User talk:MarioMarco2009

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, MarioMarco2009! Thank you for your contributions. I am VQuakr and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

You need to know the above, and you also need to know that you have yet to make an argument that we have not heard a thousand times before. Advocating for homeopathy on Wikipedia is effectively an acknowledgement that you don't understand our policies, see WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - This is rude, I did not advocate for anything - just for neutrality --- you seem on the other hand to have strong personal opinions about homeopathy. Try to be kind, It is not hard.--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can sympathise with your frustration but you will serve the subject matter better and be more satisfied by looking for other sources. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Homeopathy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry "personal attack" ? Where? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not personal attack. I'm asking you to assume good faith of other editors. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. It seems that some editors here have difficulty with anyone editing on certain subjects. If you want to hear about the problems I experienced here, you are welcome to contact me directly. DanaUllman^Talk 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to understand why the above contributor experienced 'problems', see the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines[edit]

Please do take a few minutes and read the talk page guidelines.

Your response to me here, where you wrote, "not so honest" is a comment on me. Please discussion content and sources, based on WP:policies and guidelines. Thanks, Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told you - it is not. Read the talk page.--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as you will. i have warned you. you can listen, or not. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 13:17, April 13, 2015‎ (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong talk page.--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum : This is the correct Talk page, btw. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity[edit]

If you continue to edit-war with multiple other editors on Homeopathy the next stage is to impose a topic-ban on you - which given your editing history would effectively be a block. You must stop edit-warring and continue to engage on the talkpage. Editing against consensus on the article will only end up with one result, so please stop. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your ongoing poor behavior on Talk:Homeopathy, where your comments have become severely disruptive, I am topic-banning you indefinitely from the Homeopathy topic area, broadly speaking. Specifically, you seem unwilling or unable to listen to other editors, engaging them in needlessly long and useless threads. Talk:Homeopathy#Chirumbolo_et_al. and the following thread, Talk:Homeopathy#Tagging_the_article_with_pov-check, are evidence enough. For a possible future appeal, you may look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Is the opinion of 2-3 editors which whom I have a content dispute enough to ban someone? Including yours? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions, which give administrators the latitude to sanction editors without a community discussion. Drmies actions fall under that purview. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~and you have already broken the sanction, I believe.?~~ -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 21:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not by my count. Drmies notification was placed at 21:27, and Mario's last edit to Talk:Homeopathy was 21:26, a minute earlier. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Andy is too anxious to ban anybody who does not concur with the current point of view of the article. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarioMarco, as far as I can tell you don't really have a content dispute there. Some unspecified claims that there ought to be a POV tag do not make a content dispute. Administrators indeed have the latitude to issue such sanctions to editors who have been previously warned about sanctions, and in my opinion your behavior there is disruptive enough. Note that I certainly don't have a content dispute, or any other dispute, with you, and I am not a frequent editor in that field, if indeed I ever edited it at all. Your time is better spent figuring out how to prevent editing disruptively, so that you can launch a successful appeal if you so choose. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well....All the editors who supported the request - did have a content dispute : they were against the inclusion of the reliable sources I suggested. My last suggestion was a response to an editor who was asking for specific studies and the reliable source I suggested was never presented and discussed in the talk page ----Also you did not even wait for me to respond to the accusations... - What this action tells us about your "neutrality" ?--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been told that sources for the article need to conform to WP:MEDRS. Despite this, you have continued to repeatedly post sources which did not conform to WP:MEDRS. Which can only indicate one of three things: (1) You haven't read WP:MEDRS. (2) You have read WP:MEDRS, but don't understand it. (3) You have read it and understand it, but refuse to accept that sources have to comply to it. Either (1) or (3) indicate a refusal to accept Wikipedia standards - tendentiousness which justifies a topic ban - whereas (2) indicates a competence problem - possibly grounds to block indefinitely, given the amount of time you have had to read it, and the number of times it has been explained to you. If you can't understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements, you are unlikely to be able to contribute usefully on other subjects either. You of course have the right to appeal the ban - but I would advise you that doing so in any manner which involved the sorts of arguments we have had to put up with on Talk:Homeopathy is certain to fail. The only thing that is likely to get your ban lifted is a clear and unambiguous indication that you understand why you were banned, and a clear and unambiguous statement that you have no intention of repeating such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, what ban? I don't see it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies first post above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]