Open main menu



Citations, Newspapers.comEdit

Dmoore5556, nice work on the Tangerine Bowl articles. I have a couple comments about about your citations. First, wire service (AP, UPI, etc.) should be noted in the agency field, not the author field in Template:Cite news. Second, articles at can be clipped so that they are viewable to everyone, even those without a subscription. Consider doing that as it increases the accessibility of the source material. See the citations as Cecil Coleman for an example regarding both issues. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Good pointers, thanks! --Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycleEdit

Hi, Dmoore. I've done a lot of work on list articles as a contributor and as a reviewer, and believe that a list's lead should be able to stand on its own merits, apart from the lead that the parent article happens to have. It's not a bad thing for the list to have a multiple-paragraph lead; in fact, the featured list criteria, which aids many editors in improving list standards, call for a lead to have good content on its own ("engaging" content, in that page's words). Regarding the main cycle article, one could argue that more content on the history of the accomplishment might be helpful, but that can be done without reducing the lead in the list. As for how the pages relate, I'd say the point of a list article in this situation is to avoid having a huge list overwhelm the main article (perhaps 2, if the Japan list was also there). There are cases where lists serve merely as content forks, but in this case splitting the lists into their own articles makes sense to me. They provide comprehensive information for interested readers, while those looking for more general concepts can read the main cycle page. If you're still concerned about how they interact, you could ask at WT:BASEBALL, as several editors active there have worked on these stat lists. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much for the response and insight, quite helpful. Dmoore5556 (talk)

Non-free image useEdit

In general, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does allow the use of logos (company, event, organizations, etc.) when they are used for the primary means of identification in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the company, event, organization, etc. However, non-free use is typically restricted to the article about the parent entity per items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. So, an non-free image of a football tournament logo is most likely OK when used for primary identification purposes in the main article about the tournament itself, but generally not OK when used in articles about individual occurances of the tournament unless the logo is specific to that particular event. If a season specifc logo for a particular occurance of an event does not exist, then using the primary logo is not automatic by default and typically only allowed for the first occurence where the logo is being used.

Another thing about non-free use is that each use of non-free content on any page of a Wikipedia article requires a seperate, specific non-free use rationale be provided which clearly explains how the particular use meets all ten non-free content use criteria. So, if you add a non-free image to an article, then it is also you're responsibility to provide the required rationale. Non-free files lacking the required rationale can be removed per WP:NFCCE so you need to make sure you at least add a rationale. A non-free use rationale does not automatically mean complaince with relevant policy per WP:JUSTONE, but it will at least give any one reviewing the file's use something to assess. You should try to be as specific as possible in the rationale (particulary with respect to WP:NFCC#8) and avoid simply using the boilerplate language of templates. If the file is not being used for primary identification purposes at the top of the article, then the rationale should not claim that it is. Not all non-free use is the same per WP:OTHERIMAGE, so you've got to try and be as specific as possible.

If you have any questions about any of this you can ask them here, or at WT:NFC if you want. Non-free content use can be tricky and mistakes are expected; if, however, you're going to be uploading or adding lots of non-free images to articles, you might want to start peaking at pages like WP:FFD, WP:MCQ or WT:NFC to see what types of issues are typically encountered and how they tend to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your comments; I will review and work to align with defined/established policies. Dmoore5556 (talk)

File:Evel Knievel monument in Twin Falls.jpgEdit

Can you provide any more information about this monument such as when it was created, who created it, etc.? This might be importent because photographs of 3D works of art located in the US, even those publically displayed, need to take into account the copyright status of the work itself per c:COM:FOP#United States. You as the photographer can create a derivative work by taking the photo and you can release it under a free license of your choosing, but you are not the copyright holder/creator of the work being photographed. This particular upload might need two copyright licenses: one for the photo and one for the monument. It's possible that the monument is old enough to fall within the public domain, but that should not always be assumed per m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I personally took the photograph, and (I thought) released it under free license when I uploaded it. The monument itself was dedicated in September 1985 (more detail within the cited source in the article that the image appears in). Dmoore5556 (talk)
You can release the photo you took under a free license if you wish since it's your derivtive work, but the monument's copyright status also needs to be taken into account. Since you say it was installed in 1985, it is not eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} and I believe that anything installed after 1977 is going to require OTRS verification that the scupltor/creator has agreed to release it under a free license. I tired searching for info here but found nothing. There's stuff about the monument online, but they appear to be mostly personal photos, reviews, etc, and not anything resembling an official website. Someone had to create it and that person likely holds the copyright on it, unless there was some kind of copyright transfer agreement or they released it into the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. The momument was created by a local monument company for the local Chamber of Commerce; if being a public work of art, created for a public agency, still has restrictions... I'll simply remove the photo from the article, and it will subsequently get deleted, due to being orphaned. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It might be better to ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ first. For example, works commissioned by the US government sometimes fall under {{PD-USGov}}, and a few states follow a similar practice like {{PD-NJGov}}, {{PD-FLGov}} and {{PD-CAGov}}. I'm not sure if Idaho or that local government does something similar. Even if it's not PD, maybe all that would be needed is OTRS verification saying that it's released under a free license per c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Massachusetts electionsEdit

As you add elections to the Massachusetts elections template(s), please also add them to List of elections in Massachusetts. Thanks!—GoldRingChip 14:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Phantom ballplayersEdit

Really nice work on the Phantom ballplayers page. Thanks. — Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, it's been fun. I didn't know about the page until Muboshgu mentioned it on his talk page; quite an interesting topic. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ Amory (utc) 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 3. I looked for a reliable source for this date of birth in the linked biography that I could add to the DOY page and it was unsupported by any reliable source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert questionEdit

Why did you revert this edit? You said "unsourced," but the article has a whole section on "North America" that is not otherwise addressed in the article's introduction. (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - the edit in question added "America", which is a very general term (does it mean the United States? North America? South America? all of those?), and without being sufficiently clear I reverted it. Based on what appears in the subsection you note, it's Newfoundland that they settled... which already is one of the locations listed in the lead (introduction). Thus, adding "America" (or some variant thereof) now would be redundant and overly broad. All that said, good faith edits are appreciated, and it's part of the Wikipedia process that some will be reverted, for various reasons. I hope that info helps. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry. You're right. I'd not seen the mention of Newfoundland. (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about advertise on GronkowskiEdit

I'm going to try again to see if someone will respond. I had clicked the Advertise button on Gronskowski at least 3 or minutes before you accepted the edit. Anytime I ask someone about this issue they ignore me. I sincerely want to help with these pending edits. But it's been near a week since I got the permission. And I am sure anyone could understand not wanting to spend up to 5 minutes on an article and they finding out someone else had already resolved it. It's usually because I am trying to understand an issue or am searching for a source, etc. Are editors seeing the advertise but no one takes it seriously? Or not seeing it, i.e, does it not work? Or is there some other reason? I am not trying to get at you for it, I just want to understand. Or maybe I should just do the decisions quickly, make a decision, then I can take my time and edit the article afterwords...find a source then I can add the content back in at that point? Some insight would be much appreciated, thanks. For example, I guess you know football since you accepted on Gronkowki quickly and already knew he had missed that season. Thanks in advance... dawnleelynn(talk) 20:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I think I've only ever seen "(under review)" appear once or twice in the list of articles to be reviewed. Personally, I've never used it, although I do think it's a useful feature. For the Gronk article, it didn't show up as "(under review)" when I looked at the list of articles, and when I reviewed the pending edit in question, I knew it was valid, so I accepted it. There may have been a delay from when I opened the article and when I accepted the edit, as I was working on some other stuff at the same time. Anyhow, it may be a case that if a few reviewers start to utilize the Advertise button, it will catch on more. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking the time to respond. It never occurred to me that someone might have the article open awhile and be multi-tasking. I guess if one clicks the advertise button after someone already has the article open, a message does not pop up then. I have to admit I have only seen the advertise light up on the pending changes page once. I looked at that editor's page, and she had just been given the permission recently too. I think the issue happens when someone either doesn't see it, is in a hurry to fix a large backlog, or sees it but doesn't understand it means let them resolve it. The 2 or 3 other editors I messaged on their talk page probably did not respond because they saw it and did not know how to respond...I might not either if it were me. They may have felt I was calling them out, although that isn't what I intended. I'm not going to message anyone else about it. I think it's a good feature when it works correctly. Maybe it should lock the page for 5 minutes, LOL, j/k, that would not work at all. Again, thank much. Happy editing! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled grantedEdit

Hi Dmoore5556, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 On 23 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nick Cafardo, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


  The Special Barnstar
Whereas your edits to SEC Championship Game and Big 12 Championship Game (and proposed, at this time, edits to ACC Championship Game) enhanced both the readability of Wikipedia and the ease of conveying information with a novel and appropriate use of colour, I present you this barnstar. Excellent edits! —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Great North Woods.png listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Great North Woods.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Heritage New Hampshire.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Heritage New Hampshire.jpg, which you've attributed to Flickr page not available. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RE 2013 Red SoxEdit

Okay, I assumed reverting it would fix the issue but I guess not. I believe the issue is fixed by removing the duplicate "style=" entries. Noticed this has been an issue going on with other similar articles as well.--Spartacus0898 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to the fix, colors looks correct now, per your change at 15:31, 18 March 2019‎. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Dmoore5556".