User talk:Yohannesb

I cannot believe Namiba deleted some historical facts about Fiat Tagliero Building claiming ‘uncited’. Does he want a citation from a book? Is everything that is in a book true? I was born and raised in Asmara. Therefore, I am a living book. Why doesn’t he leave the judgment to the readers?

Because we need reliable sources. You are not a living book. Read a little about Wikipedia's policies then get back into editing. I am flattered to have this stuff even written about me.--TM 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the building was built when Italy was ruled by fascist ideologies. Some people are intolerant of any success stories of that era. I hope you are not one of them.

And who cares what you know? Wikipedia does not care. It only matters what you can prove. Re-adding uncited material is considered vandalism. If this continues, you will be blocked.--TM 17:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to 0 (number). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zerai Deres.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yohannesb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Female genital mutilation and sexual function for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is an emotional woman. She doesn't accept any medical or national research. She claims, she has her own research based on, allegedly, over 12,000 women from different nations.

Now, that 12,000 claim is questionable. National Center for Biotechnology Information, a branch of United States National Institutes of Health, stand on Female Genital Mutilation is different than hers, namely, women do have sexual pleasure and desire despite being circumcised. When I tried to add that, she immediately deleted it. She also has deleted another research conducted in the Sudan... Her reason? She claiming Sudanese women are different human beings physically than other human beings. Then, again, she claims since 1989, women have progressed evolutionary, so they were different women than now, etc. etc. That's why I said her arguments are emotionally charged. When arguments are too emotional, they lose rationality. Yohannesb (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yohannesb, kindly refrain from making assumptions based on my gender. It is irrelevant. I do not appreciate blatantly sexist comments. I did not delete your article - we already have an article on Female genital mutilation. You're welcome to go edit that article, instead of insinuating that all women are irrational, crazy things incapable of rational thought. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[User talk:Kikichugirl], please accept my sincere apologies. What I had in mind was [[User talk:SlimVirginl] not you.

Regardless of who it was directed at, it's still sexist and pretty rude to insinuate that someone is an "emotional woman". Wikipedia's policy states that we should comment on people's actions/their content, not the people. Gender is irrelevant. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Ping, pong, ping... — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thing: I misread the sentence and thought it was a personal attack, sorry @Yohannesb: TheMesquito^buzz 06:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Kikichugirl, SlimVirgin claims that Sudanese women are different physically is racist. Physically, all human beings are the same. It appears, she has declared war, so to speak, on FGM. I wish her success. However, she should not fight it with lies. The truth is circumcised women do have sexual feelings, they do have desires, and they do have orgasms. I've met white women who have not undergone circumcision and do sex like a dead salmon and I have met circumcised women who enjoyed sex. I'm from Africa and I live in USA --I've seen them all. One thing I've observed is if a woman loves the man, she enjoys it; and if she doesn't love the man, she doesn't. A man, on the other hand, could enjoy sex with a woman that he doesn't love. Be that as it may, the truth is there and it will be there to stay.

That's original research. Can you provide a source for all of your arguments involving blanket statements for an entire gender? — kikichugirl ^speak up! 08:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kikichugirl, if you stand for the truth (unlike our UK girl, SlimVirgin), add this small statement on that FGM topic. But, I have no doubt, SlimVirgin, will remove it:

According to National Center for Biotechnology Information, a branch of United States National Institutes of Health, study reports that women who had undergone Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) can also have the possibility of reaching an orgasm. The study was done on a group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C. The women reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain. ^[1]

Moreover, a research was done in Sudan and the results were similar, that is, circumcised women do have sexual pleasure and desire. ^[2]

Kikichugirl, weren't you the one that was bragging that all women are not emotional, sexism, etc. etc.? Why aren't you standing by the truth then? Why are you silent all the sudden? I thought you had the courage to add that truth about FGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The reason presented for deletion was invalid, so I restored it. That the article is sexist would be a valid reason for deletion (but not speedy deletion) if it is not the case that the journal is peer-reviewed, not fringe, and the text added fairly represents the text of the article.

Yohannesb, if you continue with personal attacks based on the gender and geographic location of your opponents, I will block your account from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yohannesb, please stop making sexist comments and generalizations. Not all women are only solely emotional beings. By insinuating that I lack courage to fight with you, you are continuing with personal attacks, which can get you blocked. In fact, it is not that I lack courage, but rather, I find it unnecessary to restate arguments I have already made. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 20:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, Things have gone a little out of control here. I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry and his will not happen again.

You said, <<The reason presented for deletion was invalid, so I restored it.>>, but when I clicked it, it has not been restored.

Sincerely, Yohannesb (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User/Doc James, why did you delete that information? You said, <<We typically use position statements of national or international organizations>>; and what I added is verbatim from National Center for Biotechnology Information, a branch of United States National Institutes of Health. It is the USA's stand on Female Genital Mutilation.

Please add it back or stop deleting it.

Sincerely, Yohannesb (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Ping Doc James. The last ping was malformated. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is not the position of NCBI or the NIH. It is simply a primary source published in J Sex Med. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third or fourth time you've placed messages incorrectly on my talk page. Please place new messages at the end of the talk page, or at the end of the section. As for your edit to collective security, the parts "While all others mentioned here could not imagine the world beyond nationalism, " and "for the first time," are unsourced, and "all-embracing" and "universal" do not add to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the time to warn you again; messages placed at the beginning of my talk page will be ignored. Messages placed at the beginning of an existing section of my talk page might be ignored, rather than my taking the trouble to reformat them properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yohannesb: The procedure to make a new comment on a talk page is to click "new section" at the top of the page. That applies to article talk pages and user talk pages (and any other page with a "new section" tab at the top). Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The android wiki app doesn't seam to have the new section feature.Steamerandy (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain this to me why this was removed from 0 [zero]. Does it have any errors? << Computers communicate with each other with lights. The advantage of using light is you can beam it through satellites, just as you would beam light through mirrors. When you see lights turning on and off very quickly in a network, it means there is communication of different computers. This OFF and ON is represented by 0s and 1s, respectively. Calculating with 0s and 1s is called Boolean algebra. In a computer, ON means 1 and OFF means 0. One English alphabet is represented by a bunch of binary numbers. For example, A=01000001, B=01000010, C=01000011 etc. etc. One computer sends these binary numbers and the receiving computer interprets them. Each color has its own binary numbers. That is what it means when we say that a camera is a digital camera --it simply means, it understands binary numbers. However, since we cannot write with binary numbers, we must use computer languages to write the binary numbers in the computers for us. The computer languages in turn work between the users and the computers. In other words, as you are reading this, behind this page, there is a computer language page; behind that computer language page, there is a binary number language page; behind that binary number language, there is 0s and 1s page; and behind 0s and 1s, there is light on and off page. >> Yohannesb (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Water fluoridation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please see WP:MEDRS...we take that sort of thing very seriously on Wikipedia. Feel free to raise your ideas (with high-quality medical sources, not popular press or advocacy organizations) on the article's talkpage. DMacks (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to Noah's Ark because Wikipedia is not the place to provide exegesis of religious texts and beliefs. - Donald Albury 13:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This editor both unjustifiably blanked content then added unsourced content. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you block me indefinitely? What did I do that violated the terms and conditions? Yohannesb (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for repeatedly not using edit summaries although warned years ago.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 13:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yohannesb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a Bahai. I could have produced the reference if asked. There was no chance of correcting it. I have contributed many articles and fixed many grammar and logical errors. It's not fair to permanently block me.

Decline reason:

Your appeal seems to boil down to "I'm right and I did nothing wrong", which doesn't in any way convince me that you've learned anything from this, or that it's safe to unblock you. Please review WP:GAB, then demonstrate that you know what you did wrong, why it's wrong, and what you would need to do differently going forward if unblocked. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yohannesb (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]