Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. You have violated one or more of our rules, including rules against adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, using Wikipedia for promotion, and editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest. This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. Although Wikipedia has a great many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals here, you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} below this message box.
• Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-spamun|GlassLogic|I was not aware of the username conflict issues; therefore I beleive changing my username so that it does not appear that I am trying to draw attention to myself as a business should handle the entire issue. The above notes indicated that I will still be free to write about something other than my company or oganization, but I was not doing that in the first place, so that critique does not apply. You will see that there is no organization mentioned either in my posting, or in the external links (except, of course, within the court documents there are names of lawywers handling those issues, but I am neither of those people, and that is burried so deep that it could harldy be called promotion anyway). I started an article on the case Foster v Wolkowitz because I am following that case, and I am not the lawyer for that case, so there is no conflict there. This is not similar at all to a company writing about itself, because I have not linked any company to the Wikipedia posting. Further, the reason I used external links is because that is where the actual documents at issue are avialable. If Wikipedia allowed posting of PDF documents, I would gladly link there. I would like to be able to continue editing the Foster v Wolkowitz article. I could have merely referenced the PDF documents that I linked to, but that would not be as verifiable as linking to the actual documents themselves; in that way, I am providing a greater service to Wikipedia readers becuase I am providing the actual documents at issue, which, as I mentioned, are not available anywhere else. If you can find the documents I linked to on the Web, feel free to modify the links, or to reference thosee sources instead.}}

• I've left word with the administrator who blocked you. Your request is more than reasonable and I happen to know that the admin is just as reasonable. Hang tight and keep an eye on this page. Merry Christmas and thanks for your wishes to contribute. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to GlassLogic (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

• Please note to administrator that the links on this article are now to official court Web sites, and that the notability standards should be met my that. Specifically I am referring to the links in the second section, I believe to the Michigan Supreme Court's order grannting leave to appeal, and I think the decision from the lower appellate court. These links were burried deep in the Court's web site, and I was previouly unaaware of their existence. If I would have previously found those links, I would not have linked to the same documents to a private web site. Thanks to whomever found those documents. It seems now that all the information is totally verifiable based on documents posted to government web sites.

Childcustodydivorcefamilylawyer (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Childcustodydivorcefamilylawyer[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, GlassLogic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foster v. Wolkowitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foster v. Wolkowitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]