User talk:Mariolis MG

Welcome!

Hello, Mariolis MG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know you have violated the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and WP:1RR at Jeremy Corbyn with this edit. You need to self-revert immediately or you may be blocked. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory journals

Hi. You reverted my removal of a predatory open access journal from Kazars. Do you know about predatory publishing, and why these journals are not reliable sources? Please read the article, it is a serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, by attempting to game extended confirmed status.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mariolis MG (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry. It was an honest mistake. I didn't know it wasn't allowed to use the sandbox to get extended-confirmed access. I did it out of ignorance, not malice. Is there a way to erase all my edits from the sandbox in my contributions? If you give me another chance, I won't do it again. And if I do, I'll have no more excuses to be blocked indefinitely. You can monitor my edits anyway, so you won't lose anything. I'm simply asking for another chance. That's all. Mariolis MG (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, I'm afraid we need more than that. What did you hope to achieve with extended confirmed status? What edits did you intend to make? What edits do you intend to make? You could have made many constructive edits for the same effort. There is so much that can be done without even autoconfirmed. It puzzles me, you know. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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/181.92.223.35, 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.

So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Thank you. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]