User talk:Marcobjj

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Garrincha, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Garrincha was changed by Marcobjj (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-11-10T15:08:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resposta

Presumo que você fale português. Goulart já havia sido derrubado antes da sessão do Congresso (fontes: 1, 2, 3). O Congresso só reconheceu o Golpe como legítimo e declarou a presidência vaga (na época, Jango já estava no Rio Grande do Sul se preparando para ir para o Uruguai). Coltsfan (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As fontes que eu mostrei indicam o contrário. E são muitas fontes! Não dá pra reescrever a história assim. Coltsfan (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nenhuma das fontes eram secundárias. Todas são legítimas (segundo as normas da wiki em inglês e português, que são praticamente as mesmas). A sessão de 2 de abril de 1964 (data que sua fonte fornece) aconteceu depois do golpe (que rolou nos dias 31 e 1 de abril). Os militares forçaram a fuga de Jango quando os exércitos saíram do Rio e Minas em direção a Brasília. Toda as fontes dizem isso e as fontes que você forneceu não contradiz isso. Pelo contrário. As fontes presentes no artigo vastamente apoiam o atual texto. Seja como for, ninguém concordou com seu posicionamento no artigo. Pelo contrário. Então, futuras edições não consensuais continuarão a ser revertidas. Já consultei um administrador e ele falou que futuras edições podem acarretar em proteção da página contra edições ou bloqueio de quem persistir. Passar bem, Coltsfan (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novamente, venho lhe alertar sobre as mudanças que vem fazendo. Medidas serão tomadas para proteger a página. Sugiro que pare com seu comportamento disruptivo. Coltsfan (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if your changes are reverted by other editors, you need to discuss them on the article's talk page: Talk:1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Just reverting will get you blocked from editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]