User talk:RoxyYuki1

March 2016

Hello, I'm IndianBio. Your recent edit to the page Telephone (song) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Break Out (Pointer Sisters album). Given your previous history with apparently incorrect changes, you will need to provide reliable sources for any changes you wish to make. SummerPhD^v2.0 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Philip Larkin. Just back from a block for unsourced/unexplained date changes and one of your first edits is to add an unsourced/unexplained date to a photo that gives a different date? Please be aware that future blocks will be considerably longer.

You will need to provide edit summaries and sources for any numerical changes you make from now on. If you do not, you will be blocked from editing. SummerPhD^v2.0 13:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was also apparently vandalism. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia was changed by RoxyYuki1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.922541 on 2016-03-29T17:20:05+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liam-dino, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Geogene (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RoxyYuki1

I'm a reviewer with an interest in helping out newer editors of Wikipedia. I was reviewing some of your edits. It looks to me like you're trying to be helpful by making corrections and adding more specific information. Which is great. I see a number of your edits have been reverted. Without checking all of them, it looks like the lack of citations accounts for a lot of that. The thing is, facts on Wikipedia live or die based on the principle of "verifiability," which requires the citation of sources. There's some helpful information on the site if you care to look it over, here: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Good luck and have fun. Jmatazzoni (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]