User talk:Andradejf

Confusing sentence in Petroleum industry in Mexico
I believe that I understand most of your recent addition to Petroleum industry in Mexico, with the exception of the final sentence:


 * "Oil company representatives would allow for owners of the property to stay on the land; and if the company did not start exploiting the land with in five years, the company would leave, and the owner would not have to return any money earned."

Saying that oil companies would "allow" owners to remain on the land strongly implies that they could also, if they wished, force the owners off their land. Are there examples of oil companies forcing land owners off their own land? Secondly writing that "the owner would not have to return any money earned" does not explain what money, or how it is earned. It would help if you could clarify these points. Thank you. Plazak (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I will clarify the transactions of the purchasing and leasing of lands.

Thanks. --Andradejf (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Pueblo Revolt has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pueblo Revolt was changed by Andradejf (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960238 on 2017-02-22T06:09:51+00:00.

June 2019
Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * You have repeatedly removed material from the article Thomas Hofeller that you don't like. You have already done this four times, so you are already over the three-revert limit. If you do it again you are likely to be temporarily blocked from editing. You need to go to the talk page and discuss this, and not do it again unless and until you get WP:Consensus to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Important notice regarding all edits relating to the post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 21:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit to Vinny Magalhães
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! William2001(talk) 04:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)