He was just duplicating for no apparent reason the same image[1]. It looked like vandalism and there were two subsequent edits, so I used roollback. I'm not sure on wheter he is a vandal or just an user that is toying around on articles. This edit makes me suspicious [2], (heh, disregard the rest of the post, my suspicions were correct, and he has just been blocked[3], he probably mase some useful stuff and then he got bored, or maybe they are two different editors using the same Tor node. I would review his changes to Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Georgia_(U.S._state)) but then he also makes useful edits [4]. I had just seen this edit of his [5] that made me make this scolding[6] and that made me too hasty with rollback. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, there was for a long time a guy using Tor nodes to make edits against homeopathy, that also made me more prone to using rollback --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback granted. :) I assure you it's very useful: I just had to use the rollback feature to revert all of that vandal's unreverted edits. Just remember it's only for reverting obvious vandalism, and not for use in revert-wars, and not to revert good-faith edits. For practice, you may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally posted a new message to your Archive 3. I sincerely apologize for my mistake. The text of that message is below:
Hi, I noticed that the University of West Georgia's plate only has a placeholder image. I may be able to photograph or scan an example of this plate, since I live very near UWG. Are there any preferred specifications as far as image size/quality/whatever, or is there anything else I should know before uploading an image for use in the special plates article? Aylad['ɑɪlæd]03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aylad! That would be great if you could get a picture of a real plate! However, there's another user that has many sockpuppets that prefers to create graphical representations of the real plates to replace any photo I've taken of a real plate, claiming that these images are, for whatever reason, superior. Personally, I think a picture of a real plate would be preferable to a photoshopped illustration, so I encourage you to go for it. The one criteria for plate photos that seems to have reached consensus, though, is that the plate shouldn't have any advertising around it, as with a plate frame from a car dealer or something. I hope you're successful! Qqqqqq (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sure. I notice that the plates on that page all seem to have generic "000" numbers and no stickers... should I photoshop the real numbers out? Or are those the images the sock user has edited? Thanks for your help. Aylad['ɑɪlæd]15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current images on the page have all provided by the socks, which they substituted for the images of real plates I uploaded earlier. Many of these "000" images were just taken from the Georgia Dept of Revenue homepage, so I suspect that eventually they will be deleted for copyvio reasons. I think it's ok to have real plate numbers displayed because license plates aren't really sensitive pieces of information - otherwise they wouldn't be displayed on the car for all to see. I think the only privacy concern would be if the photo included the location of the car or something that could potentially reveal more information about the owner, but if it's just an image of the plate itself, that shouldn't cause any harm. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arizona License Plates
I was wondering what the protocol was on putting up pictures of our variant license plates. I have an old Environment plate. I'm pretty sure a pic of that would be allowed because it's made by me of something I own. However if I just randomly take pictures of someone else's license plates that are valid with current registration that doesn't seem ethical. I'll do some searching and see if there are some public use photos from the state. As they are government made they would qualify as public domain. Skywayman (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skywayman. I know that it's fine if you're the owner, since in AZ the vehicle owner also owns the plate, but there's been some disagreement over photographing others' plates, although I've yet to see any evidence at all to suggest that the practice is not legal. I'm not sure whether the state's images are in the public domain - that might apply only to federal government images. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded some images of our veteran and military support license plates and seem to have wandered right into the copyright dispute drama you hinted at. I'll email our DMV here in Arizona tomorrow and see if they will allow the images to be used. Also see if maybe they have some better ones. Skywayman (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had a feeling. Best of luck - hopefully the state will be receptive, since promoting public awareness of their offerings is one of their prerogatives, anyway. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your userpage
I see that countybycounty listing that you have of your travels throughout the USA. I have a county map of the USA suitable for marking for travelling (I've done it for myself); would you like me to Email this user a copy of the map? Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Socal gal! I see that you've made very good use of my basic formatting (some of which I got from others, some of which is original). Best of luck in your travels! Qqqqqq (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did Missouri go to a new format in month expiration and do you have a source on this? The only plate I've seen so far was an August plate and did begin with P matching your table, but format I know also used P. I grew up in Missouri and the annually issued plates and 1980 maroon multi year plates did not use the format you have listed. They used the following format:
Jan A,V Feb B,D Mar C,L Apr E,F May G,H Jun K,J Jul M,N Aug P,R Sep S,W Oct X,T Nov Y,U Dec Z,Q
It's hard to source this online and they've been off the roads for 10 years now. I'm pretty sure I got them all correct except June. Very difficult to figure out which letter came first J or K. I found more annual plates with K and more maroon with J. The first letters seem to make a lot of sense and the second ones not so much. I think when they changed the plates every year it was rare to go to a second letter, although it did happen in a few months such as June. When they went to the maroon multi year plates in 1980 they probably made up a lot of second letters as they went along. I thought it was wise to abandon this format with the river graphic plates. Bringing it back means storing each months unused plates somewhere until next year. Skywayman (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Skywayman. Missouri did go to a new month-coded format on the new base. My source on this information, unfortunately, is purely word-of-mouth from another license plate collector, so at the very least I'll tag the chart I included in the article as needing a citation. I'll continue to look for official confirmation for this information, however. I do know that the first letters for May through August are correct, as I've observed these personally, but, again, I can't seem to find a good source that can corroborate, aside from photographs of such plates in use. I think, though, that the state seems to have tried to simplify the month letter codes by using adjacent letters for each month. The skipping of every-other letter from May to August, so far, seems to indicate that this is what they might have done, although it's unclear why February only received one letter under the new (if indeed it is new) system. What do you think? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
February you say? Interesting :) Because on the multi year maroons they held off adding a second letter as long as they could. When every other month hit xZZ-999 they went to the second letter. On February after hitting BZZ-999 they went to B1A-001. That was the first month to use that format. All others would eventually after both letters hit xZZ-999 though but February definately did it with their first letter first. I thought at the time that it was near the end of the 7 year lifespan they said the maroon plates would have when they were first issued so they were just holding back until new plates came out. That never happened for whatever reason and maroon plates continued until the river graphic 1998 plate came out. At any rate the plates you've seen match my listings too, although your list may confirm K was before J. October will the first time they differ so we'll see what happens then. I suspect you may be right about the second letters though. It wouldn't surprise me if they were reordered to be in a more logical alphabetical order. Skywayman (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you'd want to add some of your information to the page article? The codes for the maroon base, for example, are not currently included. It seems that between us we should be able to make some good progress on this article. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in Missouri the last couple of days. October plates definately start with U so your list appears to be correct. I also saw some truck plates, the format 1AB-234 is correct. I noticed though there is no remark for weight class. Our family has a truck there and the plate is marked BL6 for the weight class on the 98 plate. That notation has been used forever on Missouri plates. The second alpha letters A-S were BL6 (up to 6,000 pounds) and T-Z were BL12 (6,000-12,000 pounds). I didn't see any trucks that looked like they were in the BL12 weight class to see if the second alpha matched previous format. First alpha on trucks is matching month of expiration. Skywayman (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your second question, Coffman was elected as State Treasurer in 1998 and relected in 2002. He resigned in 2005 in order to re-join the Marines serving a tour-of-duty in Iraq. Upon Coffman's resignation as State Treasurer, Governor Bill Owens appointed State Senator Mark Hillman to the office. Hillman served as State Treasurer until 2006, when Coffman returned from Iraq and was able to serve as State Treasurer again. When Coffman decided to run for Secretary of State in the 2006 election, Hillman was the Republican nominee for State Treasurer, but was defeated by Democrat Cary Kennedy. I hope this answers your question, and please feel free to contact me on my Talk page if you have any further questions on this matter. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I didn't have a reason to reverse, I was just going off of California's page. :) I'm not sure how I see how it is any easier, considering its the same thing only upside down. But I'm going to concede the point to you, since you've spent much more time on these articles. Also I'm having trouble figuring out how to split the years. Like half (or close to it) of 2003 O'Bannon was Gov. of Indiana and the other half Kernan was Gov. I can't figure that out for nothing. It's no big deal if it can't be fixed, I plan to add notes to explain any deaths, retirements, etc.HoosierStateTalk06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I managed to choose the only article that hadn't been reversed. HA! Yeah some of the office's are really difficult to find, the best I've come up with is the Indiana election division. But that only goes back so far. I plan to search the internet intensely as soon as I get some free time, yeah right... why do you think I'm on here at 2 a.m? ;) HoosierStateTalk06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation on row splitting. Although I'm still lost. Normally I can just look at other examples and get it pretty quickly but not with this task. Ugh. HoosierStateTalk06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out why editing that page in reverse makes it easier! I'm sure you know this but its because you can just adjust | rowspan=5 to say | rowspan=6 and you don't have to move anything. Now I get it! Well I'm off to catch some ZZZ's, feel free to do as you wish with the page, I'm flexible. HoosierStateTalk07:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That elections site should be a great resource going forward. As far as row-splitting goes, I'll see if I can't do the 2003 gubernatorial switch as an example (although likely tomorrow due to the time). Yeah, that's a main benefit of the other order. :) Qqqqqq (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's cool. Well there are only a couple of situations were splitting needs to occur, so far. The whole 2003 situation with Kernan and O'Bannon. And in 1944 there were 3 different Class 3 Senators. Frederick Van Nuys died, Samuel D. Jackson took over for most of '44 and then William E. Jenner finished out the year. I'm going to take a break and if you want you could do those real quick (well I don't know if it's actually quick). Thanks for all the help you've been giving me :). HoosierStateTalk20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good! I think I understand now too, so you've helped in more than 1 way. Although is that thick gray line above 1944 supposed to be there? HoosierStateTalk20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there again, as you can see in 1925 I understand how to split. But no matter what I do I cannot get 1942 to cooperate. There needs to be a split between James Tucker & Maurice Robinson - could you lend a helping hand .... again? Thanks! HoosierStateTalk21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See I think you're having the same problem, it doesn't look split. I just looks like Tucker's term ends at 1942 and thats it. Are you seeing the same thing as me or am I just crazy? HoosierStateTalk21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explaination, I thought that the text took up too much space and that was the problem. But I thought maybe the 1942 row would just expand to show the split. But oh well, its good enough for me. HoosierStateTalk22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
When you checked... did you notice that the "Chambliss in sugar furor" went to the wrong article? The second article was linked twice instead. What did you think about that? Any chance you might've gone and looked for the correct article?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You realize everything else about that citation was valid. It's a real newspaper article. Technically... I didn't even have to link it to anything on the internet.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the linked articles contained the word "harrass" or its variants. Another editor was trying to censor the entire section on Imperial Sugar by simply removing the entire thing; I was on your side in trying to rescue it, but I couldn't defend a mention of harrassment because it wasn't in the cited sources. I was supposed to go find some other article you had in mind? I'm not your research assistant. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
