"

""If these problems continue an indefinite block might be an option. ""
Yeah... when there are no more counter arguments and the evidences can not be ignored anymore, the little power of little ""kings and their courts"" speaks louder:
""Shut the heretic!""
It should be easy to silence dissenting voices. Or at least always seems so to certain groups, but...
  

 Double Standard 

Cybershore, I've blocked you for a week for your last comment at Talk:Brazil.  You've been warned numerous times about personal attacks and yet you have persisted.  I have tried to help you, but I'm concerned about your behavior.  When your block expires, you may return to the discussion, but I strongly recommend you refrain from attacking other editors and try to be more concise with your comments.  Considering your ability with the English language it would be best to try to write shorter simpler comments.  
Cybershore, after carefully looking over your additions to the article (even with my changes to your grammer), I see that they are redundant and add nothing, while making some things less clear.  I oppose their addition.  

What ""additions"" specifically you're talking about (so I can adjust or respond)?
Why, again this double standard behavior related just to one part; since, I answered all the objections one by one, while the seriously and gravely accusation made ​​up by me, and proved, repeatedly, throughout this year and a half about spurious quote remains ignored???

And Please answer this time:

1) Is the spuriousness justifiable under any circunstances?

2) In the case of an encyclopedia that is intended to be free and neutral, which group of honest editors would admit the use of partial referrals that lead to political and historical inferences in favor of a political regime (monarchical, military, etc.) whatever be?
Worse, which group of honest editors would allow the use of spurious citations of a partial source for purposes mentioned above - even if this purposes are involuntary, although the time that passed without actions having been taken, as well as the resistance to remediation maintained, only makes this possibility (of involuntariness) unlikely???

3) Which group of honest editors ...who were truly committed to the freedom and neutrality of such instrument, would vote against such remediation or would omit about it? 
  
Your statements are very hard to understand.  I don't know what ""spurioness"" means in English.  Once your block expire you may make your case clearly on the talk page, but do not edit war to include your changes to the article.  Consensus is opposed to these changes.  I've looked carefully at your suggested changes and find them to be inferior to the original content, muddling issues and making the entire section less clear.  This seems to have political implications to you, but as a neutral party I do not see them.  The current version seems to be neutral.   
""I don't know what ""spurioness"" means in English""
What a curious, I believed that only machines could not find in their memories misspelled words ...Interesting to see that some humans also have this selective limitation...
What a curious II, that an administrator of an electronic publication simply ""doesn't know"" such meaning... Oh!
Well, may be | this or | this can help you remin... understand what spuriousness means. Not mention  the 3rd paragraph of  this link in Brazil Talk Page about an famous example of writer's misquotations, fabricated quotes, fake quotes or whatever term you prefer...

Now that you are aware of the meaning of the term, I suggest that you read the this section ;) to remind you the tendentious, non neutral, biased and unethical feature of the whole paragraph of the version that you support.

After it, please answer the above questions