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment

See WP:CS and avoid citing bare links (also feel free to use <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|date=|first=|last=|website=|access-date=}}</ref> as a template when citing sources), and also see WP:BADDATE and WP:CURLY. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're using a website that has a "via/source" section, it would be better to cite that source instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hi Serouj2000! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serouj2000,

If an editor reverts your edit or page move, please go to the article talk page to discuss the situation. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E Serouj2000 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Apple M2. Don't go around sprinkling links to YouTube videos. We're all adults here: cite proper secondary sources please. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's literally from Apple's youtube channel, what do you mean "secondary sources" Serouj2000 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you serious? We're here writing an encyclopedia: you should know what a secondary source is. This is primary, meaning it's associated with the company that produces the thing, and the article has been tagged for precisely those problems. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why would a secondary source be more reliable than the horse's mouth? Serouj2000 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what we use. Transcribing youtube videos is a last resort. Generally from what I have seen the race to put the very latest information (and often leaks, which we definitely don't include) in tech articles brings in a lot of inexperienced editors and foreign language editors (to provide context for what I run into), and there is no need to race to put in the latest information. See WP:NOTNEWS. Until there is reliable secondary source coverage of a breaking event, we don't need to cover it. So I googled when you first made the edit, saw nothing mentioned, and reverted it, knowing the WWDC was ongoing but not bothering to check the actual keynote itself. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WWDC is ongoing, but the keynote is finished Serouj2000 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. No need to argue over this, two experienced editors are telling you how things are done. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. Still makes 0 sense Serouj2000 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Read pronounced like red) Serouj2000 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a you problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, and hear me out, a secondary source, no matter how reliable it is, can report half the full story or straight up lie. Serouj2000 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to re-litigate longstanding Wikipedia policy. In addition to WP:CITE and WP:Citation templates, please thoroughly read WP:RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yall did relitigate how references worked, considering it used to be just ^[1] Serouj2000 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you arguing about everything? Reminds me of some blocked tech article editors. Maybe the topic just attracts the behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

points at that one time a bloomberg reporter claimed something and the company the report is on denied it Serouj2000 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seriously going to argue about WP:RS I think your Wikipedia career will not go well. Why argue with me about it? I can't change it either. I get the feeling you haven't read it. Also check out WP:SOURCE. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you know I haven't read either, how exactly? Serouj2000 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are arguing with me on your talk page about a policy neither of us can change and which isn't going to change, rather than listening to what you need to learn if you want to edit Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna do this that way, the new version sources apple.com, which is technically a primary source Serouj2000 (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as Drmies indicated these articles are garbage. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But fine. Is this a better source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23743528/apple-mac-pro-m2-ultra-chip-features-specs-price-release-date-wwdc-2023 Serouj2000 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, The Verge is a reliable second source. Please review WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates for how to include that information. As a rule of thumb, any information added to a tech article should be cited. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, the Mac Mini did get a M2 version along with M2 Pro. Why did that have to go Serouj2000 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You messed up the formatting in your edit for the template at the top. That's why we don't rush to include information. There is no rush. What you had looked like this:

M2 Max: Notebook (MacBook Pro), desktop (Mac Studio)

M2 Ultra: desktop

i.e. you omitted what you wanted to mention, Mac Pro. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't how M2 or M2 Pro are Formatted Serouj2000 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't quote anything about "M2" or "M2 Pro". —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used a format similar to how those two were written, which wasn't the way you described Serouj2000 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't know what you're talking about regarding M2 or M2 Pro. This edit here [1] has a mistake. It ends in "desktop". I originally typed formatting because I thought you had just misplaced a <br /> but I saw that that you just left out Mac Pro (I assume). Just saying, no rush, take the time to get it right. Also don't WP:EDITWAR. And now that I have your attention, you need to use WP:EDITSUMMARY with every edit to article space, and a section heading automatic summary (→‎ Section) is not adequate. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left it out because both computers that used the M2 Ultra (Mac Studio and Mac Pro) are desktop computers Serouj2000 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you didn't understand the formatting and nature of what you were editing. The part to omit would probably be the "desktop" if anything, since there is no "notebook" to contrast with, rather than a list of what actually uses the chip. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (url)

Your recent editing history at Apple M2 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest laying off that article for 24 hours because I will report you if you undo what someone else has done again. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just fixing incorrect info in the last one Serouj2000 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That matters how? Presumably one always thinks one is "fixing incorrect info" when one reverts someone else. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, the Mac Mini was completely missing in the M2 computers section, and the release date for M2 Ultra was shown as June 5, as if Apple said either of the computers was coming out today, which is not true Serouj2000 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last one was not a revert at all Serouj2000 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change someone else's edit on that page again today and find out. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not changing the references to apple.com until tomorrow. Serouj2000 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now you understand.

There is no urgency to update this or any other article with the latest information. It will still be there tomorrow. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're gonna put me on WP:ANI, go ahead. Serouj2000 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting frustrated

While I think things mostly went as they should, I'm sorry for becoming frustrated with you. I'm glad you didn't seem discouraged from coming back the next day and continuing onward with the editing. Hopefully you can look past the somewhat confrontational nature of our encounter and take anything useful out of the information. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to the best of us Serouj2000 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kirby's Star Stacker, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna revert the revert. I don't want to start an edit war. I'm gonna add a source. Serouj2000 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Everything

Nintendo Everything is an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS - please stop using it as a source. Waxworker (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware. I won't cite them as a source again. Serouj2000 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (url)

[1]