User Talk:AlvaroMolina

—————————Alvaro Molina—————————

Response to a message you send me[change source]

Hi. I don't know how to message anyone on Wiki. I don't see a clear button like email so hopefully this works. My message is: you seem to automatically against deleting information but deleting information is absolutely a legitimate edit! Especially if the information is absolutely wrong; especially if the information is about religion or culture and often times outsiders do not understand one's religion; and the information is offensive and prejudice to one's religion. I don't know who you are. Do you work for wiki? What I know is perhaps if there's a topic you don't know about you shouldn't act like you know it. You should trust that others know it, especially for example it's their religion and the information is slandering their religion. I say this will all due respect. And I stand up for religious freedom. I don't believe Wiki was made for slandering. Thank you. 1cgd (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)1cgd[reply]

Kapuas River[change source]

Hi, AlvaroMolina. I declined your qd request on this page. It had enough information to be a stub, although the information needed to be rearranged. In this case, it was enough because it only takes one sentence to describe what it is (a river) and where it is (Indonesia). Geographical places are considered automatically notable, so it isn't necessary to have more information to show notability. Of course, more information is preferred, but it isn't required. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: No problem. I appreciate your advice and hope to get more involved in the environment of this wiki. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 07:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning to AlvaroMolina Is a well shit[change source]

Hello, AlvaroMolina. FYI, I have indeffed this user for having an inappropriate user name. However, I did want to let you know that it doesn't look like an only warning should have been given. Only warnings are only for things like cyberbullying of threats of violence, which I don't see in this user's edits. If it was there and I missed it, then I apologize. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Since the vandalism was evident, it gave him only warnings to try to stop it, however as you have noticed it did not work. I would also have liked to have acted more quickly. But good. Thank you anyway. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that that is not what "only" warnings are for. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 17:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings[change source]

Hi, Alvaro. After a user has received a final warning, please do not continue giving warnings, as you did with the IP user 176.12.107.132. The purpose of warnings is not to document every bad edit a user makes; it is to warn the user that their edits are not acceptable and may lead to consequences. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the notice. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 23:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Boing! said Zebedee[change source]

Hi. Thanks for your efforts at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, but please, just ignore him and don't waste your time. It can be cleaned up sometime after he's become bored and gone away, and in the meantime it's diverting his minimal intellect from actual harm in other areas. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]