Sure. Sorry to have muddled the message. None of the early Greek manuscripts have Mk. 16.9-20. None of them. The two major, early, complete Bibles we have (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) don't have it either. The church fathers don't speak of it as being part of Mark. Some church fathers at the end of the 2nd century mention it, so it must have existed by then, but they seem to know it wasn't there originally. Many many early fragments don't have those verses at the end of Mark. Eusebius (church historian of the 300s) says Mark ends at v. 8, and so does Jerome, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril. Where the verses do exist on manuscripts, they are marked in such a way as to show it was thought to be an addition and not original. In other words, there is massive and consistent evidence that Mark 16.9-20 are not original to the gospel but were added later, and this was widely recognized.

Hope that helps. If not, ask again.

I can't decipher that, please help.

William Lane and Ezra Gould say the following:

The earliest Greek, versional and patristic evidence supports the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at Chapter 16.8. To the witness of the two earliest parchment codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, may be added minuscules 304 and 2386. The absence of 16.9-20 in the Old Latin MS k, the Sinaitic Syriac, several MSS of the Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza MSS of the Georgian version, and number of MSS of the Ethiopic version provide a wide range of support for the originality of the abrupt ending. Eusebius writes that Mark ended at v. 8. Jerome claims Mark 16 ended at v. 8. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem show no awareness of the existence of these verses. Moreover, a number of MSS that do contain them have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them (e.g., 1, 20,22, 137, 138, 1110, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, 1582), while in other witnesses the final section is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text. The evidence allows no other assumption than that from the beginning Mark circulated with the abrupt ending at v. 8. That Matthew and Luke follow Mark until v. 8, but then diverge completely, lends further support to this supposition.

I gotta ask for what authority has decided that Mark 16.9-20 is not "sanctioned as authoritative"?

Bit of history:
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.

Well, those verses were considered authoritative then, so when were they formally questioned and then finally challenged?