User talk:Loved2001

Edits to cheese articles[edit]

You have changed the infoboxes of a number of cheese articles. On several I checked, your edits were incorrect. They also included no sources. For example, your edits claim that Ragusano and Pecorino di Filiano are not aged, which is incorrect according to their PDO. You also claimed that Pecorino sardo contains no protein or fat, which is absurd.

Given the pattern of incorrect and unsourced edits, I am reverting all your cheese edits. --Macrakis (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loved2001: I've noticed problems too. Some of your infobox edits are contradicted by the articles. I've reverted the ones that are obviously wrong. Please be careful. Station1 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loved2001, you continue to insert incorrect information into cheese articles. For example, you added to the Bleu des Causses article's infobox that its texture is "hard", which is incorrect. Hard cheese includes things like Parmesan and Emmental. Bleu des Causses is semi-soft, like Roquefort. Please be more careful. --Macrakis (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing campaign on French departments[edit]

I have reverted most of your edits to Lozère, which were incorrect, redundant, or even self-contradictory. Please stop making unconstructive edits. --Macrakis (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for your superfluous and redundant edits to many other French department articles. Eric ^talk 13:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
- The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 13:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Ardennes (department), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Eric ^talk 13:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mayenne, you may be blocked from editing. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop adding redundant info to articles and to stop making otherwise unhelpful edits. Eric ^talk 16:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ardennes (department). It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Eric ^talk 02:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing pattern[edit]

@Eric and Station1: This account seems to specialize in annoyingly unconstructive edits which are just short of overt vandalism. It is getting hard to assume good faith when their user page reads "Hello, this is not a Sockpuppet." and they make provocative edits like this one, adding the words "if not you will be blocked" to a uw-test2 warning. Those both read like taunts to me. Strangely, though much of what they've added has been reverted as redundant or poorly phrased, occasionally they do seem to make legitimate corrections: it appears the Haute-Savoie does have 279 and not 281 communes, as per their edit, which agrees with Communes of the Haute-Savoie department. Although they are clearly competent enough to edit Talk page see above, they have not responded to any of the comments or warnings on their Talk page. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been wondering if the editing pattern is meant to draw attention from other editors and to occupy their time. Waiting to see if we get any communication. Eric ^talk 02:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis and Explicit: Now it's looking like the account is just for disruptive purposes. See the contribution history since our above posts. Eric ^talk 03:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric and Explicit:Wow. Time to block? --Macrakis (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]