Please indicate which WP guideline asserts that "it is common that a list of "Editions in Print" is added to books' presentation". Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
De facto it is not against any of the wikipedia guidelines and psotively in the full accordance with all guidelines for providing accurate encyclopedical information on wikipedia. See for instance (example of article): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
and hundreds of other examples are available if you search through wikipedia for "Editions in Print".
It makes sense to keep record of these editions as it makes also sense to keep record on other information on the books.
A bibliography of works consulted while researching an article is different from advertising a commercially available work and creating a special section for it. Reflections on my diligence and competence transgress yet more WP guidelines, by the way. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Your message seems to indicate that you are linked to commercial interests. That is a sensitive point on WP. So too is threat of WP:LEGAL action. In addition there is one more guideline that you seem to have overlooked and better point out to your legal department: WP:BOOKSPAM. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to what you say, your editing does seem to be aimed at drawing to the attention of readers the publications of a company, with the view of making it more likely that those readers will then buy those publications: in short, that you are editing for promotion. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It also seems to be implied by what you have written that you are professionally involved with a business on behalf of which you are editing without having declared that you have a paid interest: if so, that is not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, and therefore illegal. Either of those would be sufficient grounds for being blocked from editing, if you persisted after warnings. However, there is a more serious and immediate problem. Although your comments above are very confused and unclear, making it difficult to know exactly what you are trying to convey, it is at least clear that you are indicating that you are contemplating legal action against either the Wikimedia Foundation or one or more Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia policy is that anyone in legal dispute of such a nature may not edit Wiki8pedia while legal action is under consideration, pending, or in progress. Your permission to edit Wikipedia is therefore withdrawn, and will not be restored until you indicate that no legal action is still being contemplated.
In view of the above, this account has been blocked from editing, except that your access to this talk page has been kept, so that when you no longer have any legal action under consideration or in progress, you may post a request to be unblocked. To do so, add the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
at the bottom of this page. (Replace the words "Your reason here" with an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. That explanation should state that you no longer contemplate legal action, and also make it clear how your future editing will be different from what you have done in the past, so as to avoid breaching Wikipedia policy on promotional editing.) I advise you to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting such an unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Vaseghi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(1) the account is a personal account and I do not take any legal actions in person nor having influence on any such actions. Any actions (legal or else) will be taken absolutely independent of my influence by the publishers community and related wiki communities. (2) As mentioned earlier, personally, I do not insist in having EDIONS IN PRINT sections implemented by wiki, however can not agree with you that such lists without any hyperlink and containing over many edtions from many publishers in the list redirect to the interests of 'a' specific company. This remains my personal opinion. Vaseghi (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whether it is you personally who will take legal action, or others on your instigation, is of no relevance. The threat of legal action came from you, and until such legal action is completed or the threat is unequivocally withdrawn, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.