Talk:Shadowclan

message: the whole article is original research!!! wikipedia rules are that you have t have sources but there aren't any. Metspadres 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: – (View AfD)(View log)
a Shadowclan sockpuppet removed my AFD so I put it back. This is a video game guild and is not noteworthy. Please do not remove AFD if you are a sockpuppet or have a conflict of interest. This articale appears to be protected by members of the online guild or other sockpuppets. Mikemiddleton 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this is a pretty weak article. It seems as though the 2nd AfD nomination overwrote the first, because it didn't have (2nd nomination) in the name... wish I could have read that one too. Leebo86 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind that comment, I saw two AfD's up there, but they both link to a discussion dated 8/13, so I don't know what the second one is supposed to be. Leebo86 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: After reviewing the two deletion discussions , it seems to me that actually, there is a broad consensus that this gaming clan is just barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Are there any particular comments on those discussions that you believe to have been made by sockpuppets? --Stormie 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: : – (View AfD)(View log)
a Shadowclan sockpuppet removed my AFD so I put it back. This is a video game guild and is not noteworthy. Please do not remove AFD if you are a sockpuppet or have a conflict of interest. This articale appears to be protected by members of the online guild or other sockpuppets. Mikemiddleton 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is a pretty weak article. It seems as though the 2nd AfD nomination overwrote the first, because it didn't have (2nd nomination) in the name... wish I could have read that one too. Leebo86 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind that comment, I saw two AfD's up there, but they both link to a discussion dated 8/13, so I don't know what the second one is supposed to be. Leebo86 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: After reviewing the two deletion discussions , it seems to me that actually, there is a broad consensus that this gaming clan is just barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Are there any particular comments on those discussions that you believe to have been made by sockpuppets? --Stormie 06:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[PageName]]

message: An image used in this article, File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ultima-Shadowclan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion