User talk:Jessevannaajar

February 2014

Hello, I'm Maile66. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Zacate Creek without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Maile (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Republic of the Rio Grande Capitol Building Museum, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Laredo, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Santos Benavides, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Hispanics in the American Civil War, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Admr Boltz 18:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Several broken links

Accept reason:

I am willing to assume good faith. Admr Boltz 21:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator,

I apologize, I did not realize of what I was doing and I just noticed the messages at my TALK inbox from you all.I was just really trying to fix several broken links from those pages, I never realized I was messing up with the templates. I will understand if my blocked status remains, but I appeal to you to get reinstated as a contributor. I need to refresh my reading of all rules in Wikipedia in order to avoid future incidents like these. I only wanted to get more accurate references and bibliography for the Laredo, Texas history section. Please let me know.

Thank you very much in advance,

+jessevannaajar

Jessevannaajar, removal of content and/or sources on Wikipedia needs to be explained when it is done. You had no edit summaries, and there was nothing on the article talk pages. You were deleting a source with a valid link to the Border Heritage Museum. In the last edit at Laredo, Texas replaced that link with a link that goes directly to the La Posada Hotel. Can you you please give an explanation of that? — Maile (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are totally right — Maile . I was trying to update links in order to add the ones from La Posada Hotel, ^[1] who actually own the museum building without noticing that I was deleting all those other sources. I wanted to update the other entries you mention but I ended up deleting them by mistake. I recognize I was saving all the changes without adding the summary before. There was totally no bad intentions here, and I honestly feel embarrassed that all this was seen as vandalism. I totally need to get more familiar with the editing rules since I would still like to make contributions the the Laredo's history associated entries. Again, I apologize and I will understand if I'm completely banned, it was ignorant of my actions. Jessevannaajar (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Jessevannaajar[reply]

— Maile There are several pages about Laredo that contain this reference link [1] which is broken or non-existent. The link should be this one: [2] or this one [3]

I'm asking someone else how to handle this. Please hold on. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys — Maile , Boltz . It was all my fault for doing all this changes rushed and negligently. Thank you for your time as well on this matter. Best, Jessevannaajar (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Jessevannaajar.[reply]

I'm sorry you got blocked, and glad you are unblocked. I am also willing to assume good faith. I would like to offer a suggestion on how to handle this better. Please go to WP:BTR and ask if a bot can be developed to substitute the good link for the bad link in the Laredo, Texas articles. That is, if you can phrase it in a way that they can code a bot to pick it up where it exists. That would save you time, rather than searching through articles looking for this link, and nobody watching those articles would worry about a bot change. You can try. If you need to go back to manually changing the articles by yourself, then please write something short in the Edit summary at the bottom of the page so nobody blocks you again. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; thank you for the advice. I feel better fixing them one by one, and this time, I will leave the appropriate summary for reference and to avoid issues. I will also read and follow all the other editing rules accordingly. Jessevannaajar (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Jessevannaajar[reply]

Possible Spamming

Hi, I'm also from Laredo instead of using a link to a hotel why don't you use this link to Webb County Heritage Foundation instead since they are the operators of the museum or this link to Webb County Historical Commission. The link to the hotel can be seen as spamming. I noticed you also put La Posada Hotel owns the museum, do you have an online source or reference to this claim?
Thanks,
—AMAPO (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello —AMAPO! It's good to meet you and I thank you for your advice; I can see how that could be seen as spam. I was trying to complement the contact information with La Posada's website since the organization that operates the museum sometimes has the facility closed and visitors and tourist have to contact La Posada's management to open it for them so they can tour it.

The ownership is from the 1960s when the Faskens bought those 2.5 blocks on Zaragoza Street.

Sources: Historic Laredo: An Illustrated History of Laredo and Webb County

Webb County Appraisal District

¡Saludos! Jessevannaajar (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Jessevannaajar[reply]

^ http://laposada.com/republic-of-the-rio-grande/

[1] ttp://laposada.com/republic-of-the-rio-grande/

[1]