Hello, Tamanoeconomico, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Thank you for your contributions of photos in National Register of Historic Places listings in Canyon County, Idaho. That is a huge help! I happen to mostly develop National Register articles, and this makes it far more pleasant to develop text for any of these. Hey, feel free to join wp:NRHP, and/or to participate at wt:NRHP. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks esp. for your nice pic of the F. F. Beale House, about which i just started an article. Its NRHP nomination document describes a music room which has some importance; i wonder did you happen take any pic of that which you might yet upload? It is described: "The music room is single story and projects from the east wall of the house under a shed roof. It is banked all around with a continuous series of windows, all six-over-nine double-hung sash. There are two in the front, four on the side, and three in the rear." and it appears in some of the photos attached to the NRHP nomination document, linked now from the article. If not, no biggie, thanks anyhow! --Doncram (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, no pics of the music room, yet. From the sidewalk, the east exposure of the house seemed to be obscured just enough that a photo showing at least part of the architecture would in fact show some of the backyard where the residents might have assumed privacy, but I will have another look soon. Thanks, Tamanoeconomico (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the other photo from that day,

04:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Good fortune and all, the music room turns out to be on the EAST side of the house (operator error).

• 
  East exposure
• 
  Northeast exposure
• 
  View of music room

--User:Tamanoeconomico, 18:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much! I added one of the pics and used ((Commons category-inline)) to add a link to the rest at Commons. Thank you so much for uploading these and creating the category. Hmm, now you or I should develop the article a bit more, or I should start articles for others that you've been uploading pics for. Keep up the good work! Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Capitol Boulevard Memorial Bridge, Tamanoeconomico!

Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great addition! If you have questions as you get used to editing around here, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or at my talk page. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, nice job with photos and article and link to commons photos, for Halbert F. and Grace Neal House, which popped up on my watchlist.

Hey, I didn't want to burden you with too much feedback the last time I visited here, but maybe now this is helpful: There exists the "Elkman NRHP infobox generator", provided by editor User:Elkman, which generates a draft NRHP article with NRHP infobox mostly filled out. It is easier to start with, compared to copy-pasting and editing the infobox from another article. It even includes a draft NRHP document reference, also partly filled out. You did a great job on this article, but the Elkman output would have helped you get a few more items into the article (the area into the infobox, and the accompanying photos link into the reference). It also provides a copy-paste-ready draft Talk page with the state and NRHP WikiProject banners.

There are some limitations:

• it only works for NRHPs listed before some date in 2014;
• it works for NRHPs in most but not all states (it works almost always for Idaho);
• it still requires your attention to add author and preparation date to NRHP document reference;
• it does still require you to verify that the photos exist (not always available) and I like to further customize the draft photos link with that by mentioning the number and date of photos

I don't know how you got to the NRHP document, perhaps you searched at the National Park Service or you just googled it. But you can conveniently access the text document and photos by following link from the NRHP infobox generator to the National Park Services' search results the specific site (where it uses the the NRHP reference number coding, which usually but does not always work). Googling, or following other state-specific advice within wp:NRHPHELP, is worth trying if this shortcut approach doesn't work. Also I just put some more detailed advice into wp:NRHPHELP's section on tools, on how I use two open windows to systematically combine info for a site.

Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC) updated 03:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tamanoeconomico, I have formatted Idaho Building (disambiguation) according to disambiguation dos & don'ts. Since there is only one item in addition to the primary (and I couldn't find any others), you could consider just using hatnotes and getting rid of the disambiguation page. Leschnei (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, and the page looks much improved with your edit. Other incarnations of the Idaho Building exist (one was constructed for the Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition), and beside Boise at least one other community (Meridian, Idaho) has a historic site named Idaho Building, and the great work is forging ahead with all deliberate haste. Thank you for the dos & don'ts; I know I overuse the cuts & pastes. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, what was done about disambiguation for this term previously was confusing, perhaps unhelpful. It included deletion of a disambiguation page after a wp:PROD process, completed on 10 November 2018 by User:Liz with edit summary "deleted page Idaho Building (disambiguation) (Expired PROD, concern was: Disambiguation not required. Primary topic has hatnote to the only other use)". There is disagreement among editors about whether having a disambiguation page is good when there are just two entries on it (I personally think it is usually helpful, and doesn't hurt, and helps development of wikipedia going forward as more items are added). I personally think two-item dabs should not ever be deleted. But anyhow, now there are now at least four notable "Idaho Building" places, each having Wikipedia articles, so everyone will agree it makes sense to have a disambiguation page, and I put that into place now at Idaho Building. After I moved one of the pages to Idaho Building (Chicago World's Fair) to make way for it. No one of the pages is about a worldwide major topic; they are all effectively equal (all minor) importance in the world. Hope this makes some sense now. --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great article creation in Walter E. Pierce! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tamanoeconomico. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Idaho Building (1905).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice job on the article. It would be nice to know the current status of the building, or if and when it was demolished.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Onel5969)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969:Thanks for reviewing the article, and you're right that it has a hole or two. The current status of the building is demolished as near as I know. The Oregonian may have articles on whatever became of the Idaho Building, but I haven't yet figured out how to use my Boise Public Library card to access that newspaper's historic database. The Idaho Statesman in 1905 promoted the idea of moving the building to Boise, but the wood frame structure would have violated the local fire code, so they forgot about it. The style of 1905 Exposition construction included extensive use of "staff", a plaster product that worked for short-term projects but was not suitable for permanent structures. The Statesman had an article on the use of staff in construction of the Idaho Building, but it was not clear to me if wood paneling actually replaced staff during construction or if burlap was used to cover relatively flimsy panels of staff. But if so, the staff would have been a problem in preserving or moving the structure. Nonetheless, I will keep the fate of the Idaho Building on the back burner and update the article if I find something.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool... if and when you can access the info, please add it. Also, can't remember if you added it to any project pages on the Talkpage, but if you add it to the Idaho and Oregon projects, someone from there might be able to expand the article. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onel5969:Another try at it revealed some details that improved the article: Idaho Building (1905)#After the Exhibition, but still nothing definite on the fate of the Idaho Building. A stash of documents on the Exhibition is under the care of the Oregon Historical Society, and somewhere in the boxes may be an Idaho Building demolition permit.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An interesting aside to this conversation: the Museum of Science and Industry was originally a building in the Columbia Exhibition in Chicago. It too was originally built of staff, but was rebuilt several years later after the Field Museum moved out of it and into their current home. Thanks for your great work documenting historic structures in Boise. It's a very interesting city, and historic preservation there can use every ounce of momentum that can be given. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, RonBot, for vigilance. The reupload looks almost as clear as the original upload, and its new file size comes in way under budget.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, RonBot, tireless as you are and like the neighbor's barking dog; the new resolution of this once beautiful image is nearly as less blurry as that of the last upload, only moreso, clearly.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on 14 Bagatelles!

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, glad to see you continuing to create/develop articles about NRHP places in Idaho, including Adolph Schreiber House which just popped up on my watchlist stream (because it must link to some article or another that I created long ago). I don't always notice or visit items in my stream.

Just a tiny note: the NRHP infobox from the infobox generator may show info in a field "architect OR builder=", which is actually not a valid field for display of any info. In this case I gather you changed the field to "architect=" so that stuff would display, and it did. But only part of the info was the architect, the other part was the builder. So it needed to be split into "architect=" field plus a "builder=" field, which I just did. Sometimes there is just builder info and "architect OR" should be dropped. "engineer=" is also a valid field. It is by design that the generator uses the non-displaying combo field, because it requires human interpretation to sort out which is which. There is a past sore point about this, from past routine assumption that all such info was about an architect...there were a few thousand articles created where "architect=" was used but sometimes (about 5 percent of the time) the name given was a builder instead, so the infobox was in fact inaccurate, and this contributed to a lot of past acrimony/contention. So anyhow, please just watch that to avoid any future criticism. :) Thank you for creating this article and more, please do keep up your good work! cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing it, Doncram, and for the useful information. Only one house immediately comes to mind (but I'm foggy) that featured the builder as the architect: Alexander House (Boise, Idaho), and in that case I don't remember seeing the builder's name. I'm going to go through my page uploads and make sure they are all ok. Thanks again, Tamanoeconomico (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed your recent addition there as it seems at cross purposes with WP:NOTPROMO. I have no objection to listing the work, just the link to Amazon. Might I suggest using the Template:cite book to format your entry? Using that template will allow you to provide easily bibliographic information on the book via the ISBN number without a direct link to a site selling the book. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your content contributions are really solid. I think WP:Autopatrolled rights would be completely appropriate for you. You should ask for it. Us new page patrollers have plenty of poorer articles to review than those you create! John from Idegon (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence, and thanks for removing the Amazon link to that dusty book (didn't think of that problem until you mentioned it). Tamanoeconomico (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, List of canals in Idaho, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi amanoeconomico, Greetings. Pls note that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists do need sources just like any other article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for removing the list to draftspace. So far we only have two canal articles to work with, so it might be a good idea to leave the list in limbo for awhile - more canals with references in the list may be possible later. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, seems like "Canals in Idaho" is fairly small as a topic, should be a redirect to the appropriate section in a nation-wide list with a section for Idaho. I happen to have created a lot of list-articles starting with NRHP-listed examples, including recent List of lime kilns in the United States (in progress) and List of quarries in the United States (pretty much okay). List of fire stations, world-wide, has been a pretty big success i think, if i do say so myself. Generally any type of thing having a category deserves a list-article, see wp:CLNT about the useful correspondence of lists, categories, navigation templates. See many lists in Category:Lists of buildings and structures, drill down in its "types" to find lists of canals and lists of many different types of things!

Now I see there exists already List of canals in the United States which gives just one, not the second you found, canal for Idaho. You should add to that! I'm not sure about that list's organization; its "Idaho" section is for just one type of canal, and maybe it should be all organized by geography, or maybe there should be a split into List of irrigation canals in the United States vs. transportation types of canals, say. Maybe there should be some discussion at its Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, this topic should be covered in a regular article, not a list. In various digging I've done on other subjects I've seen enough on canals to think there should be enough for an article. If you live in the Boise area, you're certainly aware of how important the topic is. Without irrigation South Idaho would be an undeveloped wasteland. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Idaho has several canals, and many are in some way notable like the Ridenbaugh Canal. Ridenbaugh himself is on my list of topics, and getting back around to the canals is a slowly maturing goal. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating H. C. Burnett House.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|MainlyTwelve)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MainlyTwelve: Thanks for reviewing the H.C. Burnett House page, much appreciated. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Morris Hill Cemetery Mausoleum.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|MainlyTwelve)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Franklin School (Boise, Idaho).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Hughesdarren)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Aiken's Hotel.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Hughesdarren)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, I am glad to keep seeing your new contributions on NRHPs in Idaho! Including your great contributions of copyright acceptable photos for destroyed places, those are really helpful! And your articles are routinely much better developed than my own new ones. You are really doing great!

Hey in this edit I inserted a "__NOTOC__" into Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company Building (Meridian, Idaho) to suppress unhelpful-in-my-view default display of table of contents when there are four(?) or more headings in an article. You happen to use headings more than I do, which is probably good, but which kicks your articles into default TOC display territory.--Doncram (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doncram: Thank you for generous comments and helpful suggestions, Doncram. Since my first edits, you always have been the person who knows the answer before I know the question, NOTOC case in point. It will be at the top of my shorter pages from now on. Thanks again for helping to make life in the trenches good.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tamanoeconomico, 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! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Thanks for the autopatrolled permission, Beeblebrox, and I hope that my edits in some small way are helpful. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for contributing, in 2018, a photo of the original Carnegie library building in Lexington, Kentucky. It happens I worked on a past draft article about the "Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning" which occupies it, and the topic just came up again as I created an article about architect Herman L. Rowe who designed the building. And i figured out it is a contributing building in Gratz Park Historic District. And I just got my draft page about it restored, it's at User:Doncram/Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning. To be developed to cover the building more and to be moved probably to Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning (currently a redlink), to be separate from current Lexington Public Library article. I was thrilled to find your pic in List of Carnegie libraries in Kentucky just now!

I wonder now, though, do you have any more pics of it? The one you took might be its main fronting onto Gratz Park, I wonder, but it seems like the back side relative to its grander presentation in a different direction covered by this National Park Service page with photo. The grander front has a two-story tetrastyle portico. Though perhaps you did not get around to the other side, any more photos would be of interest. All to be added to the commons category for "Lexington Public Library", covering new and old buildings, to which I just added your pic here.

Any which way, thanks for contributing that! --Doncram (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doncram: Hi Doncram, it's good to know that a picture I took is useful, and I wish I had more to offer. That whole collection of photos disappeared right after I took them, and the Carnegie library was one of only a few that survived. Will look forward to reading your article, Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning. And thanks for starting Herman L. Rowe. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rats about losing pics, which has happened for me too. Glad you got and uploaded the one. --Doncram (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for finding a pic later, after all! --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

names and notes

On a different topic, the NRHP listing for Monsieur Giron's Confectionary used the 'ary' ending in its title, but Monsieur Giron seems to have spelled confectionery with the 'ery' ending (Oxford includes both spellings). Is there a guideline that addresses this sort of difference? Both spellings found their way into my brief article. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are lots of errors in the NRIS database which serves as the mostly official record of NRHP listings. But we have routinely fixed obvious errors introduced in NRIS database data entry. These should be noted in wp:NRIS info issues at least, to document what we have done, especially since the incorrect info persists in many derivatives from non-copyrighted NRIS, such as the www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com private system. Further we should work with state and national staff to get the NRHP info fixed more officially, but that is hard and slow and hasn't been pursued very much. About this one, it is obvious as a typo because the NRHP nomination document (the source for the NRIS data entry) shows the correct "confectionery" spelling, so I just went ahead and tried to fix it in the article and moved the article to Monsieur Giron's Confectionery leaving a redirect behind to serve readers who come looking for it with the wrong spelling. And I just added it to wp:NRIS info issues KY. Please do feel free to add similar notes when encountering errors to wp:NRIS info issues ID or for whichever state.

Also we routinely "fixed" convoluted NRIS listings such as "Smith, William, House" to appear in Wikipedia instead as "William Smith House", without noting in the wp:NRIS info issues system. And we fix inaccurate coordinates all the time. We are not stuck forever repeating awkwardness stemming from an old computer database not being able to sort properly, or from other effective failings. However we still need to be, well, encyclopedic and trustworthy about these things, hence the wp:NRIS info issues system. This has worked out well enough, addressing frustration, anger and other emotions from many editors encountering inaccurate info and not knowing how to handle it. That's a quick version, okay perhaps? --Doncram (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, sometimes it can be appropriate to add an informational "note" as opposed to a reference "footnote", to explain about discrepancies in sources that you observe, in the article itself. At your judgment of when helpful for reader. You could see how i create a note technically in this media-wiki(?) language in the McCornick Building article from just now, involving a reference (which can be a named reference) constructed like "<ref name=whatever group=note>" and a "Notes" section that displays all such notes from the article, numbered, using "((reflist|group=note))". --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doncram:Nicely done, and thanks for the suggestion. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I have admired your finding and uploading pics of some destroyed NRHP places, such as you did for Marion Allsup House where the NRHP-listed house is long gone. With your appropriate defense of copyright exemption usage, with the difficulty/impossibility of creating or finding another photo being one part of the argument. And I know that lower quality images are more acceptable for exemptions.

In your contributions I happen to notice This is an apparently disputed uploading. For buildings that continue to exist, we generally should be able to get a new photo contributed eventually. I am not an expert, but that undermines one type of claim for copyright exemption. You wouldn't start automatically uploading NRHP doc photos for places you can't visit, would you? Not sure if you might think that is okay or not.

In general the texts of NRHP documents are not public domain, as very few of them are works by Federal officials, they are mostly by private persons and state officials who technically hold copyright over texts. Fairly long quotes are acceptable though, IMHO, with proper attribution, based on copyright law and precedents (including that the texts are not commercially valuable and that many authors and state officials believe they have put them into the public domain already, and that even long quotes can be a very small percentage of a given NRHP document). Covered some at wp:NRHPHELP I think. And in general the accompanying photos are copyrighted too. It can take a lot of work to get any permission. One success for me was to get arrangement for several photos of Casa Paoli to be put into usable Creative Commons version 3 license, by permission of the photographer and his agency. There are many persons more expert about copyrights than me. --Doncram (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doncram: Thanks for the heads up about the McAdams & Morford Building image and its possible deletion for violation of fair/free use policy. I added a template to the file explaining my reasoning for using the image, but if it is deleted no big deal. My thinking has been that a low resolution image of a historic photograph of a site is fair use in the context of an infobox about the site. In the case of the McAdams & Morford Building, the image I made of the NRHP photograph shows the building with its longstanding signage, "McAdams & Morford," and it also shows the McAdams & Morford storefront, so I thought it would be fair use of copyrighted media. But of course others may disagree, and if so no big deal. Others of the images I added to infoboxes recently may be on even shakier ground, however. The image I made of the NRHP photograph of Monsieur Giron's Confectionery, Monsieur Giron's Confectionary (NRHP).jpg, comes to mind. That building was named for its first occupant, not the Postal Finance Company as shown in the photograph. But once again, if in doubt throw it out. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tamanoeconomico. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of canals in Idaho".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've been creating some articles about NRHP listings in Idaho, sort of trying to push the last counties over the 30% threshold in wp:NRHPPROGRESSID, and doing scattered others. I find it necessary to create Art Troutner and Nisbet & Paradice (maybe that should be Nesbit?) articles about architects active in Idaho, both still in very rough form. The latter have works in many historic districts. Payette Lakes Club seems like a relatively important topic, also rough. You're welcome to help in those, and/or in developing the NRHP topics to which they link, and I'd like you to know about them anyhow if you come across their names in your other articles. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been making some progress, including starting Burton Morse architect article, too. Map/graphic in wp:NRHPPROGRESS should soon show all Idaho counties over 30% in terms of having articles. Now hope to push all Idaho counties over 40% threshold for that, and over 30% threshold in "quality" combo measure, in coming weeks or month or two. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Opera House and Yates Bookshop Building (NRHP).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:H.K. Fritchman House (NRHP).jpg, 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did such nice work, in both your writing and photographs, about National Register-listed places in Idaho and Kentucky, but kerpow!, it seems like u last edited in 2019, oh no! I happen to be working on some Kentucky articles, including using new photos I took. Wish you were here! --Doncram (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]