User talk:Allenandendal

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endal (dog)
I came across this page during RC patrol. I must say, I've seen the way its shaped up and I'm impressed by how quickly you've learnt the formatting and wikifying of the page. There are a few things I would like to point out -
 * The page is about the dog, so the Parton's biography probably shouldn't be here, it could be on his own page if he satisfies the notability criteria (see- WP:N) or it would have to be shortened.
 * We need a few references for the awards that Endal has recieved. No doubt he is an amazing dog, but we would require newspaper citations, or the links to some websites which carry an article or mention Endal.
 * Basically, we need reliability, as per WP:CITE. Please have a look at the pages I've mentioned, they'll give you a good start of where to look.

I'm overworked right now, so I don't know when I'll be on WP next, if you have any questions or any comments drop by on my talk page. You're doing a great job, keep it up! xC | ☎  13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant to Wiki?
I am not terribly sure what it is that is going to be achieved here. Within the assistance dog industry in the UK this story is felt to be unsubstantiated in many areas. There are thousands of assistance dogs in the UK who go about their work with their disabled partners day in day out, the unsung heroes of the canine world.

Why does this dog in particular deserve a Wiki entry? The countless articles about this dog and his apparent talents don't really address the serious issues of dispute. Many of the articles are driven by the dogs owner, there do not appear to be any credible neutral opinions if you google this subject. I'm also dubious whether in fact the noteable criteria are really met.

Using the wayback machine to study early press reports about this couple, clearly illustrates the story has far more detail now that it ever did before! Does memory improve with time?!

I find it really contentious that Wiki would support an article that will not stand up to peer review. If people wish to learn abut the Endal story they simply need to google, this adds nothing to Wiki at all; in fact, it detracts from the impartial, neutral nature of the site.

172.142.126.187 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant to Wiki? reply
The category that Endal has been entered into is famous dogs, I believe he more than meets the requirements. As you stated if you "Google" Endal you will find a vast array of articles about him. "Within the assistance dog industry in the UK this story is felt to be unsubstantiated in many areas" I have great difficulty understanding your comments that what Endal does, as stated in the Wikipedia article, is unsubstantiated, can you be more specific and elaborate. What areas of the assistance dog industry do you refer W?

We have been faced with reporters and film producers that have stated at the start they will not report on anything that the dog cannot do, normally they leave at the end of the session stating that they won't be able to fit everything in. We have set up reconstructions of various events in a controlled environments and each time Endal has shown his ability to be sound and constant.

Endal has had over 300 hundred film crews from around the world film him going about his daily activities, these include numerous appearances on BBC 1, ITV, Channel Four BBC 2, CNN, Dogs with Jobs, Pro 7 and the endless list goes on. It is not the case of an over enthusiastic owner writing articles about Endal, the press will only report on the fact and actuality. The difficulty being is listing them all and swamping the Wikipedia article

Endal is currently half way through filming a movie about his story and that of Allen Parton. The Sunday Times magazine, dated May 7th, 2006, listed Endal as one of the ten superdogs of History (none fictional), a more than credible source of fame? His abilities have more than be recognised by his being awarded the title Dog of the millennium in 1991 and numerous other major awards, a good news paper search in the wayback files brings up much credible information on Endal. Your criticism, is though anonymous and as such recognised problem in Wikipedia. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would attach the credibility of a dog, is it because he cannot defend himself by responding.

I agree that references to various awards need to be added at some stage to the article but my fear is it is not the clever things that Endal does that makes him so famous..it is his ability to be one of the nice guys of the assistance dog world for the last ten years that endears him to the public world wide. I am very pleased that you to follow Endal's story/fame by taking the time Googling him on the web, would you do that if if he was not such a famous dog? It is such a shame that you choses to hide behind the cloak of anonymity yet make such bold claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.55.120 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 April 2007

wikibreak
hey there allen,

disappointed to see that the article has been put up for deletion. i voted keep, hopefully it will survive the afd, i see no reason to remove an article which asserts notability.

i'm going on an indefinite wikibreak from today, so i probably won't be looking over my watchlist. feel free to email me if you have any questions, or you could contact one of the other editors who'd offered to help on the article talk page.

best regards, xC | ☎  18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
I have replaced the copyright violation notice. If you do indeed hold the copyright to this text, you need to do more than assert it. you need to follow Wikipedia's policies on how to authenticate this. Please don't remove the tage, instead read it. It tells you what you need to do. However, consider also that the text isn't in a tone suitable for an encyclopedia anyway. It is suitable for a newspaper column not a reference work. Perhaps you could ask one of the users that is keen to keep the article to help you rewrite it.--Docg 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Herald Dicken E.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Herald Dicken E.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi!

Hadn't heard from you in a bit, so I thought I'd drop by and see how things are going? Have you found any new pages to work on?

Happy editing and take care, xC | ☎  12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats great news, Allen. Wish you all the best in all the articles you work on :) xC | ☎  16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red_Arrow_1b.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Red_Arrow_1b.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. OsamaK 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk
Regarding this edit: - I have no idea why you contacted me. I have never heard of the subject of the article, nor edited any related article. How did you find my name in connection with your point? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 02:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Allenendal.jpg


The file File:Allenendal.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned file, no foreseeable use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)