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]