This user may have left Wikipedia. IRP has not edited Wikipedia since November 13, 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
When a user is blocked, he or she normally remains able to edit his or her own talkpage, however, if he or she abuses his or her talk page privilege, such as improperly using the {{unblock}} template or posting personal attacks, an administrator disables the user's ability to edit his or her own talkpage. -- IRP☎19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should have been redirected to the English article (that was me not joining the dots). Still, you can see why I didn't come to the conclusion that "Any articles that are not copied and pasted from another Wikipedia do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion" when I read the criterion for A3 on the policy page:
Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. If the article does not exist on another project, use the template {{notenglish}} instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation.
which seems to not differentiate between copy-paste moves and merely an article existing. Maybe the wording ought to be changed? - Jarry1250(t, c)22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant A2! Now I understand why we had a few crossed wires ;) Anyhow, I think it's fine to just forget about now. - Jarry1250(t, c)21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wasting everyone's time.
Ultraviolet Sound was deleted via AFD and has been recreated. Thus it is a speedy deletion, so how about you halt the edit-warring now? Good, glad we've got that settled. //roux23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I disagree but rangersarecool is a very smart 4th grader and would not make a account called rangerarecool1234. do you know who would? someone who wanted rangersarecool would. do you know who that is? davidthedograt. How do I know? im in his class. im also in david the dogman's class im also in foxcows, jeffhardys, and rangersarecool. if it wasnt for davidthedograt rangersarecool wouldn't be blocked. darknesswolf is another account used for cantributions, not vandalism! he was trying to get away from niv, who new what rangersarecools password was. (he found out while he was typing it in class) then he made darknesswolf. then a classmate comes and says ooooh lets make a account called rangerarecool1234 and create vandalism so they'l think im rangersarecool! oh and for good measure, he says he is rangersarecool on your talk page. hes not that dumb. hes in a gifted class, we all are. (exept sometimes I wonder about davidthedograt...) enyway hes a straght A student in gifted 4th grade and loves wikipedia. he always talks about it! sorry to disturb you, im just angry at the people who blocked him, and didnt unblock him. Jinxyouowemeasoda (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IRP, I have declined to make the edits you requested at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit, for reasons which I explained there. If you still think those edits should be made, then simply place the {{editprotected}} template above your request, with the reasons you think I'm incorrect, and another admin will come along to evaluate it. In the future, if you plan on requesting edits to pages in the MediaWiki namespace, or other protected pages, then please just use the editprotected template. That way it is guaranteed that an admin will evaluate it; simply posting on one admin's talk page might be ineffective (sometimes I am offline for weeks at a time). Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy deletions
Hi IRP, I just came across a couple of speedy deletion tags that you placed on IP talk pages, User talk:67.239.208.226 and User talk:65.185.170.172. These are not covered under the speedy deletion criteria, so if you would like to delete them, they need to go through WP:MFD. If you feel an IP needs to be blocked for vandalism or sockpuppetry, then please report it to WP:AIV or WP:SPI, not as a speedy candidate. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedily closed both nominations as talk pages are generally not deleted without a compelling justification. If you feel the need to blank the IP talk pages, or replace them with {{welcome-anon}} or something, feel free, but please don't bring any more IP talk pages to MFD without a compelling justification. –xeno (talk)20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentaly placed my userspace in the article space when I created the account. Everything was (justly) deleted on March 10 by you, as far as I can tell. Could I have my drafts restored to the userspace please? (SDC4004) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDC4004 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was bugging J.Delanoy for my own problems and found your question about Twinkle. I didn't see a reply and a quick look at your custom .js seems to indicate that you haven't fixed it yet. If you still want help, I figured out how to fix it with mine. —LedgendGamer23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I actually tend to agree with the IP editor who cut a rather large chunk out of Hays Code. I had noticed that material a while back and had strong reservations myself, though I didn't act on it. I know it seems a bit like vandalism at first blush, but as I examined the deleted text I realized that the Hays Code actually was not even mentioned in the deleted sections. I'm planning on going to some source materials and build up this article when I have a chance. There are actually several books on the subject.Stetsonharry (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but according to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we have to revert an edit that removes large portions of the page without explanation. When I look at Special:Recentchanges and I see that a user removed a large amount of data from an article (indicated by large, red, bold negative numbers) and the user did not provide a reason for the removal in the edit summary, I click "rollback" and issue {{uw-delete}}. It is OK to remove content from articles for a good reason, however, many vandals remove content from articles in bad faith. -- IRP☎19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think you definitely took the right action. It certainly looked like vandalism. I just wanted to mention that this edit appeared to be correct, despite appearances. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Play stub
Hi! There really isn't anything to restore; it's an unreferenced substub with virtually no context. It was tagged both as a speedy and as a prod, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring it. I think someone (possibly the author) will expand it and add references. The article was just started anyway. A lot of articles begin that way. -- IRP☎03:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You betcha. :) I need to sign off now, but thanks for the nice heads-up. I got utterly raked over the coals yesterday by a couple of users who went off the deep end when I deleted their contribs. Ah, the fun of adminship on the world's biggest wiki. Anyway, take care and thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IRP. I do not believe this to be rollback abuse, and I'm rather perplexed you are pursuing this, especially without asking me. Here is the explanation. As part of my dealing with this request of yours, it became apparent that your most recent edit to the talk page had become useless - a redirect to a non-existent page. On the assumption that you would neither disagree or misunderstand why your edit was being reverted, it became apparent that rollback was the most obvious and efficient method to resolve the problem caused by your (now unhelpful) edit. When working towards the same final objective, with obvious clarity in the method to achieve the aims, even administrators roll other administrators back from time to time. Rollback is not only for simple vandalism and illegitimate edits; the real question you should be asking is whether there would be any possibility that anyone could misunderstand, object, or benefit from explanation. See also this. You should not assume that your edits were considered vandalism. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that zzuuzz's use of rollback was in a situation where an edit needed to be reversed without the need for explanation in a non-controversial area. I don't see any misuse of rollback. Chillum14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, he resigned voluntarily. I'm not sure as to the exact reason, but in looking through ArbCom's records, it doesn't appear to have been a disciplinary action. Hersfold(t/a/c)23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm sorry, I can't help you directly. I've left the helpme here for a couple of hours now, and as nobody has responded, I think you're better seeking help elsewhere.
You know a really good ammount about Wikipedia. If I need any help, I'll definitly ask you. I do have one question; I've been trying to sort the status thing with the page you advised me to look at, but I still can't figure it out. Can you help? That would be great. Ross Rhodes (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you helping to make my talk page more organised. I have keep most of your edits, and changed some of them to suit my way a little more, so once again, thankyou! :) Ross Rhodes (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its Ross Rhodes again. While signing guestbooks I've noticed many users with amazing-looking signatures, though mine's just a boring little thing (shown at the end of this message). How do you change it? Ross Rhodes (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's the point on being adopted by another user? It sounds good and I'd like to be adopted, though I'd don't exactly know what I or the adopter would get out of it? Ross Rhodes (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question regarding signatures: to change your signature, click on "my preferences" in the upper right corner of the screen (it is the third link from the left where it shows your username and an icon of a person).
I explained my revert here. I don't believe I am at risk of being blocked (what policy are you citing here?), and blanking my comment – even if you though I had made a mistake – was inappropriate. Reverting my revert as you did was rather juvenile. PC78 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. OK, everybody just calm down, please? There's really basically no problem here, I think. It's just a matter of a talk page comment. Have a cup of tea. IRP, please let PC78 edit their own talk page comment. If you think it needs to be deleted or changed, just explain nicely to PC78 the reasons, and let PC78 do it; and if PC78 doesn't want to, it's probably best to just leave it. PC78, you probably noticed but just in case you didn't, IRP has pointed out that the page is not fully protected. I think it would be helpful for you to either remove the editprotected template, or explain nicely to IRP why you prefer to keep it there. I don't think anybody did anything terribly wrong here. In future though, IRP, it's almost always best to let other users edit their own comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. If you were very concerned that the editprotected template shouldn't be there, you could have just deleted the template and left the rest of the comment there, or replaced {{editprotected}} with {{tl|editprotected}} which nullifies the template. IRP, you're right that users are encouraged to provide meaningful edit summaries, especially when reverting. However, when users don't follow policies, guidelines or suggestions, it's best not to over-react. People are encouraged to be bold. It's not necessary to revert an edit just because someone didn't provide an edit summary. The best approach would be to just ignore it, or else to politely ask the user why they reverted. Just don't worry, everything's fine. I hope this helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a breach of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation? Doing so is treating an edit as vandalism. -- IRP☎19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's one of those borderline cases. WP:REVEXP doesn't have a guideline template at the top of the page. It isn't a policy or guideline; it's just a help page. It's still a good idea to follow the instructions there. Basically, we're supposed to follow basic principles: trying to get along with people and stuff like that. If you know about a rule, it's usually best to follow it unless you have a good reason not to and are confident that it won't bother people if you don't. Basic principles are shown by policies like WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. A lot of it is just getting along with people. I guess you were offended when you felt that your edit was being treated as vandalism. But look at it from the other person's point of view: how do you think they felt when their comment was deleted? Anyway, we don't punish people for just not putting an edit summary in one edit. We don't punish at all, actually: see WP:Blocking policy#Purpose and goal. Even if people do violate policies or guidelines, it's usually best to either ignore it, or talk to them nicely about it. Often they'll have a good reason for violating; or they might not have known the policy or guideline. Or they might have thought nobody would mind, and you can explain to them gently why you do mind. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you care or if it matters, but this IP address has received a notice of a sock puppetry violation. This IP address is part of the publicly available wi-fi network at the Iowa Health Systems hospital in downtown Des Moines. - 12.152.199.77 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this revert, I inserted bold and colored text because a lot of editors miss the important facts and seem to treat some essays as policies or guidelines. One example includes Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. You may or may not have noticed that many editors treat it as a policy. I added red bold text to draw the attention of those people and they will realize that they were incorrect. Let me know if you still disagree. -- IRP☎02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree. I'm aware that people sometimes cite essays in the manner that you describe, but I don't regard redundant/bold/red wording as a solution. People fail to pay attention to all sorts of explanatory text, and if we were to give every instance the treatment that you propose, we'd just be in the same situation (except with lots of needlessly verbose/ugly pages). —David Levy02:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, I don't believe that emboldening or coloring the existing text will help. You are, of course, welcome to initiate such a discussion. —David Levy03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template being used, since you are not an administrator. Figured I should let you know, it came up and figured it merely was a mistake. If it wasn't, please do revert. Thanks, — neuro(talk)(review)23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood the use of the template. I thought its purpose was to leave a note for and administrator rather than an administrator leaving a note for other users. -- IRP☎00:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
…not welcome obvious sockpuppets of banned users? You just posted a welcome message to this user. When you go to edit a page and you see the "this page has been deleted, please check the deletion log" message, it's generally for a good reason. – iridescent00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. It was "Speedy deleted per CSD G3, pure vandalism or blatant and obvious misinformation. (TW)", not CSD G5. I issued {{Welcomevandal}}. The purpose and goal of that template is to encourage vandals to contribute constructively. If I'm missing something, a reply would be greatly appreciated. -- IRP☎00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously telling me you think User:Wales with vvikia black shirt is here to contribute constructively? Even with a perfect contribution history that would warrant an automatic indefblock-on-sight as an inappropriate username; even with a perfectly valid username a single glance at the contribution history would have shown you it's either Grawp or Awbrey, and since the IP will be instantly hardblocked there's no possibility that they'll have the chance to contribute constructively. – iridescent00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grawp used to contribute constructively, so I would say that there is a remote possibility that he would reform. -- IRP☎00:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. As the article namespace is for encyclopedic content and not tests, the page you made will soon be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
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. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting bit of advice; I hadn't thought of that. I sure don't mind not doing an extra page since it'll save me some work. Thanks for the update. I really didn't see the first post because of the vandal edit. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...when redirecting existing templates, please make sure that the target template is compatible with the one you're redirecting. Despite having similar titles and identical functions, {{plainlinks}} and {{plainlink}} had different parameter setups, necessitating a fix so that the links to {{plainlinks}} continued to work properly. Thanks! Hersfold(t/a/c)03:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that if one was a little bit different from the other, it should only cause minor problems, which only an administrator would be able to fix because the target template is fully protected. -- IRP☎20:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point there, this was fully protected. Unfortunately any references to plainlinks were displaying simply as [] for a while there. Anyway, thanks - those two did need merging. Hersfold(t/a/c)02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only the ones using {{plainlinks}} did, which those were less than 50% of them. More than 50% were transcluded using the {{plainlink}} template, which is so heavily used, that it is set to "edit=sysop". {{plainlinks}} was set to "edit=autoconfirmed", as it was less heavily used. {{plainlink}} was created before {{plainlinks}} was, therefore, it is better to mark {{plainlinks}} as redundant to {{plainlink}}, rather than the other way around. -- IRP☎03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that what I thought was vandalism on User talk:90.207.167.21 was the complainer's own material. I still don't know what it means, but that is no longer of any matter. Thanks for rescuing me from the consequences of my own form of illiteracy. I will strike out my comment on 90.207's page. // BL \\ (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Secure.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
You don't need to upload it at all; it's already available, licenced, etc - [[File:Lock_icon.gif]] (displayed here) - so that copy of the image can be deleted (and will be, as the below message which appeared during this edit, states).
Cheers! Chzz ► 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Secure.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
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. The NewMikemoral♪♫00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PirateSmackKArrrr! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I understand the logic, but I've reverted. I don't think it's appropriate to have a red-link here, because it's confusing. I'd suggest creating the article first, and then linking to it. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
External link icons
Hi IRP, if you want to change a large number of templates, then you probably should do more than hold a discussion on an obscure page. For starters, you could identify all the pages, which include {{search}}, {{Findsourcesnotice}}, {{Findsources3}}, {{Rescue}}, {{BLP unsourced}}, {{BLP probably unsourced}}, and {{prod-nn}}, but there are possibly many more. Then you could post on all the talk pages, not just saying 'it's been decided', but explaining why this is needed. Finally, after at least a week, if there is consensus to make the change, you could implement. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you changed some of the templates for speedy deletion notification the say "CSD nomination of suchandsuch". Can I suggest we change it to "Speedy deletion nomination of suchandsuch" instead, since we aren't actually nomming the article for CSD. I've changed {{nn-warn}} already but then I saw that you'd done quite a few. Could you get back to me? Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The system should give you commands to use that complete the necessary registration steps for you. Is it not doing? Please check the instructions you are given fully and let me know if anything is actually missing. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 09:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under new management. :))
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Confidence has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Confidence constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Confidence. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Confidence. -- IRP ☎ 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just thought you should know this IP# doesn't belong to whatever idiot was editing confidence anymore.
Hi there,
I wanted to notify you of vandalism happening on the Philadelphia page. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't do a lot about it, except revert things.
I created the new lead image for the article and replaced the old one with it by a majority of votes (see the talk page). One or more users however keep reverting it to
the old lead image. Despite several warnings they still refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to restore the old lead image only if a majority of users decides so through this discussion.
So I'm asking you, to put a lock on the article or something similar.
Thanks in advance,
Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:IRP has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as IRP's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear IRP!
As I explained on your talk page, not everybody will understand the jargon concepts, from Wikipedia jargon to computer jargon. This new wording, anybody can understand, regardless of experience with Wikipedia or computing. Thank you. -- IRP☎20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recently "Updated" my User page. I changed the text so it was more up to date. When you say something like "Click here to update the page," some may confuse that with the "Click here to edit the page" button. "Purge the cache" is more specific. Edison (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be OK to state "Click here to refresh this page"? That would be universal, as well as unambiguous, resolving both of our concerns. Can we agree to apply that edit? I would like to make sure that we both agree before continuing. Thanks. -- IRP☎01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
F5 updates. I am not the Keeper of the Page, with authority to approve or disapprove changes, but that sounds fine to me. The programming gurus might have something to say about it. But, in the end, this is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit.". So be bold. Edison (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that, but that is my technique of staying out of an edit war. If somebody reverts my edit, I will always discuss it with the individual who reverted my edit. As you can see, I have never been in an edit war, so this technique works very well. If you look at my block log, you will see that I have a clean record. That means that I haven't had one incident warranting a block since August 2008, when I applied for Wikipedia. -- IRP☎20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how do you delete the user page?
--mustihussain 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)
You insert {{db-u1}} on the top of the page. If you need any more help, you can feel free to contact me or insert {{helpme}} on your user talk page. -- IRP☎22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Nn-warn-reason , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one better, as it can be integrated into the existing (already posted) unblock template more easily. Do you know the best way we can propose this template for use now? Thanks. -- IRP☎15:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hey, IRP. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
