Hello. Concerning your contribution, Alan D. Stokes, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.adstokes.com/experts.shtml. As a copyright violation, Alan D. Stokes appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Alan D. Stokes has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Alan D. Stokes and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Alan D. Stokes with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Alan D. Stokes.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article [[1]], you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Alan D. Stokes. Please use the ((hangon)) template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Alan D. Stokes. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Alan D. Stokes, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text ((unblock|your reason here)) below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CoyoteOldMan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I unfortunately kept pressing the Save button instead of preview button while making edits. I was removing the codes at the top of the page to remove the message from the page. I didn't realize that it was an active administrative code trying to tell me to stop. Please forgive my stupidity. I have also sent an email from my company email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to prove that I am Alan D. Stokes

Decline reason:

Consider your contribution rejected. First, nothing in the text you have posted implies that a Wikipedia page on yourself might meet our standards. Second, Wikipedia does not allow self-promotion, such as users posting entries on themselves or on their companies (even if those subjects do meet our inclusion standards). See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more. If you are willing to agree to discontinue editing on yourself or your company and want to edit other subjects you may be unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Adstokesllc (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if you are or are not Alan D. Stokes, there is another issue here. On Wikipedia, we have notability guidelines that must be satisfied from reliable sources. I just did a little searching, and I can't seem to find proof that you qualify as notable (although I admit I only spent about ten minutes searching it, so I could have missed something). Until that type of source can be found, any article you submit will undergo the exact same thing, deletion (normally within minutes of creation). In addition, conflicts of interest are highly discouraged. If you are, indeed notable, I advise you to stop trying to create an article. Don't worry, someone will create it sooner or later if that's the case, but if you allow others to do so then you are going to avoid running into the difficulties that come with a self written article. Templarion (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alan d. stokes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. --Dynaflow babble 07:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alan D. Stokes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tim Ross (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put a speedy delete tag on this article. The main issue is notability. The general guidelines WP:N state that the subject of an article like this need to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Although four links/sources are shown, they do not satisfy this requirement in my opinion. I've checked each one. The first one, "First Coast News", discusses a legal case, but I can find no mention in it of Mr. Stokes. The other three consist, basically, of advertising, "Art.com" for Mr. Stoke's photography, and the remaining two for his witnessing expertise. Tim Ross (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope that I don't seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: It sounds like a role account. In addition, you should take the time to read WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your views, for instance, your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

There are several options available to you:

• We can talk about it, here.
• If we can't resolve this on our own, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
• You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Because Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones). Using Wikipedia for such purposes will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our policies about this.

In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text ((unblock|Your reason here)) below this message box.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken (click here to search).
• 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.

If instead you believe that you have been blocked by mistake (i.e., you have not in fact been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes), please write ((unblock|Your reason here)) below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CoyoteOldMan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

CoyoteOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I will not use or discuss anything that pertains to my company or myself. I believe that I can contribute useful and much needed information on the use and physics of animation that are created for courtroom use. It is my fault for not reading the guidelines and regulations on editing and submissions. I am one of only a handful of people that are known nationally that are considered experts in the field of Forensic Animations so I used information on my site which was ultimately seen as self promotion. I apologize and will only make edits and references that are based on science and legitimate references and never reference my site, myself or anything that would be considered self promotion. I just think that with all the people that now have access to the tools to create Forensic Animations, there should be references to the rules, regulations and physics that must be followed in order to prevent someone being wrongly convicted in a court of law because the animator did not understand the physics or the legal ramifications to creating an animation just for show. This is a very often abused area by fraudulent experts in the field of Forensics. Thank you for your time.

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]