User talk:OvertounBridge

Welcome!
Hello, OvertounBridge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Overtoun Bridge did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Overtoun Bridge; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC) I have also blocked for your legal threat, you will need to clearly withdraw it as part of being unblocked, or indicate that the legal action is resolved. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify this situation. You were posting what seems to be information from a book that you either wrote or published. This is a severe conflict of interest and also would make you a paid editor; Wikipedia's Terms of Use require disclosure of any paid relationship to your edits. It might be possible for you to make a formal edit request on the article talk page proposing any changes you feel are needed, but those changes would need to be sourced to independent reliable sources and not your own publication. Wikipedia only summarizes what appears in independent sources; Wikipedia articles are not for writing any and all information or theories on a subject. This also means that Wikipedia does not give equal time or weight to all different aspects of a subject; it is purely based on coverage in independent sources.

If you want to pursue legal action, Wikipedia cannot prevent you from doing so, but you will be unable to edit Wikipedia until and unless you explicitly withdraw your legal threat or indicate that the legal action is resolved. Please read Wikipedia policy on legal threats, which also has contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that operates the servers Wikipedia is on. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both at the same time. Editors are willing to work with you to discuss your concerns in a collaborative manner if you are as well. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you are engaged in a form of destructive, revenge editing. You give several contradictory reasons for the removal of a quite legitimate, informative factual book reference ( there are hundreds of thousands of book quotes on Wikipedia and none of them removed whatsoever but you removed this one?) Firstly, you initially state that I have been blocked for advertising or self promotion? Really but you fail to remove the references to the "Daily Mail" or The "New York Times" or "The Unexplained Files TV" all advertising and self promoting profit making companies on the Overtoun Bridge webpage. Why not remove these products too?

Secondly you allege that this book was published by me really? Im afraid not? It was published by a professional publisher (not Scarlet Quill Publishing LTD a dormant company as is alleged! Dormant companies do not trade and your efforts to use this argument are as fallacious and disturbing as your editing. Furthermore, the posts which are listed by Brian Dunning and Glasgow Skeptics were also written by themselves and are therefore self promoting. Once again you neither removed any of these references. As for your blocking because a legal threat was issued and will not allow editing until it is removed! You are not a solicitor and you will not decide matters of law. Wikipedia do not employ you, and therefore are exempt from any legal action. Legal action can be taken against those who deliberately twist Wikipedia's rules and abuse them to create biased, and unbalanced views on a subject matter. Those who abuse their administrators privileges which ruin factual reporting. Those who discriminate against an author and his views with prejudice, and partiality can be removed permanently by Wikipedia. Not too mention a legal case which could cost thousands of dollars, and it will be those editors not Wikipedia that are suable personally for the damages including defamation of character.
 * I'm not trying to defame anyone, I had simply responded to edit warring and other inappropriate editing. As I stated, other editors would have been willing to hear your concerns, but you decided to threaten legal action instead.  Your post above makes it clear that you don't really understand what Wikipedia is or how it works. As I noted above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state; it is not a news organization.  Given that you are doubling down on your legal threats, and seem unwilling to make use of Wikipedia guidelines and processes, I am removing your ability to edit this page.  If you change your mind and decide to withdraw your legal threats(or indicate that the legal action is concluded), you may use WP:UTRS to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)