User talk:Pboni75

May 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Carlos Gardel, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''This has been discussed previously on the talk page. Take your proposal there.'' Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Carlos Gardel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You disregarded another editor who wrote in their edit summary, "This has been discussed at length in the Talk page. Please refer to that. Reverted)" Please discuss on the talk page. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Carlos Gardel, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss your case on the talk page & get consensus. Peaceray (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Carlos Gardel. Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Note About Dispute
It appears that your block will expire in about 12 hours. As you can see, another editor requested dispute resolution concerning the issue about the birthplace and birthdate of Carlos Gardel. We hope that you have had time to consider how Wikipedia resolves content disputes and that you will take the opportunity to resolve the dispute by discussion and possibly by rough consensus. If you resume editing the article rather than discussing the article, you are likely to be blocked for a longer period of time, or blocked indefinitely. I have left the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard open in order to allow discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me UpDRN Volunteer 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

24-hour DRN closing warning Fixing style/layout errors
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 13, 2020 at 19:26 (UTC). You have been non-communicative after you opened the dispute. As the editor who opened this, you are required to participate in the discussions. If you do not respond within the next 24 hours, your dispute will closed and an RFC will be opened. You can continue the discussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

DRN case status
Your case on the DRN has been closed for non-participation. I have opened an RFC at Talk:Carlos_Gardel where you may continue the discussion. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

immigration nation "documentary"
The “documentary”, is a highly emotional and biased description of personal feelings experienced by several undocumented immigrants and it does not present any factual documents based on immigration law. In sum is a conglomerate of personal experiences, suffered by individuals who readily, knowingly and willingfully made the choice of violating the sovereignty of the US, made the wrong decisions and they are trying to blame the system. The documentary makes no reference to any established laws in the immigration and Naturalization Act, (INA) enacted by congress, does not articulate or provide any legal explanation of why the undocumented immigrants are being presented for prosecution and removal, and blatantly ties to blame the current administration for their own demise, and for legally enforcing existing laws. The documentary, tries to portray ICE, as a kid-snatching-agency, when in fact the law mandates that children should be apart and protected, when their parents or legal guardians are arrested by law enforcement agencies for criminal or civil violations. In an article published in The New York TImes on July 23, 2020 Caitlin Dickerson, the author, describes Jenny L. Burke, the press secretary for ICE, who stated that the agency is “shocked by the mischaracterizations made by the production company,” and “wholeheartedly disputes the allegations brought forward by filmmakers of this production.”

NPOV
Hi there.

I'm a new user but your edits to Immigration Nation are clearly in violation of the Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Cited criticisms of the documentary series are fine, as they currently exist on the article, but your edit is biased, uncited and an opinion piece. Please stop with further edits. Thanks. Alienhell663 (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an opinion piece. My edits are not biased and are well documented by the documentary itself. If you actually really saw the 6 episodes, you can factually state that the documentary lacks a solid legal framework, and primarily and exclusively focus on personal experiences suffered by undocumented immigrants. I am not saying that is good or bad, I am just listing the facts, therefore, it is not a biased opinion.

August 2020
Your recent editing history at Immigration Nation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. only (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no edit war. Other authors are editing content that is compliant with NPOV. All edits are based on the documentary episodes and they do not express opinion but factual allegations. Please you must stop editing and discontinue to engage in an edit war. A talk page has been created and other editors can leave comments.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Immigration Nation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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:. only (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)