Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Slp1 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Postmodernism. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Freshacconci | Talk 22:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Photography. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dicklyon 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

For christ sake! How can you reference an artist, or a scientist too by the way, by the way, if you cannot cite his work! You restrict the freedom of art in a very fascist way. Stifter is a postmodern artist, his major work is in german, but it seems impossible to cite him in the states. Just google the guy under postmodern gedichte (that's german for poems) and stifter. You can see that he does postmodern art, poems, pictures etc. Even if it goes to external links. So what? If you cite Watson and Cricks nobel price winning work, you must also set a link to their original paper in Nature. If you want to access it, you have to pay. Stifter even doesn't need to be downloaded. You can always see previews. So, please, just repair the articles you destroyed and let the free art survive. Hans from Basel.

PS fom Hans from Basel. I truly believe that some of your editors, who know nothing about art, postmodernism or philosophy should stop to harrass people like me who give the true artists a share of reference and recognition.

There's nothing wrong with the reference per se, it's the link you are providing which is a commercial website that only provides info on buying the book. Here's some information on citing references: WP:CITE#HOW. This explains the Wikipedia policies. Please also keep in mind WP:CIVIL when addressing other editors. Thanks you. Freshacconci | Talk 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, I truly respected the scientific code for referencing. Referencing means that you cite the original! That's exactly what I did. My entries are about postmodernims, they cite the work of a postmodern artist, and they cite the location where you find his art. Why is this a problem, I really don't understand. Can I now again cite Stifter's work in Wikipedia or not?

Again my entries were deleted! Yet, I simply added correct information. What is going on with these editors. Do they play God? All kinds of rubbish is present at Wikipedia, but if I insert perfect information, it is deleted. I indeed think Wikipedia is losing its origins very rapidly. Some people are simply harrassed by the editors. Editors who are neither scientists, neither doctors, nor experts on any of the subject I share my information.

Hi Gianni, It looks like you are a bit frustrated about Wikipedia. There are rules and policies here, and if people don't follow them then their contributions are likely to get deleted. Take a look at WP:USER which says that you are not allowed to use your userpage to advertise business interests. I have deleted the information about your services as a result. You cannot advertise on WP in the articles or on userpages. Sorry about this, but thems the rules! -- Slp1 04:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am deeply frustrated about you guys at Wikipedia. Why cannot I say in my user page, that I am a writer and that I have a book called "They'll call you Casanova." Why can't I say that this book is available at Lulu.com under my name. These are all facts and all can check it. I do not send false information or am disrespectful to anyone. You exhibit the same systematic control - as the irakis, the russian, the Busch-Clique- etc. You just pretend to be different, but you are not. Your editors are just some kind of "experts" that decide if and when and how rules apply- or not. You play God. I despise all these systems,if red, if brown, if green, if wikipedia-style. It always boils down to the same thing. If there are a few people together, some want to become "different". They make themselves experts and tell other people what to do. I know, you will say that you have rules that are accepted by all. Well, thats not the problem. The problem is that someone must apply these rules and decide for yes or no. What I now realize with Wiki is that this "free encyclopedia" is just the same as any other encyclopedia. Some group of people (who are they?, what are their credentials?, why do they know better than me?)systematically decide what goes in and what not! Just look at yourself. I am not allowed to cite that I wrote a public (si!) book. That indeed makes me very angry.

This is not your website, Gianni. This is an encyclopedia and there are rules that everybody has to follow. One of them is that you are not allowed to advertise your business interests here, not in the articles and not on your user page. By all means include the fact that you wrote a book, if you like, and even the title but no website addresses about how to get it, because the only reason you would want to add that is so that you can sell some, no? And that would be advertising, which is exactly what you have been doing in multiple articles during your time here. Slp1 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

WRONG! I cite my book and show where to access it. You call it advertising. I call it perfect scientific citation! Shall I not cite, where to get it. I want a discussion on the subject. 25-40% of men suffer from PE. So why not give them all advice they want.

Yes, it is not my homepage, but obviously it is YOURS. You CONTROL this media, just the way BUSH is controlling CNN. You are no better! Foucault would laugh at your arrogance of thinking you'd be any different. You are controlling this media and don't even see it. So, stop putting any blame on an serious author. You are the ones that have a hidden agenda.

The Wikipedia Foundation owns Wikipedia. The rules are created by consensus and all of us must abide by them. Not just you, all of us. Your user page does not belong to you, nor does my user page belong to me. You are permitted to talk about yourself, let others know what you are up to, what books and articles you've published, but you cannot use it as a form of advertising. This does not just apply to you, it applies to every editor. You are being paranoid and belligerent. You may cite any reference you wish. However, providing a link to a commercial website is spam. What you are doing is not "perfect scientific citation." A citation provides bibliographic information, not information on where to purchase the book. That is advertising. Do you understand the distinction? Freshacconci | Talk 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

So, only material that is in a bibliography can be cited? Are you serious? Citing means that you open your sources and make your material available for everyone to control. This is citing, it has nothing to do with bibliography or anything. If you give a link to a website, this is perfect citation. If you give a comment to a speech someone gave, this is perfect citation. If the link is not available anymore, well, the facts you give lose credibility. But I do cite a published book. Everyone can see the facts for themselves. Whether they trust it or not, can be decided by each and everyone, because the source is available. Look, mister. You think that Wikipedia is a great scientific bibliography. It's not. Wikipedia, excuse me, has nothing to do with Science. Just look at the rubbish and sleeze you have on multiple pages. I saw one example where a guy talks for hours about how wonderful the prostate is. That it's the most important sex organ of men. That one should insert his finger into the anus, caress the prostate slowly, gently and experience the best orgams ever. COME ON. You keep this typical fantasy of a queer, because he didn't cite at all. But sorry, it's not science as well. Most of your stuff has a quite similar form. It is totally unscientific blurbing. Page after Page of ridiculous esoteric material. Half-hear of, half-invented.

PS: One more thing. You once again forget that you have to pay to read an article by Nature or Science or CELL as well. If your rules would be applied then you would not be allowed to show any reference to the most important science journlas. They are sold by normal publishers. To check a Nature reference e.g. you have to pay!

Anyway, good luck to you. Bye. Freshacconci | Talk 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Giannivenice! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Lara_bran 14:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Giannivenice, try for a different source for your claim. Your book does not qualify as wikipedia:reliable source, nor seems notable, in my view. You can give a look at the policy by following links we have given you. You can delete other's material(which you stated as wrong) if they are not backed by reliale sources, feel free to do that. Lara_bran 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi

Thanks for trying to motivate me, but it's too late. You have pages after pages of people recommending Pills and medicine to normal healthy young men. But if a guy from venice gives them some help not to be ashamed of anything, you feel it's time to do a power game. I just read in our news today, that Wiki loses authors rapidly. I do fully understand those authors that turn their back on you. Wiki has very rapidly become a system of control. Just a bit different rules than other places, but still extreme control over who is my friend, and who is not my friend. And by doing so, you limit the power of collaborative writing. In any way, have fun with your control, but know, that all such systems crumble in the end. Gianni

PS: To Lara bran. I do not write about menstruation pain. But you comment on male sexuality. In YOUR VIEW, as you write, my book on a problem affecting 25-40% of male is not so important to be taken up. Thanks you Madame Expert. So, that was that. Sorry to have been a pain in the ass to you. I will leave wiki now and not answer any comments any longer.

PPS: Thinking about it, I probably will leave a comment about Wiki on Foucoult's page.

Disputes regarding content is very common in wikipedia, and there are many processes to resolve. First thing you have to do is to explain your edit in perticular article's discussion page. Each article has a talk page, a tab can be found at top. gl. Lara_bran 06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Premature ejaculation, as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your book, as you did here. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply