User talk:Ishpoloni

Hello Ishpoloni, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
• Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
• Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
• Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
• Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
• When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
• Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
• Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
• If you are having diffculty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
• If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits to Hydrotherapy [1] because you linked to an introduction to the book rather than a page within the book. As such, it looks more like promotion for the book rather than a reference. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am quite happy if you wish to remove the reference. However, the reference relates not to hydrotherapy, nor even hydropathy (which would be the correct term for its use during the 19th century, but to Turkish baths in the 19th century. There are no specific page references because the whole book is about Victorian Turkish baths. Furthermore it is the only book to have been written about the subject. I cannot help it if I happen to be its author. It is intended to guide readers to the book in a library, and can hardly be considered an advertisement for a book which, alas, costs between £44 and £63. I have no personal axe to grind. I gave the whole sum paid to me for the Historic England commission to Save the Children. If Turkish baths are mentioned, I think it's a pity that the acknowlededged expert book on the subject is not referenced. (See: http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/EBOOK/5Reviews.htm) including a review which indicates that the book is "a major act of historical recovery"} However, it's not something I would go to the stake for, and I bow to your sense of correctness. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ishpoloni[reply]

Please review WP:COI.

I don't understand why you think reviews of the book are relevant. Note that I've said absolutely nothing about the reliability of the book, let alone your expertise.

You appear to have confirmed my concerns - that you added the link not to verify anything specifically per WP:V, but to simply add the book somewhere. Is that you you intended? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already happily accepted your view 213.160.112.162 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Ishpoloni[reply]

In that case, will you be following WP:COI from now on? Will you stop promoting yourself and your work here? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it quite clear I was not promoting my own work here; it does not need promoting, and frankly, to someone of my generation, your last post following my complete acceptance of you point of view, was rather impertinent. This conversation is now closed as far as I am concerned. 195.157.66.36 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Ishpoloni[reply]

My apologies. I've withdrawn my comments. Let me try again.

I'm concerned that you will making edits like [2].

WP:COI offers guidelines and restrictions on how editors should manage their conflicts of interest. It's not clear if you were even aware of WP:COI before I contacted you. I'm concerned that your editing violates WP:COI and relevant Wikipedia policies. I think the edit clearly violates WP:COI? Do you agree?

COI aside, adding links to works as you did, especially in light of your comments above, could be seen as WP:REFSPAM. Do you understand why someone might have this concern?

If you'd rather not discuss this with me, I'll arrange for others to review the situation. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, which is appreciated. Hydrotherapy is not my subject and I doubt I will be adding anythng further. I had thought of adding some clarification to the Turkish baths page, where clarification whas actually requested, but life is too short. I wasn't in fact aware of the document you mentioned, but that is my fault. I should, or course, have read it first. But none of my additions to several subject pages over the years has ever before been questioned. If I refer to a page on my website, that seems OK, but clearly it would have been better not to refer to the book. Purely as a matter of interest, last time I looked at the Turkish baths page someone had inserted a reference solely to a venue in an old Turkish baths which hires itself out for functions (and very expensvely). This time I was the person querying it, but no-one seemed to care. I think the hydrotherapy page is actually much much better than the Tukish baths page! Best wishes. 195.157.66.36 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Ishpoloni[reply]

Thank you for the explanation.

I agree with you on the state of Turkish baths. It needs a great deal of work to meet Wikipedia's content policies.

Hello, Ishpoloni,

Thank you for creating Swindon Victorian Turkish baths.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Him Ishpoloni. Nice work on your new article. I'll add some suggestions on the talk page shortly.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Thank you. I will await your comments. My main reason for uploading was to encourage someone from Swindon who could turn it into a good page. I have a fair number of images when the text is better advanced. At the moment I'm more or less totally involved in a revision of the current Victorian Turkish bath page (see its Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victorian_Turkish_bath) which I undertook to do some time ago. Much of it is ready for uploading, except that Wiki Commons is considering whether Victorian Turkish baths can be a category or not. Nothing else would be at all accurate. Thanks again for you comments. Ishpoloni (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, nothing too major, I'd just add to appropriate Wikiprojects and expand where possible, as mentioned. Images would of course be good, hopefully Commons doesn't take too long. As an aside, I used to work in a former hammam in Dublin's O'Connell Street. Unfortunately converted into a tax office... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Which Hammam? It must be the one that was blown up when they were looking for de Valera. You can find its history at http://www.victorianturkishbath.org/_6DIRECTORY/AtoZEstab/Ireland/DubUppSack/UppSack1Eng.htm

The problem with public baths is that there is nothing about public baths on the page (nor should there be). The Victorian Turkish bath merely happens to be located in a public baths building, and it was not so until nearly 15 years after the swimming baths opened. I am also fascinated by the wiki principles exemplified, in this case, by your using Wiltshire rather than Swindon. Classifiers (who love good humoured argument) are normally taught to classify a subject at its most specific. A whole new world of interest is opening here for me here. But pedantry is quite important here because the term 'Turkish baths' has been so widely misused as to be meaningless and that is why the wiki decision was made to separate Victorian Turkish baths from the Islamic Hammam.Ishpoloni (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I only saw this now! Yes, that's the one! This link shows what it looks like now. I agree with you that precision is better for classification; however, when I searched for existing stub templates to use, the Wiltshire one came back, but I could find none for Swindon. Happy editing! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a totally new building built on the ruins of the old one. You can see what happened to the old one here! Ishpoloni (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Hammam, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not delete nor refactor other editor's talk page comments, no matter if they are old, or if you do not agree with them, or think them irrelevant. If they are obvious vandalism that's ok to delete. Otherwise talk pages should remain intact, or content moved to a searchable archive. Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hammam into Bathing. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I'm sorry if I've inadvertently broken some rules. I was trying quickly to correct a Western bias since both Victorian Turkish baths and Hammams are the two main hot-air baths. I do not normally do this, but concentrate on completing my revision of the Victorian Turkish baths page so that it forms the basis for future work without too many errors, plus updating links to the page whenever these are found. I'm afraid that as my 90th birthday approaches I don't have time to learn all the ins and outs of wikipedia, so I've no idea what templates are—I thought it was obvious that the page came from Hammam since it comes immediately below a main article link to Hammam. However, I do understand the importance of attribution of the work of others since, outside of wikipedia, my own work in two completely different areas has been mercilessly copied without attribution for over twenty years. How do I find out who wrote the piece I copied so I can attribute it? If you could just tell me what words I should add, and where to add them, and I'll happily comply. Many thanks for your help.Ishpoloni (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already added the required attribution, via an edit summary. You don't have to worry about listing the contributors, because they are listed in the page history of the source article. If you forget to include the required attribution in your edit summary, you can add it in a subsequent edit summary. like this — Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Diannaa, for your help and understanding.Ishpoloni (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

What follows is not a grumble or a complaint but is mentioned purely as a matter of interest because it might be that my lack of attribution might have been down to a subconscious feeling that it was OK to copy the initial Hammam paragraphs.

I just went back to the 'Bathing' page at 11:12, 29 February 2020 (date chosen randomly) and found under the heading 'Hot public baths' four paragraphs which were taken, seemingly without attribution, from the old 'Turkish Baths' page, all but one sentence of which was either written by me or adapted from something on my website. My memory is so bad these days that I can't remember whether I might even have written the original Turkish baths page myself. But I doubt it. I suspect that if I had actually been the writer I would have inserted original sources for each sentence, rather than just a single one to my own website! (See 'Full disclosure' on talk:Victorian Turkish baths)

It really doesn't bother me. As long as the facts are correct, it's fine by me.Ishpoloni (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishpoloni. All that's needed is "A statement in the edit summary such as copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution, [which] will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when." Happy editing! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Bastun, I will do that and also, perhaps make the division clearer. Ishpoloni (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will have seen that the City has given permission for a tower to be built over the Bishopsgate Victorian Turkish bath! [3] KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money talks. I'm afraid it was only to be expected despite the objections of the Victorian Society and others. Now there is a precedent for covering Liverpool Street station—which was the real point of the exercise. Ishpoloni (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, generally MOS:IMAGELOC. It says that we generally want to avoid squeezing text between an image or infobox on both sides of the screen, and most images should go on the right. Note that, different users have different screen sizes and have choses different font sizes, so this will change how left-aligned interact with headings and text. Where it would be more attractive, or if a figure faces into the page from the left, we sometimes put images on the left side, but you have to be careful about that. Also, sometimes aspects of a long caption can be put in a footnote. It's an art, not a science. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I would never have found this on my own. I made my original choice because the infobox sat on, and seemed to squeeze an already flat image. I will certainly bear this in mind for the future and I leave to you, as the far more experienced editor, the decision about the current plan. It's certainly nothing I'd go to the stake for. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Turkish baths (In the Western world). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Victorian Turkish bath. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Victorian Turkish bath. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed Turkish baths, Western world and Turkish baths, Victorian to redirects to Victorian Turkish baths. Why are you creating these stubs when an article already exists? Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been decided by the great and the good that anyone looking up 'Turkish baths', instead of having a redirect to the 'Turkish baths (Disambiguation)' page, is redirected totally away from Victorian Turkish baths to the totally different subject (topic) Hammam—because they think it's a more important subject (topic), a question which is completely irrelevant to an article's title. Redirects should only be used for synonyms and grammatically different versions of the article's title. Disambiguation should be used when a word or phrase used as an article's title can connote more than one subject (topic). This is what happens in a traditional encyclopaedia, when it has an editor. Hats are for wearing on the head. For earlier stages see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TechnoSquirrel69#c-TechnoSquirrel69-20240804153900-Ishpoloni-20240804114700 (Closure of discussion on Turkish baths disambiguatiion). For the current state of the article see the Victorian Turkish baths talk page.

I know that the editor proposing that 'Turkish baths' should be redirected to the disambiguation page has read both articles, but none of the other experts replied when I asked if, before making a decision, any of them had actually done so to see if they were on diffrent subjects or not. For a quick test, look up 'Victorian Turkish baths' and 'Hammam' on Google and see how little overlap there is. Ishpoloni (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I poked around and I'm guessing these stubs that you created are your reaction to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_23#Turkish_bath. I understand your frustration with the outcome, but making stubs under variations of the title Victorian Turkish baths isn't productive. Looking over the discussion, I agree with you and several other editors that the redirect target should have been the disambiguation page, but sometimes we are overruled by a greater consensus. Best thing to do is just move on. Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, but I don't see any consensus. All I see is a problem being discussed which is the wrong problem. However, as I am now 89 I intend to take your advice and move on. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, I assume you were involved in the Turkish bath blogs and Twitter account and they are both extremely thorough and great resources. If you have any questions on anything or would like to start a page on any topic then feel free to run it by me and I can maybe give you a few tips on setting up pages far more quickly and easily.Financefactz (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalised the article again, particularly removing the definition in the lead which is common across every page in Wikipedia. Next time I will be reporting you if you deliberately damage the article.Financefactz (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change of 'it' to 'the building' which is much better. However, although I've not changed it, 'cos it's silly to keep going back and forth, two professional copy editors to whom I showed the item said that if it is the Turkish bath which opened on 2 Feb 1860, and not Ireland which opened on 2 Feb, then a comma is needed after Ireland.

It's clear we both care about what we write, so let's try and assume the best in each other and keep it friendly.

With regard to your definition point, I thought, as I wrote earlier, that the link did it. But another way would be to write the name of the baths, ie, "The Lincoln Place Turkish Baths was a Victorian Turkish bath which opened to the public on 2 February 1860." Ishpoloni (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishpoloni! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.Financefactz (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]