"

 Once Again 
Wall of text that is incoherent - would it be possible to get you to show the changes here that you wish to implement.  
Sorry, but any attempt to discredit the denunciations and evidences, without even read & answer them point by point, will not work. 
They stayed here for days without anyone disputing them, including the reasons, so stick to the points
And if grammar, the form, is not good to you, edit it, but don't reverse disruptively, or continue to ignore the glaring flaws of the previous content. 
  
What you are adding is almost completely incoherent to a native speaker.  Your talk page posts are also very hard to follow.  
I frankly have no idea what you are talking about.  You may want to some up the changes you would like to make in simple terms, here on the talk page.  Further edit warring will probably result in a block.  
Again: 
""what do you want to add or change(?)""
I - What I changed in relation to the previous version: 
The content of the text, especially related to the concatenation of events (with their links and/or references), as can be seen analyzing the 2 versions.

II - What I added: links and references to respective events, some of which were not in the previous version, eg. the 1st naval revolt, Encilhamento, sequential references to the main civilian and military uprisings of that period, as well as the only issues of foreign policy.

 The reasons "", the"" Why "":
I - The prior narration was not only truncated due to serious gaps related to some of the key events of that time (both internal and external); 
II - but also contained partial references and biased inferences regarding the cause of the events , having even  spurious bibliographic citations ""justifying"" such inferences.And all this with the difference, between the 2 versions, of only 3 lines... (difference that can always be reduced without adding the mentioned vices of the previous edition)''

Note: Curious, as some do and undo articles at their whim, without anyone even check the sources, the plausibility or the neutrality of the statements contained in such articles, while others have to justify and re_justify fundamental changes, anyway...
  
If you if you're really interested in this discussion, and not just to disruptively block its editing, 
please (one more time) be sure to read the sections Spurious quotations and The heart of this Case
  

1st Agree with what Paulista? If he said nothing of what you're saying. He even might say, but read what he wrote and see that he did not speak about briefness characteristic.
BTW​​, just curious that you have now appeared, and even without disputing any of my denunciations, including the unethical use of briefness characteristic as a excuse!
  
I agree Daniel, it is also important to maintain the section in a simple format since it is supposed to be a brief description of Brazilian history.  I don’t believe we need changes in this section, we already have links to more specific articles that will mention the Constitutionalist Revolution or the Encilhamento. Regards,   
Again, with what Paulista? If he said nothing about briefness characteristic, and even he wrote, again... any counter-argument related to any of my denunciations, including the unethical use (double standard included) of briefness characteristic as a excuse! 
So, stop to try to diverge the focus of discussion ...Or to not fall from the sky in this discussion, be sure to read the sections Spurious quotations and The heart of this Case.
  

There are serious grammar issues in the text you are attempting to add, which make it very difficult for someone to understand what you are saying. Perhaps if you added it one section at a time it would be easier for someone like